Does the goelogic column prove Evolution?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Probably every textbook in use in America which in any way deals with evolutionary subjects includes a presentation of the "Geologic Column," or the "Geologic Time Scale" as it is sometimes called. This vertical display of the various geologic eras, periods, and epochs supposedly illustrates the nature of the fossil record, with recent fossils on the t ...[text shortened]... leontologist Dr. Kurt Wise provided these figures.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-067b.htm

I can't see what you hope to accomplish by this. Do you think people will just roll over and accept this nonsense or are you a masochist?
Frogstomp's post answered yours very well.
See the rec?

Originally posted by frogstomp
"The data of geology, in our view, should be interpreted in light of the Scripture, rather than distorting Scripture to accommodate current geological philosophy." (Morris and Morris, 1989)

Kurt Wise was raised in a fundamentalist Baptist family in rural Illinois and accepted flood geology as a teenager while attending a conference for Christian yout ...[text shortened]... edes man

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm

Your junk scientists are LYING to you.

I realize dj2becker has already committed to defending the creationist point of view. My interest, however is whether or not the geological data actually provide unambiguous, strong evidence for evolution.

You have successfully discredited the source sited by dj2, but now let's address the title of the thread; do the records provide strong evidence for evolution? I don't want to hear about how mythical strict creationism is - that is not the only alternative to evolution.

Originally posted by yousers
I don't want to hear about how mythical strict creationism is - that is not the only alternative to evolution.

There is a huge thread debating alternatives to evolution in the debate forum. Is has more than 200 posts and there hasn't come any alternative to it. Pray tell, what alternative is there to evolution?

Originally posted by yousers
I realize dj2becker has already committed to defending the creationist point of view. My interest, however is whether or not the geological data actually provide unambiguous, strong evidence for evolution.

You have successfully discredited the source sited by dj2, but now let's address the title of the thread; do the records provide strong evidence for ...[text shortened]... o hear about how mythical strict creationism is - that is not the only alternative to evolution.

Ah ,, but this is the spirituality forum' but ok you ask resonable questions:

radiometic analysis of the column gives accurate dating at least in any objective study; here's one that uses it.

http://gretchen.geo.rpi.edu/roecker/nys/adir_txt.html

pics of fossilsm from other sites in NewYork are here.

http://www.fossilguy.com/sites/18mile/18_col.htm#crin


If it was a Science forum I would ask you for a few hypothesis' that explain the data that the Theory of Evolution is based on.
I myself tend toward a Lamarckian process keeping species viable ontil Darwinian selection takes hold.

The religious sceptics seemed to have caused a premature abandonment of LaMarck theory which as you know was pre- Darwinian , although Darwin himself thought it played a possible part in speciation , in lieu of or inconjunction with random mutation.

The work being done in Epigenetics is quite interesting.

Originally posted by nickybutt
There is a huge thread debating alternatives to evolution in the debate forum. Is has more than 200 posts and there hasn't come any alternative to it. Pray tell, what alternative is there to evolution?

Before I make reference to another alternative, I would like to make clear that I am not here to debate/defend it or discuss how closely it is related to creationism. I am interested in seeing how well geological evidence matches up with the theory of evolution. We should not need an alternative, since the theory should stand up to scrutiny if it is true.

That being said, most of the outrages posted in this thread and others are raised against literal creationism. That is the six day, young Earth, whatever-you-want-to-call-it Biblical literalism. There are plenty of non-literal movements out there. One major movement is Intelligent Design, which does not necessarily establish a god or even supernatural power. It seeks to find cases within biology that could not have arisen by random processes, or at least are an extreme improbability.

Originally posted by yousers
Before I make reference to another alternative, I would like to make clear that I am not here to debate/defend it or discuss how closely it is related to creationism. I am interested in seeing how well geological evidence matches up with the theory of evolution. We should not need an alternative, since the theory should stand up to scrutiny if it is true. ...[text shortened]... iology that could not have arisen by random processes, or at least are an extreme improbability.

Isn't much room on the fence in this forum.

Intelligent design is more of an critique of the Young Earth hypothesis than it is against present day Science.

Kind of a mugwumps creation/evolution theory, might be right but really isn't science. since it's based on something not subject to scientific analysis.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Does the goelogic column prove Evolution?

Not necessarily. It does, however, utterly disprove "creation".

Originally posted by yousers
Before I make reference to another alternative, I would like to make clear that I am not here to debate/defend it or discuss how closely it is related to creationism. I am interested in seeing how well geological evidence matches up with the theory of evolution. We should not need an alternative, since the theory should stand up to scrutiny if it is true. ...[text shortened]... iology that could not have arisen by random processes, or at least are an extreme improbability.

Unfortunately, the goal of ID is not to put ID in the science laboratory, but rather Yahweh in the schoolroom. While its been getting some press now with this method, it will never get respect in the scientific community until IDer's can present a testable hypothesis before an educated audience. So far Behe and Dembski have only been able to put ID into the popular press, and as I said before, even those two accept common descent.

The fact is that evolutionary theory can improve. There are many questions to be answered. Critics who come forward before their peers with science and testable alternatives will be welcomed. Those who wish instead to insert their particular religion into middle schools by distorting what empirical facts will be shut out.

Originally posted by telerion
Unfortunately, the goal of ID is not to put ID in the science laboratory, but rather Yahweh in the schoolroom. While its been getting some press now with this method, it will never get respect in the scientific community until IDer's can present a testable hypothesis before an educated audience. So far Behe and Dembski have only been able to put ID into ...[text shortened]... r particular religion into middle schools by distorting what empirical facts will be shut out.

I believe you and I have had this discussion about where I stand on creationism in another thread. (I was a little disappointed that you didn't reply to my last post about disproval) I am not defending or even rooting for any type of fusion between science and religion. And as I tried to emphasize in my previous post, I don't want to discuss any current opposers to TOE - in fact, I'll go so far as to say it doesn't matter if there is a respectable alternative.

Let's examine the geological record and see how well it supports the currently accepted theory. How many key transition fossils among major phyla do we have? How do we explain any problematic findings? Let's get empirical - I'm not here to distort or undermine anything. Show me what you've got.

Speaking of empiricism, I'd like to make an inventory of empiricle evidence for evolution. Obviously we have the fossil record, similarity among living things, observation of mutation and changes among species. I'm sure I've missed the bulk of it, so please feel free to add to it.

Originally posted by David C
Not necessarily. It does, however, utterly disprove "creation".

How is that?

Originally posted by dj2becker
How is that?

Quite simple, really. It shows that the Earth is significantly older than "creation" allows.

Originally posted by David C
Quite simple, really. It shows that the Earth is significantly older than "creation" allows.

Do you mean to say that it does this without basing its evidence on many different assumptions and presuppositions?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you mean to say that it does this without basing its evidence on many different assumptions and presuppositions?

I think he meant to say : "Quite simple, really. It shows that the Earth is significantly older than "creation" allows."

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you mean to say that it does this without basing its evidence on many different assumptions and presuppositions?

Correct. Observable phenomena.

Originally posted by frogstomp
I think he meant to say : "Quite simple, really. It shows that the Earth is significantly older than "creation" allows."

lol. Yes, exactly. Thank you for the clarification. 😵