Scientific Evidence For Creation!!! Wow!

Originally posted by melatonin
yes, I am aware it was from AIG, but it has the nice correlation from a proper article that indicates the highly significant relationship between the factors. There are three independent chemical/biological mechanisms that ALL confirm each other (i.e. they do not rely on each other and to have the same degree of error in each is highly unlikely).

So, nice try handwaving.

here's your next hurdle...

water.usgs.gov...
water.usgs.gov...
and water.usgs.gov...


So, we have devil's hole data corroborated by ice-cores, sediments, protactinium-231 and thorium-230. Again, all independent mechanisms.

Minimum age = 567,000 years

Any ideas? If you can hand-wave this away, we'll go further back...

[edit on 16-5-2006 by melatonin]

well i have to admit that i took your bait on this one, your spinning quite a web on this subject and i'll have to say that i never actually stated that i thought the earth was young, someone else put some well timed words in my mouth to lure me into this debate but it has been fasinating to research all the information on this subject raging on the net as we type this, the AIG site actually has some very interesting theories on this subject ........mainly the stand that the scriptures may have been misunderstood along the lines of the beginning possibly being much longer than the current translation suggest's also the scripture that states " a day to god is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day" this leads one to believe (which i do) that god is not bound by the frame work of time, he created time, this is leaning into the subject of time and the theory of the "speeding up of and slowing down of time" .......i ask this question of you?? can god possibly maniplulate time?? the possibilities are endless...your fight to prove this time theory is a moot point to god he is not bound by the natural laws that we are bound by (gravity , time , space , ) and others, he made all things...and by him all things were made !!

the AIG site had some very good topics where archaeology actually confirm the historical accuracy of the bible check it out sometime you might end up believeing

the ice-core sample method could possibly be inacurate also..

one uses the age of previously determined markers to determine the age of various points in the ice-core. The major advantage of these methods is that they can be completed relatively quickly. The major disadvantage is that if the predetermined age markers are incorrect than the age assigned to the ice-core will also be incorrect.

[edit on 16-5-2006 by the_sentinal]

I'm still attempting to figure out how evolution does not violate the entropy laws. What's the probability of a watch forming out of a mudpit full of sand next to you? Now that's an open loop system, the wrist it's strapped on is a complex closed loop system infinitely more difficult to be constructed.

Originally posted by Nygdan

because they have been contaminated

A major problem with this right off the bat is that they are asking you to reject an entire technique simply because it doesn't work sometimes. We know the conditions under which it won't work

the specialist's in this field call this method by their own words " more of an art than a science " this would suggest to the casual observer that this method is not very reliable, coincidence could play a part in this artistic method as an answer to the last part of your post

Originally posted by Nakash
I'm still attempting to figure out how evolution does not violate the entropy laws.

The same way that a snowflake, going from unordered water into a crystal, doesn't.

What's the probability of a watch forming out of a mudpit full of sand next to you?

Thats not an accurate analogy. No one claims that fully formed modern cells popped up out of muck.

Originally posted by the_sentinal
i ask this question of you?? can god possibly maniplulate time?? the possibilities are endless...your fight to prove this time theory is a moot point to god he is not bound by the natural laws that we are bound by (gravity , time , space , ) and others, he made all things...and by him all things were made !!

Depends on your conception of 'god'. If he is all-powerful, he could do anything. He could well be the Loki-type god the literalists seem to invoke.

the ice-core sample method could possibly be inacurate also..

one uses the age of previously determined markers to determine the age of various points in the ice-core. The major advantage of these methods is that they can be completed relatively quickly. The major disadvantage is that if the predetermined age markers are incorrect than the age assigned to the ice-core will also be incorrect.

But this time we have four methods that all confirm each other - sediments, ice-cores, and two independent radio-decay mechanisms. Previously, we had three confirming independent mechanisms. It is a fantasy to believe all these results are equally erroneous. Or we have a Loki-type god playing games with us.

I'm not interested in converting you to athiesm, or whatever, just trying to outline the evidence that denies YEC. I know many Xians who accept an Old earth and ToE, doesn't affect their faith at all.

