Originally posted by THT
In plate tectonics, the crustal plates are recorded to move x inches per year, mountains are recorded to increase in height y inches a year. Their movements are traced back in time through radiometric dating, common chemical composition, and common flora and fauna fossils. That's not testing or experimenting to you?
And you would know that these are all assuming the rates of movement of the stated plates have stayed the same. As for radiometric dating, same exact preconception. Even the calibration curves for radiometric dating fall back on a naturalisitic dating scheme. It's a nice little tautological package.
There is zero evidence for catastrophic movement of the plates as proposed by Creationists. I even remember being taught that catastrophism was one of the two big theories in the history portion of the course. It obviously fell by the wayside because all the evidence was pointing towards slow movements of the crustal plates.
Yeah...like local floods can account for all of the fossils we see, which were obviously formed very rapidly. Also, given the rates of mountain uplift, their suface formations would have eroded long ago. If you're trying to prove millions of years, you will construe the evidence to fit your model. An example of this would be varves, where it is assumed each change in striations corresponds to annual rings. This is erroneous, because research by Guy Berthault, and Pierre Julien at colorado state university has pointed out. As a matter of fact, the vertical striations are actually caused by the sorting by size of flowing water.
It's very convenient to count these striations as years, if that supports your hypothesis, even if it files in the face of fact.
Btw, do you know about the fundamental problems about C14 dating past 50k years?link
Stellar formation is observed at various stages through observation. Their composition is verified through observation. Their age is modelled on basic physical forces. Their fusion processes are verified through the observation of fusion byproducts. The models are verified through further observations. That's not testing or experimenting to you?
Actually, the theory about stars "condensing" is far from perfect. link
. Even so, there is nowhere in the bible that says this can't hapen. How exactly did you think that stars forming would support your position?
Answers in Genesis essentially has no answer but "God did it" for the apparent age and process for the Sun or stars.
Actually, you have lots of problems if the sun is millions of years old, and especially if it's always been acting like it is now. Additionally, reference my statements about starlight and time.
What would you have taught as a competing theories in science class?
I'd start at the very beginning and explain the paradigms of both camps, and then present the interpretation of the evidence from both sides. Let the students decide.
I don't have certainty over anything. I do see a lot of evidence in support of said theories while there is zero evidence for Biblically-based assertions. If there is evidence against biological evolution, I would and everyone else, would love to see it. But the last hundred years of research has only supported and refined it.
Actually, as I pointed out, you can't do research on evolution. The best example any evolutionist has every presented is bacteria adapting to a new environement, and then they make the jump and say that proves that pond scum eventually would walk around on two legs.
Am I 100% certain, no. There is always the possibility of countervailing evidence. That is taught in every science class - to have doubt about what you do and believe is right, that everything must be supporting through evidence.
To even speak of possible problems with evolution has been grounds for dismissal, at least on the high school level. Contrary to popular opinion, that actually what the Ohio state school board was trying to do, not teach creationism (or even intellegent design).
My wife thinks I should respond to these request for the historical accuracy for the bible. I stumbled upon the christianswers site today while looking up some archaelogical questions. Ergo:http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.htmlhttp://christiananswers.net/archaeology/http://christiananswers.net/abr/home.htmlhttp://christiananswers.net/menu-at1.html