First of all, I am not of closed mind as implied by some. Instead I am of open mind, in fact I consider myself to be open to everything. Unfortunately, I am simply one who must disassemble to understand. You name the item, I've probably taken one apart, studied it, learned about it, then attempted to put it all together. What I know of mechanical and electrical systems is not just what I have been taught, but what I have observed, although I love to be taught (hence me being on this forum). <<Well said OneOfMany.....Agreement abounds.>>
When I was a young lad, and going to school, one topic that interested me was the theory of plate tectonics. This is the theory that the earth's crust is not one solid piece, but instead is comprised of separate plates that move independent of each other. The theory was that the movement of these plates were responsible for the volcanoes, and the earthquakes, and the mountain ranges, and the ability for animals and humans to traverse the world. Imagine my surprise when ten years later, reading my youngest brothers textbook, that this was now considered factual. Now, of course, with satellites, measurement of the movement is documented. <<<More agreement... true science in action....learning from what is observed>>>
The geologic column was a theory of early geologists that the layers of various sediment deposits could define the age of the material, by their location in the strata layers. It also was a belief that this layer, which took millions of years to occur, could define the age of various fossils, based on the layer that they were found in. <<< Let me point out that it is STILL the basis upon which the entire evolutionary model hinges...nothing has changed...yes, there are other dating methods used, such as carbon, but it's admittedly unreliable....the strata in question were formed according to theory over millions of years each, and solidified/crystallized taking that amount of time....then came the next layer, and so on>>> In the early 80's creationists used the recent (at the time) fact that because this theoretical model was not accurate (from analysis by geologists) to call into question the evolution of the earth. <<< Most evolutionary geologists still argue that is very accurate indeed....textbooks are still replete with the teaching>>> They argues that areas that did not conform to the model instead "proved" that the timelines geologists previously assumed was flawed, and therefore extrapolated that to fit with their "young earth" theory. <<<The type of extrapolation to which you refer, if I understand you correctly, would be careless>>> Currently, geologists and biologists use various types of "measurements" to date both organic and non-organic materials. Whether it is Carbon-14 or electron spin resonance (for organic) or Isotope dating (using measurable radioactive decay properties) on non-organic material, the concept of the geological column is not a currently accepted model. <<< again, it is the basis upon which the entirety of their model is hinged...it is still taught and propogated by evolutionists, along with the supposed specifics of each of their corresponding "era's" of evolution>>>> However, the current methods of measurement "do" support the "old earth" model. <<<Since there is a great deal yet to be learned relative to dating and the actual Hebrew syntactical layout of the Genesis accounts, "old earth" / "young earth" is not necessarily relative to the debate of evolution....it's an interesting argument, but not necessary to the debate>>>
Polystrate fossils are simply fossils (best known examples are trees), that extend through various layers of sediment. To assume that all layers of sediment occurred equally in depth at all locations around this planet is absurd. <<< The point of fact is missed here....a polystrate fossil has been hardened into, and taken on the chracteristics of, each individual strata that it passes through....to fit your contention, a tree must have been able to stand without rotting for millions of years as the next later or strata formed around it....We're talking about actual "era's" of existence here, not just sediment that could be layed down quickly....a tree or other organism rots very quickly....a polystrate is not found in different layers of mud, rather different layers of fossilized rock, separated in theory by millions of yesrs... this is quite impossible to say the least>>> Even looking at events that occur today, with volcanic activity, flooding, and earthquakes, the face of the planet, and the deposits of material on it are in a constant state of evolution. One hundred feet of trees that existed along the shores of Lake Winnipeg (and the corresponding clams, crayfish and rotting fish) are now somewhere in the strata of the lakebed due to high water levels 40 years ago. I'm sure if you compared the depth of them to the "average strata deposit per year", they would measure as having been there for a few thousand years. <<<That is correct...it supports the facts....but again, you speak of events that happen over a few minutes, or decades, not millions of years...your argument has merit for a study of geologic occurrences or general field sciences, but not for polystrates>>>
"Symbiosis is a close ecological relationship between the individuals of two (or more) different species. Sometimes a symbiotic relationship benefits both species, sometimes one species benefits at the other's expense, and in other cases neither species benefits.