I'm quite willing to accept some type of jesus character, who occassionally trashed temples, existed. A good moral teacher with a degree of historical basis - doesn't affect the scientific evidence.


[edit on 17-5-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Nygdan
I'm still attempting to figure out how evolution does not violate the entropy laws.

The same way that a snowflake, going from unordered water into a crystal, doesn't.

Sorry Nygdan, gotta call you on this. The snowflake analogy doesn't even begin to cover it. Snowflake formation doesn't violate laws of entropy because of the concurrent loss in ambient enthalpy. That is an increase in entropy is compensated for via a decrease in enthalpy. The entropy increases only as a result of insufficient enthalpy to keep water in the liquid as opposed to solid states.

Snowflake formation after the loss of enthalpy is governed simply by efficient hydrogen bond formation.

Biological polymer formation is different. The entropic barriers that must be overcome to form a DNA polymer are quite different. Adding sufficient enthalpy to the biological monomers can overcome entropic barriers, but the trick is that the energy must be directed. Heat is NOT an adequate source of enthalpy simply becuase it's not directed. If heat or other undirected energy is added, other reactions, NOT polymerization are favored. Confirm this for yourself by looking at the delta G values for various polymerization reactions and other bond breaking reactions. I encourage it.

Some polymerization will occur, but it exists in a dynamic equilibrium, that is polymers are continuously breaking and forming yielding - under ideal conditions, maybe a 20mer. Furthermore given the state of dynamic equilibrium the polymer won't be the same from one moment to the next.

I know the snowflake analogy is popular, but it's weak and doesn't accurately portray the thermodynamic constraints that abiogenesis would need to overcome.

But that hardly means that abiogenesis is immposible because 'things go from order to disorder', which is generally what is meant by the Entropy arguement.

I'll, clearly, agree, there is currently no good solution to abiogenesis. That doesn't mean its immpossible, and people simply stating 'because entropy increases, it can't occur', just doesn't make sense.

Just like there is a compensation for the increase in order in the snowflake, there can, phsyically, be compensations for the increase in order in abiogenesis. Just what they are, no one knows. Just what the pathway to the biogenic event is, no one knows. But thats not enough of an arguement to say it never happened, no?

Originally posted by Nygdan
But that hardly means that abiogenesis is immposible because 'things go from order to disorder', which is generally what is meant by the Entropy arguement.

Agreed..

I'll, clearly, agree, there is currently no good solution to abiogenesis. That doesn't mean its immpossible, and people simply stating 'because entropy increases, it can't occur', just doesn't make sense.

I can agree with you here. And I have to agree with you arguing that the argument as is frequently utilized is inadequate and demonstrates a lack of understanding about thermodynamics.

Just like there is a compensation for the increase in order in the snowflake, there can, phsyically, be compensations for the increase in order in abiogenesis. Just what they are, no one knows. Just what the pathway to the biogenic event is, no one knows. But thats not enough of an arguement to say it never happened, no?

Certainly not enough of an argument to say "It never happened," which you know I don't do, but considered with an open mind, the enthalpic and entropic constraints that preclude formation of biological polymers in the absence of enzymes, DO present a significant obstacle for abiogenesis theories, and cannot simply be hand waved away by mentioning snowflakes and sedimentation.

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by Nygdan
I'm still attempting to figure out how evolution does not violate the entropy laws.

The same way that a snowflake, going from unordered water into a crystal, doesn't.

Sorry Nygdan, gotta call you on this. The snowflake analogy doesn't even begin to cover it. Snowflake formation doesn't violate laws of entropy because of the concurrent loss in ambient enthalpy.

The "entropy" question is one of those that creationists really should avoid. It was started by someone who didn't know beans about entropy or Newton's laws.

The rule reads that systems go from ordered to unordered WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER INPUT (in a "black box" or "closed" system.)

I invite you to step outside and look up at the sky. There's a big, hot, glowing thing up there. It's called the Sun, and it's constantly pouring energy onto our planet. That means that the Earth isn't a black box system. If the Earth was a "black box system", it would have cooled to absolute zero and would be a Chunk O' Rock inthe middle of black and limitless space.

That is an increase in entropy is compensated for via a decrease in enthalpy. The entropy increases only as a result of insufficient enthalpy to keep water in the liquid as opposed to solid states.

Ugh. That shows you how BAD the science is on these sites! They're throwing around "enthalpy" as a magic term to wave when someone points out the above hole. Simply put, enthalpy is the amount of energy available in a chemical that is capable of doing mechanical work. dictionary.laborlawtalk.com...

www.grc.nasa.gov...

Biological polymer formation is different. The entropic barriers that must be overcome to form a DNA polymer are quite different.

Would you care to present the physics and math for this? There's a lot of stuff out there that says this is wrong (that the physics which determines the amount of energy needed to create polymers can be calculated by the same physics that determines how much energy is needed to create a snow crystal bond), so I'd really like to see how the laws of math and physics are changed when we're dealing with organic chemistry.

Like a lot of folks here, I did take a semester of organic chemistry and can stumble my way through the physics. A violation of physics and chemistry of that magnitude really is the kind of thing that Nobel Prizes are granted for.

I'd love to see the math, there.

Heat is NOT an adequate source of enthalpy simply becuase it's not directed. If heat or other undirected energy is added, other reactions, NOT polymerization are favored.

So how do you explain the complete subbranch of chemistry which involves polymer science, where the heat bonding of formation (using... heat, y'know) is discussed and the temperatures at which polymers form is an important topic?

Confirm this for yourself by looking at the delta G values for various polymerization reactions and other bond breaking reactions. I encourage it.

Uh... you DO know that to form the original bonds (carbon to oxygen, etc) we have heat and energy transfer, and that the energy from these reactions does things like cause our bodies to have a certain temperature. There is also heat and energy exchange from the acids or other solvents used in the reactions (which produces the heat for the reaction.) This is pretty clear in lecture notes, such as this one from a biology class. It isn't the "delta g values for various polymerization reactions" -- that's just the end product of the construction. You have to look at the energy exchange in EVERYthing, from the first "put oxygen with hydrogen" (which needs heat and energy because it doesn't work at absolute zero) to the creation of each of the ingredients for that final reaction. You can't just look at the last reaction and say "see? Negative delta G!" It's negative only for that reaction and is based on a whopping lot of positive delta g reactions. :
www.courses.rochester.edu...

Some polymerization will occur, but it exists in a dynamic equilibrium, that is polymers are continuously breaking and forming yielding - under ideal conditions, maybe a 20mer. Furthermore given the state of dynamic equilibrium the polymer won't be the same from one moment to the next.

In a "dynamic equilibrium", the amount of energy in a system is changing.

This means that its heat (the energy of individual atoms) is changing. I'm curious to know how "energy" has been redefined so that it doesn't involve heat in any way or any form. The thermodynamics laws say that during any energy exchange, heat is involved (and that in a non-closed system, energy input into a system always creates heat) and I'd dearly love to see how they've managed to construct a system where energy is exchanged but heat isn't involved. That's the stuff of Nobel Prizes. :
www.uwsp.edu...

[edit on 17-5-2006 by Byrd]

Originally posted by Byrd
Ugh. That shows you how BAD the science is on these sites! They're throwing around "enthalpy" as a magic term to wave when someone points out the above hole. Simply put, enthalpy is the amount of energy available in a chemical that is capable of doing mechanical work.

Ummm... that info wasn't taken from a creationist site. It came off the top of my head. Enthalpy is more than just amount of energy available to do mechanical work. Enthalpy does chemical work also.

You're right though, people who don't understand thermodynamics shouldn't comment.

Biological polymer formation is different. The entropic barriers that must be overcome to form a DNA polymer are quite different.

Would you care to present the physics and math for this? There's a lot of stuff out there that says this is wrong (that the physics which determines the amount of energy needed to create polymers can be calculated by the same physics that determines how much energy is needed to create a snow crystal bond), so I'd really like to see how the laws of math and physics are changed when we're dealing with organic chemistry.

Look up the heat of reaction for peptide bond or phosphodiester bond formation. Look up the heat of reaction for breaking peptide and or phosphodiester bonds. Look up heats of reaction for competing reactions like adding AA's on at side chains as opposed to sites of peptide bond formation. Plenty of math and physics there... lots of it will demonstrate exactly what I am saying: In the absence of enzyme biological polymer formation is precluded both enthalpically and entropically.

Like a lot of folks here, I did take a semester of organic chemistry and can stumble my way through the physics. A violation of physics and chemistry of that magnitude really is the kind of thing that Nobel Prizes are granted for.

Sorry, Byrd, but do you know what it takes to synthesize a DNA polymer? Ever done it? I have. I worked making DNA and RNA polymers for sometime in biodefense. I have a HANDS ON understanding of the enthalpic and entropic difficulties associated with biopolymer formation... not a semester of OChem.

I'd love to see the math, there.

Then dust off that OChem book and look up some of the heats of reaction I've mentioned. If you want, I'll U2U you a very specific list.

Heat is NOT an adequate source of enthalpy simply becuase it's not directed. If heat or other undirected energy is added, other reactions, NOT polymerization are favored.

So how do you explain the complete subbranch of chemistry which involves polymer science, where the heat bonding of formation (using... heat, y'know) is discussed and the temperatures at which polymers form is an important topic?

You explain it quite easily by noting that polymer chemists generally deal with monomers that are only capable of making one type of bond. IOW, there are no competing reactions to consider, and thus heat is an adequate source of energy. The monomers used in industrial polymer chemistry are simple monomers, there's generally one reaction they can undergo, thus heat is an adequate source of energy.

Biological monomers are different. There are lots of reactive groups, hydroxys, amines, carboxyls, etc., associated with biopolymers. Adding heat to biomonomers doesn't yield coherent homopolymers, it makes a big mess, that isn't even limited to a single type of bond.

So how do I explain it... simple monomers and no competing reactions.

When there are competing reactions monumental efforts must be made to prevent them. When using organic methods to synthesize DNA and protein, a wide variety of sophisticated 'protecting' groups are used. This is how the reactions are controlled. Without this, you just get a big mess. Ask ANY organic chemist who does this kind of work.

Continued in another post.

[edit on 17-5-2006 by mattison0922]

Originally posted by Byrd

Confirm this for yourself by looking at the delta G values for various polymerization reactions and other bond breaking reactions. I encourage it.

Uh... you DO know that to form the original bonds (carbon to oxygen, etc) we have heat and energy transfer, and that the energy from these reactions does things like cause our bodies to have a certain temperature. There is also heat and energy exchange from the acids or other solvents used in the reactions (which produces the heat for the reaction.) This is pretty clear in lecture notes, such as this one from a biology class. It isn't the "delta g values for various polymerization reactions" -- that's just the end product of the construction. You have to look at the energy exchange in EVERYthing, from the first "put oxygen with hydrogen" (which needs heat and energy because it doesn't work at absolute zero) to the creation of each of the ingredients for that final reaction. You can't just look at the last reaction and say "see? Negative delta G!" It's negative only for that reaction and is based on a whopping lot of positive delta g reactions. :

Byrd, this statement, especially that in bold, demonstrates you don't understand any of this. Reactions with a negative delta G occur spontaneously. Those with a positive delta G do not. It's clear you're trying to argue something you really don't understand.

It is necessary to look at the delta G's for the reaction in question, you don't need to consider every single reaction that got you there, only the reactions that could occur. If you are joining a glutamate and a carboxylate in the absence of enzymes, you must condsider the delta g of the polymerization reaction, the depolymerization reaction, the reaction of a side chain carboxyls and amines, the reactions of C-C bonds. Any reaction that can take place in that mixture must be considered.

In your industrial polymer synthesis example, there is only one reaction to consider, not so with biomolecules.

Some polymerization will occur, but it exists in a dynamic equilibrium, that is polymers are continuously breaking and forming yielding - under ideal conditions, maybe a 20mer. Furthermore given the state of dynamic equilibrium the polymer won't be the same from one moment to the next.

In a "dynamic equilibrium", the amount of energy in a system is changing.

Maybe in some context, but here I use it in the specific context to describe a constant breaking and reforming of the polymer. IOW, if there is sufficient enthalpy to drive polymer formation, then there is sufficient enthalpy to drive these other reactions, and you must consider them in the big picture.

This means that its heat (the energy of individual atoms) is changing. I'm curious to know how "energy" has been redefined so that it doesn't involve heat in any way or any form.

What the heck are you talking about? Heat is still energy, it's just undirected, and inadequate for the formation of biopolymers for the reasons I've outlined above. If I am wrong please correct me. Please reference me the paper where OChemists were able to make DNA polymers from raw materials, without protecting groups using only heat as an energy source.

The thermodynamics laws say that during any energy exchange, heat is involved (and that in a non-closed system, energy input into a system always creates heat) and I'd dearly love to see how they've managed to construct a system where energy is exchanged but heat isn't involved. That's the stuff of Nobel Prizes. :
www.uwsp.edu...

Nice attempt a strawman here Byrd, but I never said "Heat isn't energy." I said it's an inadequate source of energy for the formation of biological polymers.

[edit on 17-5-2006 by mattison0922]

Originally posted by mattison0922
Ummm... that info wasn't taken from a creationist site. It came off the top of my head. Enthalpy is more than just amount of energy available to do mechanical work. Enthalpy does chemical work also.

Ah. Okay, well that's why I try to check before posting... I misremember definitions all the time!

I should note that my confusion here stems from this being a very popular argument by creationists and that it's always badly done. So I leaped in, assuming the same level of argument here.

Look up the heat of reaction for peptide bond or phosphodiester bond formation. (etc)

My point here was that you were looking at an end reaction of a long chain of chemical reactions to create those peptides and that you seemed to be ignoring the total process. Your conclusion "In the absence of enzyme biological polymer formation is precluded both enthalpically and entropically" didn't leap out at me, there. I think I must be having Bad Braincell Days.

What I thought I saw was a conclusion that ignored the input of solar energy, treated the whole process as a black box thermodynamic process, and declared a case for creation.

Biological monomers are different. There are lots of reactive groups, hydroxys, amines, carboxyls, etc., associated with biopolymers. Adding heat to biomonomers doesn't yield coherent homopolymers, it makes a big mess, that isn't even limited to a single type of bond.

And here I'm being unclear (what a goofball I was being!) My point was that these reactions do take place at a certain temperature (when there is a certain heat in the atmosphere) and that the process relies on this heat (97 degrees Farenheit or "room temperature" or whatever (I haven't synthesized these, so I don't know) and formation won't occur if you take them up to Barrow, Alaska, in the middle of the winter or in the middle of Antarctica in an unheated lab. Or at the temperature of outer space (which is not very much above zero Kelvin for deep space.)

It's not "put it over a flame" heat, but there is heat in the environment.

So... am I right that the temperatures must be within a certain range for these to form?

Originally posted by Byrd
Ah. Okay, well that's why I try to check before posting... I misremember definitions all the time!

I should note that my confusion here stems from this being a very popular argument by creationists and that it's always badly done. So I leaped in, assuming the same level of argument here.

Understood. It is a popular argument, and one that is misunderstood from both ends of the 'debate.' The entropy argument doesn't preclude naturalistic formation of biological polymers. It simply IS a significant issue that abiogenesis must address. But thus far, naturalistic formation of these polymers in the absence of enzymes has proven elusive.

My point here was that you were looking at an end reaction of a long chain of chemical reactions to create those peptides and that you seemed to be ignoring the total process. Your conclusion "In the absence of enzyme biological polymer formation is precluded both enthalpically and entropically" didn't leap out at me, there. I think I must be having Bad Braincell Days.

What I thought I saw was a conclusion that ignored the input of solar energy, treated the whole process as a black box thermodynamic process, and declared a case for creation.

