Re: Wading into the deep end of the pool

On 6/8/2011 1:46 PM, Mike Hammond wrote:
On Jun 7, 11:17 am, Ernest Major<{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message
<244e0042-f753-4313-9aa9-abbf56427...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Mike Hammond<mctm...@xxxxxxxxx> writes

Well, good luck on that endeavor ! The sources for creation "science"
aren't lacking. Do you know about the Talk Origins website ? It has
links to many creationist sites and once you've read those if you're
curious you can find rebuttals in the various FAQs.

Maybe I wasn't clear. Where do I look to start exploring the data
that is used to support the evolutionist worldview? What are the
canonical half-a-dozen research reports that I would learn about in an
Intro to Naturalistic Evolution class?

Is there such a thing as an "Intro to Naturalistic Evolution" class?

Beats me - it's not in the required classes to become a computer nerd,
I can tell you that.


Anyway, there seem to be several misconceptions packed into your
paragraph.

Firstly, a false dichotomy between biblical literalism and an
"evolutionist worldview" (whatever that is).


All right - help me with terminology, then. What terms would this
community tend to use to describe a scientist who interprets evidence
from a presumption of old-universe and naturalistic evolution? And
what for someone who interprets evidence from a different set of
preconceptions. I can see that I'm opening myself up for some snarky
comebacks there - but it's a serious question.

You are starting with an assumption that there are two different world views arrived at by the same process. That creationist start with the idea that the earth is young based on an interpretation of the bible and that Scientist start with the premise that the earth is old and then both can it data to their models.

But scientist started with the data and determined that based on the data, the world is much older than the creationist view. Thus for the scientist, the old earth view is not a starting premise but a conclusion.

I'm a geologist, and while I believe in evolution, I don't really know much about it. From my perspective, the evidence for an old earth has nothing to do with evolution. But the evidence tells me that the earth is old. That the rocks formed on the surface of the earth are mostly very old. But there are still rocks forming today. The processes that are forming rocks today, cause rock formations that look very much like the rocks that were formed billions of years ago. From that we conclude that processes are are making rocks today must be the same processes that made the earlier rocks.

Another premise is that a sedimentary rock layer that is formed after another sedimentary rock layer will rest on top of the older layer. So generally younger rocks are on top, older below, although structural disturbances can disrupt this relationship. An one has to be aware two or more formations can be deposited at the same time in different locations.

Life forms started appearing on earth a long time ago, and that many fossils only appear in certain layers of rocks. That mans appearance is relatively recent in geologic time.

My view of an old earth doesn't require evolution to be true. It is possible that so God(s) or some group experimenting with terraforming, created every species we find in the fossil record at that point in time and let them die out while creating newer models over millions of years and adding them to the earth. Evolution just happens to be a better and more believable model. But evolution could be false and it would not change the evidence that shows the earth is old not young.



<snip rest of discussion>
--
Richard McBane

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Non-Literal Literalism
    ... They have what they believe is evidence ... that the earth is young. ... and biological evolution. ... overwhelming majority of scientists who work in these fields and are ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Non-Literal Literalism
    ... They have what they believe is evidence ... that the earth is young. ... and biological evolution. ... overwhelming majority of scientists who work in these fields and are ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: 9 Bills That Would Put Creationism in the Classroom
    ... And they always just happen to find evidence in the ... thing and that is the dust of the earth. ... "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, ... That is perfectly reasonable as a *hypothesis* In fact some evolution ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: I have another argument that needs refuting
    ... God destroyed all of life on earth except for Noah, his family, and the ... Evolution states that everything in the universe came from nothing ... do is study the evidence and see which religion makes the most sense. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: I have another argument that needs refuting
    ... God destroyed all of life on earth except for Noah, his family, and the ... Evolution states that everything in the universe came from nothing ... do is study the evidence and see which religion makes the most sense. ... No. Tee geologic timetable proves the great age of the earth. ...
    (talk.origins)