THE ACTUAL INTENTION OF THIS THREAD
==========================================
I wanted to make a thread discussing the topic of evolution verses creation.
The purpose was not to PROVE either. Since no one was actually there when God made the universe or when the BIG BANG happened humans are left with the recorded past and the present.
-I wanted to look at the creation/evolution issues one by one. They are so intermingled that you must look at each one individually then look at how that might affect other issues closely related. (I.E. Fossils and rock strata)
-For each topic, analyze the actual facts (things we can touch, sample, see, or measure today)and how each side uses that data to come to conclusions.
-Then compare each side of the story. In a particular case does evolution make more sense? Does creation make more sense? Or do both side make compelling arguments that neither side is more convincing than the other.
This way we are looking at many topics. The side that seems to have the most compelling argument for the most topics would seem to be the most reliable.
============================================
However, first I would like to share with everyone at least 3 things that are shared by people who believe in evolution and creation.
1) We all have the same facts or discoveries.
We are all on the same earth. Meaning both parties can look at rock formations, fossils, the universe, cell development, genetic code, etc.
Neither group has special info the other group does not have.
2) No one today was alive at the formation of the earth, universe, etc.
So any opinion on this point is just an assumption. That brings me to point three.
3) Both sides (evolution and creation) have assumptions that are used to support their views of the physical world.
Ex. Earth has fossils (FACT).
*Evolutionists believe the layers of the earth were laid down over millions of years slowly making fossils.
*Creationists believe in a global flood that quickly covered animals and plant life to crate layers of different rock and make fossils.
So here we have the assumption of slow layer formation or fast layer formation.
Based on these three facts, each group has the same evidence, neither group saw the event take place and each group has different assumptions.
So who's assumptions are the most reasonable in explaining how the earth/universe can into being? This is an important point. Understanding why you believe something and being able to show reasons why you believe them.
=========================================
This is a question posed to me from a previous thread. about the definition of theory.
Actually a simple yes or no will not suffice. Let us look at the definition of theory (and a synonym, hypothesis) and see if we can understand what it means or how it can mean different things and then look at the theory of evolution and Pythagoras's theoremAlgyTaylor wrote:Aaaaanyway, Pythagorases theorum. Is this potentially not correct in your opinion, given that it is a theory?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
def: theory
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theory
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonym see HYPOTHESIS
def: hypothesis
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hypothesis
1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement
OK. This is where we start to investigate and analyze each specific area of each definition.
Theory
Def#1: Analysis of Facts As described in the previous area, we all have the same facts. Each group chooses to analyze them differently using different assumptions.
Def#2: Abstract thought=>non fact=>speculation. May be true, but not proven.
Def#3: Again principles are not necessarily facts. Especially abstract
Def#4: [b] A belief, not fact. Facts can be beliefs but beliefs are not always facts.
Def#5: Still not fact The longer we look into the world the more we understand. Scientifically the earth was thought to be flat. That was proven wrong. So just having science accept things does not mean they are correct. They may or may not be. Further study of these principles is needed to prove them.
Def#6Hypothese See next definition
hypothesis
Def#1assumption
Def#2assumption used to draw out results still not a fact
Def#3 antecedent clause = the conditional element in a proposition an assumption used to explain a particular issue.
So back to the quote above about Pythagoras's theorem.
So looking at Pythagoras's theorem, we all can see that the facts are: Length of Side A, Side B, and Side C. We can measure them and the angles between them. They exist today and no assumptions are required to analyze them.
So Def#1 of theory explains why we call it Pythagoras's theorem: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.
However, the theory of evolution uses a different definition of the word theory. It uses #6 hypothesis. And a hypothesis is an assumption, an assumption used to draw results. NOT FACT. There are many assumptions used to "prove" evolution.
If there is enough response to this and people are interested in debating it, we can look at many different areas of evolution vs creation and see what assumptions each side make and how they compare.
===========================================
Now related to an area of science, say Carbon Dating
How it works:
Basically, all living things are mostly made of carbon. A small portion of this carbon is in the form of Carbon-14, an unstable radioactive isotope. Once an organism dies, the C-14 in the organism begins to disintegrate. Because it disintegrates at a steady, known rate, scientists can measure the amount of C-14 remaining and use a scientific formula to determine the age of the sample.
That seems simple enough but….
Carbon 14 dating assumptions.
1. The rate of C-14 decay (half-life) has always been the same.
2. The C-14/C-12 ratio in the Biosphere (equilibrium) has remained constant.
3. The specimen was in equilibrium with the Biosphere when buried.
4. The specimen had not gained any carbon since it was buried.
5. Today, we can measure the correct C-14/C-12 ratio in the specimen.
Perhaps the best description of the problem in attempting to use the Carbon-14 dating method is to be found in the words of Dr. Robert Lee. In 1981, he wrote an article for the Anthropological Journal of Canada, in which stated:
"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”
Each group (evolutionist and creationist) have there own assumptions which determine the outcome of the dating.
The half life of Carbon -14 is around 6000 years. After about 60-80,000 years all carbon is gone from something that had carbon before.
Diamonds: Diamonds have Carbon – 14. If diamonds are millions of years old, how do they have carbon 14.
There is even measurable carbon 14 in diamonds! Dr. Baumgardner [Wieland 03] sent a diamond for C-14 dating. It was the first time this had been attempted, and the answer came back positive—i.e. the diamond, formed deep inside the earth in a ‘Precambrian’ layer, nevertheless contained radioactive carbon, even though it ‘shouldn’t have’. This is exceptionally striking evidence, because a diamond has remarkably powerful lattice bonds, so there is no way that subsequent biological contamination can be expected to find its way into the interior. The diamond’s carbon-dated ‘age’ of less than 58,000 years is thus an upper limit for the age of geological column from the Cambrian period onwards. And this age is brought down still further now that the helium diffusion results have so strongly affirmed dramatic past acceleration of radioactive decay.
The rest can be read here.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/Evidences.htm
=================================
So here we have actual scientific measurements of Carbon -14 in diamonds that say they are not millions of years old. Not even trying to date them, if they contain any C14, they are not millions of years old. Now make your own conclusions for yourself. What makes sense?
Well I have gone on long enough. I appreciate all of you who have read through this. I really hope this discussion can continue in good order with all participating keeping a clear mind (myself included) and really think about why we all feel the way we do and analyze the data and conclusions for ourselves and not just say what others have told us.
If there is enough interest and support form the community I would like to periodically discuss other topics related to this and discuss them in this thread.
WM
are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
That pretty much every culture around 