Understood again, and I have those days myself. I don't ignore solar energy. What IS missing though is some sort of harnessing process... something like photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is the main process that permits organisms to overcome entropic barriers. IOW, the entropy argument makes little sense with extant biological organisms in place, but IS an issue for abiogenesis theories.

Were a naturalistic mechanism discovered that could somehow 'direct' sunlight, it would be a huge step forward. An enzyme that could directly harness light to perform the chemical work associated with phosphodiester or peptides bonds... that would be something, and a HUGE step forward for abiogenesis.

And here I'm being unclear (what a goofball I was being!) My point was that these reactions do take place at a certain temperature (when there is a certain heat in the atmosphere) and that the process relies on this heat (97 degrees Farenheit or "room temperature" or whatever (I haven't synthesized these, so I don't know) and formation won't occur if you take them up to Barrow, Alaska, in the middle of the winter or in the middle of Antarctica in an unheated lab. Or at the temperature of outer space (which is not very much above zero Kelvin for deep space.)

It's not "put it over a flame" heat, but there is heat in the environment.

So... am I right that the temperatures must be within a certain range for these to form?

Absolutely. As you are probably aware, most reactions occur more quickly when the temperature is higher, but the temperature range must be a certain minimum, of course there are maximum values too. Certainly 215C is hot enough to make peptide bonds, but it's also hot enough to destroy Amino Acids. The trick is finding the optimal temperature to carry out the desired reactions. In biomonomers this is hard... all groups must react under more or less the same conditions, so the reactivity of associated groups is generally about the same. That's why protecting groups must be used to synthesize these things industrially.

Another interesting problem: Peptide Bonds and Phosphodiester bonds are both dehydration reactions... that is they function by removing a water and adding it to the environment. In aqueous solution, the depolymerization (hydrolysis) reaction is favored by orders of magnitude.

The only flaws I have with the story of Noah is the fact that you couldent possibly fit 2 of every land and air animal on a ship. The ship would have to be twice as big as the bible explains it to accomidate the food allone for such an endevor.

Besides the fact that if there were only two of every animal there would have been mass extinction due to rampant degeneration of the individual animals gene pools because of the inbreading.

Then theres the bit about how would you go about getting animals from diffrent continents? the pladipus (SP) or the elk or a kangaroo. Just seems like noah would have taken way too long just to get all these diffrent species into one boat.

Not to mention that boat would have smelled like well poo.

The Bible DOES NOT hold up to scientific scrutiny.

If you apply stories in The Bible to science, they merely fall apart.

I find it laughable that anyone would even try and prove Noah's Ark happened, let alone trying to apply scientific evidence/findings to it.

I'm a little rusty on my noahs ark story, but did noah load the boat with plants and animals. If he did, how did the plants propagate afterwards. The birds and bee's couldn't have spread any pollen because they wouldn't have travelled very far into any area where plants didn't exist to begin with. So the plants would be very limited in how they dispersed. Wind wouldn't do the job adaquetly either.

How did the animals sustain themselves when they initially would have been eating recently germinated seeds with very little biomass to consume and after that who could be left reproduce for the next generation of plants?

How did the plants get the nutrients they need from the layer of silt covering everything. The silt would be high in clay, and silica, not something most plants do very well in, so how did they even initially germinate, especially in a muddy, rot conducive environment, which most plants won't do well in either.

How did noah sex the animals, was he an expert or something. I mean how does an uneducated man tell the difference between a male and female snake or salamander, let alone the differences between male and female plants?

How did the fish not drown in the mud?

Why can't we see for sure whats on mount ararat from google or someother program. I mean we can see cars and bushes with it so why not a aircraft carrier sized block of petrafied wood lodged precariously on the side of the mount.

What about the speed of light and the distance it takes to travel from the stars to earth, wouldn't that point to a much older universe than a literal interpredation of the bible.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
The Bible DOES NOT hold up to scientific scrutiny.

If you apply stories in The Bible to science, they merely fall apart.

I find it laughable that anyone would even try and prove Noah's Ark happened, let alone trying to apply scientific evidence/findings to it.

yeah, religion and science tend to butt heads and fight instead of comingle and work together

when you combine something that's based around superstition and the unknown with something based only around logic and tests...

the results are bad

I must disagree with the statement of "science and religion tend to butt heads". It is true that scientist, and Christians butt heads, but science itself does not butt heads with certain religions. The study of evolution is to study the history of the world and how things became, and to use that evidence to prove it. So why can you not do the samething with a historical book like the Bible? Surely there is a certain amount of faith involved in believing in something we can't see physically, but evolution has such little facts that prove anything at all, yet we have so many more facts to prove to the earth being exactly as the Bible depicts it.

I am no scholar, and wouldn't consider myself overly knowledgable about this subject. It seems that so many people here are so adament that science proves evolution, and not for the sake of argument, because that's the last thing I want, if anyone could possibly give me a piece of evidence that could prove macroevolution I would love to hear it. I don't believe my opinions will change, but you never know.

Originally posted by thexsword
I must disagree with the statement of "science and religion tend to butt heads". It is true that scientist, and Christians butt heads, but science itself does not butt heads with certain religions.

I don't think that I would agree with this statemen. Science should not have anything to say one way or the other about religion. Indeed there are many scientists who are faithful Christians, but in fact subscribe to the Theory of Evolution in its entirety.

As SJ Gould, one of my favorite writers, pointed out, the two are, and should be considered non-overlapping magisteria.

The study of evolution is to study the history of the world and how things became, and to use that evidence to prove it.

Evolution is a series of postulations, hypotheses, ideas that unify many disparate areas of biology and in fact, science in general. It's an inference that is used to describe the available data.

So why can you not do the samething with a historical book like the Bible?

The Bible isn't a historical text in the same way that a history text is a historic text. IMO, the Bible is less about 'literal' truths than it is about 'metaphorical' truths. The stories and teachings contained in the Bible are meant to be taken in the context of metaphorical truth as opposed to a literal truth. At least... that's my take on it.

The focus on literal knowledge is relatively recent historical phenomenon. In the past people were less concerned with the fine details of history, and more concerned with the broad scope... what should be taken away from a situation... not what actually happened.

Surely there is a certain amount of faith involved in believing in something we can't see physically,

Perhaps, but science is about what we can see, and what we can measure.

but evolution has such little facts that prove anything at all, yet we have so many more facts to prove to the earth being exactly as the Bible depicts it.

Now this is just unreasonable. Evolution has 'few facts' supporting it, huh? Why has it prevailed as the predominant theory of biological origins for decades now? Could it be that scientists are aware of some 'facts' that you're not.

Now certainly what constitutes adequate evidence for something is an entirely subjective matter. For some people simply being alive is sufficient evidence that there is in fact a God. For others, nothing short of the messiah himself coming through the clouds will be sufficient evidence.

Perhaps you're one of those people for which no adequate level of evidence can exist to convince you of evolution.

I am no scholar, and wouldn't consider myself overly knowledgable about this subject. It seems that so many people here are so adament that science proves evolution, and not for the sake of argument, because that's the last thing I want, if anyone could possibly give me a piece of evidence that could prove macroevolution I would love to hear it.

What type of evidence are you looking for? For example we could point to conservation of both non-coding and coding DNA between chimps and humans suggestive of their common ancestry. In a similar vein, the location, organization, overall structure of genes when one compares chimps and humans are also suggestive of common descent.

Now... we certainly can't say this proves common descent, only that it is highly suggestive of it.

One could, and some do, argue that this is also indicative of common design. Perhaps this is so, but there's nothing in the actual scientific literature that states this, and there are known researchers doing science from that perspective.

I don't believe my opinions will change, but you never know.

Okay... back at you then. What is the strongest evidence that the Earth's history is best described by the bible?

Originally posted by thexsword
if anyone could possibly give me a piece of evidence that could prove macroevolution I would love to hear it.

www.talkorigins.org...]29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

I like:
www.talkorigins.org...
And intermediates are allways nice, but of course the problem with them is that people often just say 'well, that half bird half lizard isn't intermediate, its just a lizard-bird thingy'.
www.talkorigins.org...