Ecologists use a different term for each type of symbiotic relationship:
Mutualism -- both species benefit
Commensalism -- one species benefits, the other is unaffected
Parasitism -- one species benefits, the other is harmed
Competition -- neither species benefits
Neutralism -- both species are unaffected"
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent591k/symbiosis.html
How one can stretch a symbiotic relationship to say it cannot evolve is unbelievable. <<< Perhaps I should have clarified... to be brief, and for a quick example of what I refer to, the Bumble Bee Lily is solely dependent upon the Bumble Bee (no other Bee) for it's pollenation.... the organs of the Lily look exactly like the reproductive organs of a female B-Bee.... the males flock to it, thus pollenating from Lily to Lily....under close scientific scrutiny, no other insects pollenate the Lily...only the B-Bees...these types of symbiosis are replete in nature...quite a coincidence....they support intelligent design>>> .there areSymbiosis is a perfect example for evolution. If one species finds an advantage in being in proximity to the other - whether for food or protection, and by being in proximity to that species it increases their chance and/or ease of survival, it is natural for it to occur. We all tend to gravitate to that which makes life easier. I use cats to kill mice, because they are better at it. The cat comes home because I feed it. In the wild, some relationships are much more specific of course, but why would my kids search out another animal by trying them all to catch the mice, when the cat is living in the house? Or forage in the woods for food, when the refrigerator is in the kitchen? I did not invent the computer, or the language I am using, yet my world today is more complex in nature than that of my parents, and the same for them to their parents.
Intelligent design routinely uses the watchmaker analogy to illustrate that a complex design must come from a more intelligent creator. First off, if this analogy is taken to it's word, then the ultimate creator, obviously more complex than us, must have have been precluded by one even more intelligent and complex. <<< That's a purely human argument, as if any man could comprehend the nature of such a Creator....Like a flea attempting to join in our discussion....it wouldn't work....even a single human cell is so complex that the watchmaker argument pales in comparison....and now the scientific study through electron microprobe elemental analysis (on a scale just within our reach in the past 2 years), there are actual "machines" that carry the needed compounds to varying areas of the cell.....working in the same way we understand supply chains....now this is not my statement....the term "machines" is used by the scientists who have made the discoveries....absolutely baffling to the sci-community>>>>
Secondly, the watch design is the accumulation of complex inventions and processes. First the ability to create fire, then to find metals in minerals, then to smelt these out; the understanding of fulcrums, gears, gear reduction, the process of manufacturing the parts, the process of organizing and assembling these parts, the understanding of time. These were not the invention of one individual, but the culmination of knowledge and pratices over a long period of time. All that we can do now is based on our ability to not have to learn everything we as humans have ever known. We can be taught. Without the cumulation of knowledge, the Bible stories would still be passed orally, not printed mechanically.
My dog is a herder. This did not come naturally, it was bred into him. I own no sheep, yet his herding insticts do show up periodically. Intelligent design says that such perfection and organization is impossible without a designer. Why? Molecular structures are perfect, compounds form in organized structures (all salt is the same structurally). Responses to environment shapes structure. My child had no concept of structural mechanics, or a degree in engineering, but by three knew that if she stacked her blocks in a single column as opposed to a pyramid, they were more likely to fall.
If the young earth theory is true, why do current creationist theologians profess that the creation took 2,000 years (from 6000-4000BC) when it is written that it took 7? I know of no credible creationists (by test of time, that is) who purport the earth to have taken 2000 years to create....the debate has been primarily over the "literal" or "spiritual" interpretation of "a day" in the Hebrew>>>
If the great flood is as described, then how did one man gather and keep two of each of the 1.5 million species <<< You forget to subtract the vast numbers of water species, and to properly compute the actual number of species believed to exist at the time of Noah...sub species that have come from millenia of interbreeding (by man and in nature) must be accounted for....if your research is thorough, the numbers crunch quite nicely >>>> (some taxonomists estimate the actual value to be up to 100,000,000) in a single vessel, and why and how are they so widespread around the world? How can the diversity of race and culture be explained in a mere 4,000 years? Please dont use the tower of babel story, please use science. <<<To begin, at the Tower, there were diverse cultures already in existence that were dispersed....but you don't want to hear that one....I guess, using science as you put it, neither you or I can argue it successfully....since "science" is the study of that which is OBSERVED.... you cannot use science....you can, however, use mathematics, and solve your riddles.....these questions have already been answered successfully for those who will simply do the research>>> Many cultures such as the Chines have calendars dating back over 5,000 years. <<<< Proper calculation of recorded history supports the scriptures.....appx. 4004 BC to Adam.......there are many variants to be considered in your arguments, and timelines are no exception....purposeful tampering has occurred with calendar systems (documented), and variable timelines and computations due to varying calculational methods in different cultures....ALL of the calendars differ as to years and totals >>>>
To close, I've enjoyed the debates guys, and I respect all our rights giving us this freedom......Thank God for the free West...... But, to reiterate, you cannot prove the existence of God scientifically.....He won't let you ("The foolishnesses of God have been put here to confound the wisdom of the wise", according to the Scriptures)......All of our searching for scientific explanations for the Biblical accounts will end in nothing. The bottom line is this......... Some will choose to believe in Him like a little child (faith and trust), and others will choose to deny Him and take their chances. If you just rest in that, there's little more to say.
(but how about it.......how do you explain man and dinosaur living contemporaneously? Impossible, but true, and now documented, although covered up relative to textbooks and teachings on TV and the like.....If there's one thing I hate, it's when a truth is discovered and then hidden by the powerful and elite >>>> :read2: