Creation vs. Evolution

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
The stratigraphy is not alway continuous. What is a mountain today was once at the bottom of a sea. The problem with intelligent design is that, despite it's window dressing, it is not science. It's proponents use scientific language, but the hypotheses put forward are not testable and not falsifiable, therefore out of the realm of science.

What makes evolution different is that it is testable. Any number of discoveries could falsify the theory (a classic example given would be to find a rabbit fossil in the cambrian period), but that's not happened.
 
scubafire:
How do evolutionists explain the trees that extend through several layers of the geological column?

Mate - the 'geological column' is not some thin layer of dirt that a tree can grow into: its the 10's of kilometres of deep marine, shallow marine and land-deposited sediments that lie buried beneath your feet and the 1000's of kilometres of sedimentry rocks that lie exposed around you: these sediments have continually been buried, baked, bent, uplifted into mountains and then eroded into later sediments that, in turn, go through the burial cycle again and again. They record periods of continental drift, large climate changes, and the evolution of life.

This isn’t a story – we observe the sedimentary environments today (deep sea, river deltas, deserts, shallow marine, volcanic areas, etc), categorise the unique pattern sediments deposited in each one, then we can look at the rock record and can read it like a book.

The development of the fossil record through successive layers of rock indicates a slow gradual process of evolution and extinction, and interbedded intrusions and lavas allow us to put a time scale on it.

I have seen trees partially buried by landslide deposits and volcanic ash - the sediments were laid down over a mater of hours, not millions of years. Please show me a scientific paper or location of this said tree - it must be several Km high and many geologists and biologists would be very interested to see it. Likely its one of the above mudslide or volcanic ash examples, but with creationists stating that the couple of metres of sediment represents the geological time scale.


scubafire:
how do they explain fish skeletons and sea life at the top of mountains?


As stated above the earth is not a quiet place - continents bang into each other (continent drift is now measured accurately by satellite) with the forces involved pushing up mountains, creating volcanoes and earthquakes etc. Sediments that were on the seafloor millions years ago get buried, uplifted and exposed on mountain peaks (the uplift of active mountain ranges such of Himalayas can also no be measured accurately nowdays). Over time these mountain will erode away forming new sea floor sediments, with a more recent fauna preserved as fossils, that one day may also be uplifted.

This isn’t my belief – it’s the conclusion you come to when you observe and measure what is happerning in the world today then apply this to what the rock record over the world shows.

Cheers,
Rohan.
 
ffestpirate:
Olivia Newton John is proof of evolution. Remember her as innocent country singer and then spandex and leather clad hottie? Evolution the way it was meant:D

Stop it - you're scaring me: you guys are really showing your age....:D
 
Thalassamania:
The problem with intelligent design is that, despite it's window dressing, it is not science. It's proponents use scientific language, but the hypotheses put forward are not testable and not falsifiable
Indeed... I understand what you are saying, and on the surface it is true.
However...
What scientific truth has gone without revision in the last century? Newtonian physicists were even more certain of the efficacy of their methods and their "facts" than today's proponents of ... take your pick ...
My money's on continued refinements of today's facts as we delve deeper into things. Matter of fact it won't surprise me to see some changes as fundamental to today's "scientific fact" as Einstein brought to Newton :)
Makes it fun, doesn't it.
As for the intelligent design deal, I'm dealing from an unfair advantage. I was run over by a drunk back in '68 and killed. Had the out-of-body experience and all that; had a glimpse of the "Grand Plan." I'm satisfied of the reality of the experience and I'm satisfied there's guidance afoot.
Rick
 
Wolverine:
Not all people who believe in evolution are atheists. In fact most are religious. The facts of evolution are undeniable. To hide behind the words of the Bible and claiming it as science seems to be a little stubborn. The Bible is a religious document, not a scientific dissertation. Use it for morality and faith, and not to disprove scientific facts.
"The Yin and the Yang are opposite forces yet they exist together in the harmony of a perfect orb."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ns17aug17,0,2284875.story?coll=la-home-nation
 
The veiwpoint of many religious scientists is that He created everything over geological and cosmological time, setting us the scientific discovery of the world and the rules that govern as a challenge: the laws of physics, chemistry etc are His laws, for us to slowly discover. Mankind’s curiosity about the world around him and the need to explain things is an outstanding trait of our species.

Now please can we get this back to B-grade 70’s and 80’s pop stars.

Cheers,
Rohan.
 
Tassie_Rohan:
Now please can we get this back to B-grade 70’s and 80’s pop stars.
Back in the early 70's an Aussie rising star (she was billed as the "new Helen Reddy" but I can't remember the name) was booked at the Cubi O'Club. Now this was before the days of women on warships - you have to visualize this place, filled with Navy and Marine officers who've just come in from the Tonkin Gulf... She started singing "I am Woman"... by the end of the song there were half a dozen trays of shooters sent up for her; it went downhill from there.
Rick
 
Tassie_Rohan:
The veiwpoint of many religious scientists is that He created everything over geological and cosmological time, setting us the scientific discovery of the world and the rules that govern as a challenge: the laws of physics, chemistry etc are His laws, for us to slowly discover. .
An example of that viewpoint is the pithy comment by Albert Einstein: "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details".


In a similar vein as "Render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Saint Matthew 22:21).", my attitude is that religion and God hold sway in the moral, philosophical, and metaphysical realms; while science is what I use to understand the physical world.
 
Rick Murchison:
Back in the early 70's an Aussie rising star (she was billed as the "new Helen Reddy" but I can't remember the name) was booked at the Cubi O'Club. Now this was before the days of women on warships - you have to visualize this place, filled with Navy and Marine officers who've just come in from the Tonkin Gulf... She started singing "I am Woman"... by the end of the song there were half a dozen trays of shooters sent up for her; it went downhill from there.
Rick

Ahhh Rick - great mental picture but don't end the story at the point where it starts to get interesting...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom