Science V. Faith

[pwnagepanda 0]

The main distinctions between science and faith is that science is supported by evidence, is falsifiable, and can make accurate predictions. Creationism does none of these things. I have absolutely nothing against faith, in fact I am a practicing Jew, but my worldview is agnostic. I think that Faith and science are not mutually exclusive, but when I deal with each of them, they are in totally separate spheres of thought. However, I think that The Torah (old testament) was never intended to be takn literally, but it was intended as a way to guide our moral compasses. We now know that some of the things that it says in the Bible are not true. I think that sometimes, we need to think of science as reality, and religion as morality.

 

I think that evolution occured (and occurs), that the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old, and that the first life on this planet arose from inorganic molecules without divine intervention. Does this make me a bad person? No. I dont think so.

[Guest 92g]

The main distinctions between science and faith is that science is supported by evidence, is falsifiable, and can make accurate predictions.

Has it ever occured to you that science has become the object of your faith?

 

Creationism does none of these things.

Creationism is a paradigm just like materialism is. Some creationist scientisits, e.g. Dr. Humprey's has performed some experiments to show that the earth is young based on his expectation that the earth is just that.

 

His model of the earth's age based on its magnetic field decay rate not only shows that the earth is less than 10k years old, but it also predicted the magnetic field strengths of one or two other planets in our solar system much better than the accepted models of the scientific commnity.

 

I think that evolution occured (and occurs), that the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old, and that the first life on this planet arose from inorganic molecules without divine intervention. Does this make me a bad person? No. I dont think so.

From God's perspective, we are all bad. So your limited reasoning abilities do not make you bad in God's eyes, but it does keep you on the wrong side of the fence.

 

In any case, your faith in science/materialism does make you a believer in miracles.....

 

Terry

[ikester7579 19]

The main distinctions between science and faith is that science is supported by evidence, is falsifiable, and can make accurate predictions. Creationism does none of these things. I have absolutely nothing against faith, in fact I am a practicing Jew, but my worldview is agnostic. I think that Faith and science are not mutually exclusive, but when I deal with each of them, they are in totally separate spheres of thought.  However, I think that The Torah (old testament) was never intended to be takn literally, but it was intended as a way to guide our moral compasses. We now know that some of the things that it says in the Bible are not true. I think that sometimes, we need to think of science as reality, and religion as morality.

 

I think that evolution occured (and occurs), that the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old, and that the first life on this planet arose from inorganic molecules without divine intervention. Does this make me a bad person? No. I dont think so.

13650[/snapback]

Accurate predictions?

 

Like the annual rings that are not really annual?

http://www.yecheadquarters.org/shame.25.html

 

That dinosaurs are 70 million years old, but yet we find both blood and tissue from a supposed 70 million yesr old T-Rex?

http://www.yecheadquarters.org/shame.33.html

 

Oil takes millions of years to form, but yet there is a process to make it in one day?

http://www.yecheadquarters.org/shame.41.html

 

Lucy has both human hands and feet, but yet there is not one shred of evidence to support that claim: http://www.yecheadquarters.org/shame.html

 

The Stanley Miller experiment is assumed to be true and accurate. Even though the text books won't tell you that Miller used a cheat to make the test not a real world test by making conditions that do not exist in the real world.

http://www.yecheadquarters.org/shame.5.html

 

And that polar flips are unproven, and no other viable theory is accepted because this theory was solely thought up to correct the earth's decaying magnetic field. Which does not support old earth conclusions. In fact, science cannot prove that a polar flip won't kill all life upon this planet. And they also cannot prove that the magnetic field always returns to a normal state that is suitable for life. But yet they will claim:

 

1) That it happens every so many years.

2) That there is very little fluctuation in the strength of the magnetic field during a flip, even though there is not one shred of evidence to support this. Why? Because one has never been observed. But yet they can some how make all these predictions about a polar flip.

3) Polar flips don't cause earthquakes. Which by the way could kill all life upon the earth.

4) Every animal that migrates would some how know the poles flipped. Wake up one day and adjust to it. Therefore they would not die by migrating in the wrong direction.

etc...

http://www.yecheadquarters.org/shame.7.html

 

I call this faith based claims. When you have not one shred of evidence, but yet claim that everything will be just right with no problems. That's taking a leap of faith. Because what is claimed that cannot be proven requires faith in order to believe it. And the more a faith based foundation gets laid for several theories, the more these theories make science look like a faith based organization.

 

Why do you think several theories are in direct conflict with a religious belief? The faith foundation of religion is being challenged by the faith foundation of science's claims that are solely based on faith that they are true.

 

This actually breaks the first step of the scientific method.

 

Step one: First, never accept anything as true that I did not know evidently to be so; that is, carefully to avoid precipitous judgment and prejudice; and to include nothing more in my judgments than what presented itself to my mind with such clarity and distinctness that I would have no occasion to doubt it. http://www.lessonplans.com/sci_1.htm

 

Assuming something is true, then building ideas that cannot be proven to support it. Is building a foundation of faith. Which breaks the first rule of the scientific method, and makes science into a religious belief. Maybe this is the reason evolutionists welcome theistic evolutionists, and their ideas with open arms. It's their excuse to admit what they claim not to be. But yet dabble in it because the label allows them to. And also allows then to exalt an idea as god. But yet call it science.

[pwnagepanda 0]

Step one: First, never accept anything as true that I did not know evidently to be so; that is, carefully to avoid precipitous judgment and prejudice; and to include nothing more in my judgments than what presented itself to my mind with such clarity and distinctness that I would have no occasion to doubt it. http://www.lessonplans.com/sci_1.htm

 

really? How about the bible, is that exempt from the scientific method as well?

If not, why?

[ikester7579 19]

really? How about the bible, is that exempt from the scientific method as well?

If not, why?

13659[/snapback]

Only an organization that is religious would be exempt from following the scientific method. Why? Faith, to the degree religion applies it, is not part of the scientific method. Or I should say: It's not supposed to be part of it. Some apply it because they choose to make scientific theories into a god like belief.

[pwnagepanda 0]

i agree wholeheartedly. I think that faith and science are two different things. I can still believe that humanity arose without divine intervention because that is based on scientific evidence. This is a logical belief not based on any idea that is unexplainable, it is therefore inherently more valid than religion as a way to interpret reality.

[Fred Williams 0]

i agree wholeheartedly. I think that faith and science are two different things. I can still believe that humanity arose without divine intervention because that is based on scientific evidence. This is a logical belief not based on any idea that is unexplainable, it is therefore  inherently more valid than religion as a way to interpret reality.

13663[/snapback]

The purpose of this forum is to debate origins. All you have done so far is 1) claim creation is not scientific, 2) claim that what is scientific is that we came from a pile of goo and are all related to a banana. In other words, you are wasting our time. So if you have evidence, present it, otherwise, my ban finger is gleefully waiting to flick you off the board.

 

Also, please see our FAQ on what science is:

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/forum_faq.htm

 

Fred

[Springer 5]

I can still believe that humanity arose without divine intervention because that is based on scientific evidence.

What evidence do you have that divine intervention does not exist?

 

This is a logical belief not based on any idea that is unexplainable, it is therefore  inherently more valid than religion as a way to interpret reality.

13663[/snapback]

There is nothing about NDT that is explainable. If you think NDT can explain how life arose from slime, please elaborate.

[Origen 0]

My proposition on the issue of faith and education is that all public schools should remove all orgin theory from Science, Psychology, and History, and just teach knowable Science etc. In college one can freely select either evolution or Creationism for their extra dose of Science and origins. But there should be no evolution or Creation taught in the public schools from grades 0-12!! Let that all be learned outside of school. If evolution is removed from public life crime rates would drop to all time lows!

[lwj2op2 1]

I don't disagree but I don't think it is possible not to involve the topics in the class at some level. Eventually children will ask where we came from. I have 6 children, 4 to 24 years, 5 asked by age 6. Instead of teaching either creation or evolution, just teach the facts as known and allow conclusions to form. That is education instead of indoctrination.

[4jacks 0]

In other words, you are wasting our time. So if you have evidence, present it, otherwise, my ban finger is gleefully waiting to flick you off the board.

 

As right as you are, I think maybe you could give a pass, he's just a kid trying to figure things out.

 

If anything, maybe you can view this post as another inclination of what newbies need to understand and get involved in the creation vs. evolutionism debate. As a 15 year old going to school being brainwashed with evolution it can be very hard grasp the fact that creationist are using science to prove creation. They don't learn these thing in school. They are taught.

1) Evolution is true, becuase a bunch of smart people say so.

2) Creation and especially YEC, isn't true and is quackery, becuase a bunch of smart people say so.

 

Speaking from experience as someone who just recently got involved with the whole creation versus evolutionism debate, I can tell you, getting started is very hard.

 

As I stated in my first thread Here Some kind of Summary of the topics of debate would be a great resource for newbies and at least introduce us to the view points of both sides.

 

I've been thinking about creating something like that, I dunno, it's a huge task I admit.

[Fred Williams 0]

As right as you are, I think maybe you could give a pass, he's just a kid trying to figure things out. 

 

13710[/snapback]

He wasn't booted, just put in the "cooler" where he can interact with the Mods/Admins. After a brief exchange, we didn't hear back, but he has been restored forum privileges.

 

One thing to keep in mind is that we occasionally get "poser" trolls, or adult evolutionists who masquearade as a serious 15 year old. I'm not saying this is the case with pwnagepanda, but as Moderators we've geared ourselves to not necessarily trust the age that is given. Certain evolutionists who fall into the category of "Evo-babblers" will come here wanting to waste our time and sign up as 15-17 year olds thinking they will get more lenience.

 

We have to balance as best we can trying to help a legit truth seeker, and indentifying, cataloging, and dislodging evo-babblers.

 

As I stated in my first thread Here Some kind of Summary of the topics of debate would be a great resource for newbies and at least introduce us to the view points of both sides.

 

I've been thinking about creating something like that, I dunno, it's a huge task I admit.

 

It is a good idea, we just need the time to make it happen. Perhaps there is already somethign on the web that is fair&balanced that we could refer to.

 

Fred

[Origen 0]

I don't disagree but I don't think it is possible not to involve the topics in the class at some level.  Eventually children will ask where we came from.  I have 6 children, 4 to 24 years, 5 asked by age 6.  Instead of teaching either creation or evolution, just teach the facts as known and allow conclusions to form.  That is education instead of indoctrination.

13705[/snapback]

Yes, I believe you are agreeing with "knowable science." Before College, children should not be taught any form of religious or irreligious values by public school teachers. Their only sole job is to teach knowledge that is knowable and useful to the mental growth of the student. Evolution comes with humanistic relativism and thats why we should protest public schools who force evolution on the youth of America. Give a little power back to the parents and less power from those social eugenicist at Planned Parenthood!

 

I think some people confuse faith with ignorant stupidity because Richard Dawkins said so think that way. Lets face it; if faith is not a lie then it's true. Too often there are clever philosophers that manipulate the issue of Science and Faith when it's actually Politics vs. Science & Faith and our free conscience to chose what we ought to believe and ought not to believe.

Still Further, the greatest scientists of all time that have contibuted much useful feats of knowledge have been Christian. To build a bridge between science and faith is to question whether or not the United States has gone into communism and abandoned freedom of religion and speech in America? Has evolution become the State religion?

Being a former heavy metal vocalist (yeah--I took a piss) I can testify that the music Industry has fashioned evolution AND the occult has normalcy in the form of ritual Darwinism. Most of all the songs today in the Hard Rock world combine the occult and evolution in their lyrics. The Industry are some of the worst Special Interest groups out there on a limb. Their influence has grown into a ginormous following of Devil Worshipping Darwiniacs. I mean this is serious occult and capable of brainwashing a multitude into the NewAge Occult. And all this is done first in politics, for the purpose of legalizing drugs and destroying the right for the Church to remain on State property. Christian metal (or co-called) today is usually owned by secular labels which water down the lyrics and eventually ruin the Christian bands with drugs and idolatry. Music is the biggest form of expression and today's youth can only hear what their peers hear and thats occultic evolution (i.e., theistic evolution; the same mystic faith of Hitler believe it or not. Consider this: The Jesus of Dan Brown is the same Jesus of Hitler! As Jesus would say, "he who has an ear better listen!").

[lwj2op2 1]

I have to agree. The early years should be devoted to basics (the 3 R's, lol) and devoid of social instruction. Childern should be given the tools to build an opinion. Not given an opinion with no tools to test it.

 

I also must admit that our social climate cannot handle that. We have too many parents(?) incapable of social instruction. Our moral pendulum is near the end of a swing. It began moving back and forth with the origin of sin. Ever since it has arched wider with each pass. God stabilized it once with The Flood but we began the motion again. At some point it will swing too far and break the cord; The Second Coming.

[pwnagepanda 0]

that is an interesting idea, but here is my take on it, do not teach any specific theory in the earlier years, but do teach the skills required to do good science (critical thinkking, the scientific method, etc) then when they enter high school, let the ideas be presented to the students, and let them form their own decisions, it would also let them debate each other, which would be good prpactice for real life. Then, when you get into college, you are freed to do more of what you want.

I was in the 9th grade last year and I hated my science class, he didnt teach anything. But, I have been doing some reading and taking other classes on my own, and I am much more educated.

[lwj2op2 1]

that is an interesting idea, but here is my take on it, do not teach any specific theory in the earlier years, but do teach the skills required to do good science (critical thinkking, the scientific method, etc) then when they enter high school, let the ideas be presented to the students, and let them form their own decisions, it would also let them debate each other, which would be good prpactice for real life. Then, when you get into college, you are freed to do more of what you want.

I was in the 9th grade last year and I hated my science class, he didnt teach anything. But, I have been doing some reading and taking other classes on my own, and I am much more educated.

13742[/snapback]

 

I agree and well done for taking the time for excess study.

[Origen 0]

I do not agree that evolution or Creation should be taught in high school. There are book stores out there that can sell both views if a student is interested. To teach evolution in high school is to encourage them to be s*xually active before marriage, or at least full mental maturity. Evolution theory comes with the pseudopsychology of humanism which would be presented by Planned Parenthood. This would (and now does) increase S@xual activity and drug and alchohol use by high school teenagers. Gang violence is justified by evolution theory and this is unexceptable to the average parent who loves their child/ren. Moral relativism is exactly what humanists what for American youths. This way they can continue their rampage of social conditioning (or social eugenics) and breed out the faith in God has they have planned for decades now.

I firmly stict to teachers that teach knowable and understandable Science and History AND without the use of the pseudopsychology of humanism. This is no different from the occultic alchemy of Aleister Crowley. Humanism is evil and no child should have to be abused by these psychic vampires of the Humanist Manifesto. I've seen young children die inside to this brainwashing method and if anyone has seen what I've seen than you'd know that evolution is not for the high school student. We have Christian book stores and churches anyways, and they have book stores for evolution and Blue Lodges for their training in infiltrating. For morals and dogma they have occult book stores for further evolution training.

Seriously, I've seen enough. I know for certain that if an agreement isn't made with the public schools there will be the greatest rise of satanism ever seen in our world's history. Right now the occult is rising in incredible popularity and evolution and humanism is the means of justification. Parents need to know that their children are subject to brainwashing.

I know a person in College who's Professor told his students to infiltrate the churches last Nov. during the election. The goal was to report anything said about the election by any Pastor. Well my friend infiltrated the Seventh Day Baptist Church and other students chose the church of their choice. Now g*y marriage was a big-issue that election so its obvious a church Pastor will encourage congregation members to vote. Now the Professor is teaching his students that this kind of behavior is unconstitutional, because it violates the so-called separation of church and state clause. He claims that church Pastors brainwash everyone at church and they should not have the civil right to encourage the vote. Sound like Sweden? It better! In Sweden the state dictates what the Church will teach, and a preacher in Sweden was arrested for preaching against H*m*s*xuality by calling it sin. Their trying to do the same in the States.

So I think I've been more than reasonable when I say that evolution should not be taught in high school. The public schools will only teach propaganda and lie about all history, including the fact of the Holocaust. Its bad enough that many College Professors teach conspiracy theory and deny the Holocaust and teach Dan Brown. We must ask ourselves if the Board of Education in America has $old out to Naziism? Its my firm belief that something must be done.

Has for that person I knew in College? He was a friend. That is, until his passion for marijuana and secularism torn us apart. I am now an enemy of the state in his eyes. Thats two friends I've had that have become consumed with Dar-Vader and have dedicated their lives to legalizing drugs and illegalizing Christianity. Hyper relativism is the game; a game that doesn't have a name. On the Internet I see the same thing on many forums. Relativism due to occultic evolutionists has increased ginormously.

[Zedekiah Dacorath 0]

Just curious, Origen, what biology courses are you talking about that advocate satanism, secular humanism and h*m*s*xuality? I'd be especially interested in the satanism aspect, not understanding how the two could be connected in the least.

[pwnagepanda 0]

origen. Wow. I wish I could rant like that. That is far and beyond anyhting that I could aspire to with my rants.

btw, do you happen to have any avidence for any of these ideas, and would you mind telling us where we could find it? (the bible does not count in this case, also, how about some refutable websites with the information)

Any how, here is my evidence to the contrary: I have sgtated before that I aam a 15 year old highschool student. My entire school is taught evolution as part of the curriculum, I have one through it twice in normal classes and then agasin in Ap Biology. However, I do accept that evolution happened without divine intervention, and I am not a member of a gang, I do not do drugs, I do not drink alchohol, I am not s*xually active (I mam not married), am not a Satanist, Do not believein the paranormal, occult, etc.etc, in fact i think that they are laughable attempts to scam people. As for others who I know, I am not aware of any who are in gangs, and if there are any, they probably were either cutting class when we went ov er e volution, don't care, and are not really aware of it. In high school, it is a widely known facgt that a lot of people use recreational drugs and drink alchohol. Again, most of these people were probably doing these things before they learned about evolution, or evolution has no impact on thesee activities whatsoever. I have never heard Evolution cited as justification for these activities before I was enlighttened by your response. I also hink that the reason that other teenagers participate in these activities, probably has more to do with peer pressure and simply being a tenager thanb anything else. For ssatanism, I personnally like black metal music, which involves satan wuite a bit, but I personally think tht Satan does not exist, and even if he did, that he would not have many worshippers, and those that did follow him would be doing to be cool, not because they actually liked Satan. A for the occult, I have also never seenit linked to evolution beforre, but I can assure you that if it has become popular with teenagers, that is probably jsut teenagers being stupid.

Now, in your post, you talked about humanism, wuite a bit. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but most people view the Renaissance as a good part of our history because it is when we came out of the middle ages, which were nto so nice. One thing that made the Renaissance unique from the middle ages, was the fact that many artists, became humanists, and stopped focusing their works on the Bible, but more on History, philosophy, and society. That all sounds pretty good to me. However, i think that you may have been referring to Naturalism when you talked about Humanism. As for naturalism, I think that it is a good trend becaus eit keeps people rooted in reality, which I think is a very good thing.

I do not exactly know what you are refferring to with the "supposied" separation of church and state, but I believe that that can be easily found in the first amendment of the constitution, which is still highly regarded in some circles.

You told an anecdote about the college professor and his studentsw, but I do think that preachers telling their congregation how to vote is not a violation of the separation of church and state because they all still ahve the choice to vote however they like. If the anecdote is true, then what he did was improper, but it still would have been a good lesson in how other people infuluence the vote.

I have no idea what yoou are talking about when you talk about propaganda and lies about history in the public schools, as I have personally bnever experienced either of them.

I do not think that anyone is necessarily trying to illegalize christianity, but some may be trying to increase the separation of church and state. Legalizing marijuana, well, i personally think that it should stay illegal for personal reasons, but i can understand those who want to legalize it.

 

In summary, your reply was full of non sequitirs, linking correlation with causation, and other logical fallacies.

 

sorry about this, but I amy have to spread this around the internet and see what others think.

 

(;- Ben Odenheimer

[ikester7579 19]

I'm closing this thread for reveiw. It may or may not reopen.

 

Thread was closed because it's going in all different directions.

 

The subject of this thread is science vs faith.

 

I'm reopening the thread. But the thread needs to stay on subject of the title. If you are going to use different ideas, then you need to show how it relates to the subject title of thread.

 

If you need to say something out of bounds of the subject, then put: On a side note: .... In this way it shows other members they don't have to discuss your side note, but they read it anyway.

 

One of the main things we try and do at this forum is keep subject of debate on track. And allow branch off subjects for new threads.

[Geode 2]

I'm closing this thread for reveiw. It may or may not reopen.

 

Thread was closed because it's going in all different directions.

 

The subject of this thread is science vs faith.

 

I'm reopening the thread. But the thread needs to stay on subject of the title. If you are going to use different ideas, then you need to show how it relates to the subject title of thread.

 

If you need to say something out of bounds of the subject, then put: On a side note: .... In this way it shows other members they don't have to discuss your side note, but they read it anyway.

 

One of the main things we try and do at this forum is keep subject of debate on track. And allow branch off subjects for new threads.

13753[/snapback]

After three years nobody has made a new post about this interesting topic. I think many if not most who post in this forum take a position based upon faith. They read articles supporting evolutionary theory or they read articles in support of creationism and decide to support one viewpoint or the other, trusting that the opinions of those they have encountered are correct based upon whatever background knowledge they already possess, or the persuasiveness of the authors they encounter. Some don't even bother to do that and simply choose to accept or believe an idea has substance based upon their pre-extisting "worldview" (as it is often termed here).

 

I have faith in Jesus Christ. I believe the Bible contains His teachings about His gospel. I had what I believe was a spirtual witness to this effect. Can I provide somebody with scientific evidence that this is a correct viewpoint? Not in my opinion, they would have to accept on faith that I am telling them about what for me was a very real experience. If they wish to gain the same faith in Christ, they need to find it for themselves. It is the same way in science. You can accept what others have written based on faith that they did the proper research to reach conclusions based upon the evidence at hand.

 

In doing a thesis involving biostratigraphy and carbonate depositional environments

I first researched what other workers had found in the equivalent rocks. I measured the thickness of a section of limstone and dolomite and came up with a lower number than one of my professors had found decades earlier. I went back and took more care, and found that I had measured right through a fault without noticing it. Some of the thickness in my section had been "faulted out" and when accounted for my measurement was within a foot of the professors over hundreds of feet of section. The fault occured after the rocks had lithified and there was no soft sediment defomation on either side of the contact. It also terminated and was covered by a limestone beds that were not cut by the fault. According to one of the principles of geology (cross-cutting relationships) this allows the upper strata to be regarded as younger. An unconformity was present just below the first bed not cut by the fault, with signs of sub-aerial erosion.

 

I researched the life forms that had been found fossilized in the same formations by past workers, and I generally found the same fossils. I methodically went about this study, carefully noting where I found fossils in the sections I studied. I dissolved several pounds of limestone to obatian and classify the conodonts within them. These are microfossils. The only real difference I found to prior workers was finding a single brachiopod that had never been reported as far west as the location I was studying. But the corals, condonts, brachiopods, etc. were all consistent with previous work. The lowermost rocks had been assigned as Upper Devonian because of the fossil assemblage within them. At the top of the section the fossil content was different, those forms in the base of the outcrops were no longer present and new ones had taken their place. The same forms were present hundreds of miles away in the same association. I no longer needed to take the prior studies upon faith, I had done the research to establish what actually was present in the rocks, and the ranges of the fossil life. Workers have found that conodonts stop appearing in the rock record in strata deposited higher in the section than my study. They seem to have vanished and nevr appear again in successively higher strata. Do I believe them? Well, several workers have found the same results, and yes I do. I think if I went out and studied the same rocks I would come to the same conclusions. But I guess you could say that I hold to this opinion because I have faith in their abililites, and the fact that many workers have found the same evidence.

 

Do I need to have faith that specific rocks can be typified by ther fossil content? No, I have evidence that this is the case from several studies. I have actually witnessed this for myself.

 

One limestone layer I found was typified by stromatolites that were indistinguishable from modern stromatolites forming today. My conclusion was that this limestone most likely was deposited in the similar hypersaline, shallow water in which we find them forming today.

 

 

There was a lack of bioturbation in the grey limestone I found them in, which is consistent with their modern deposition. Bioturbation is caused by boring creatures, etc. basically eating their way through the soft lime mud before it lithifies. There were basically no fossils present except the stromatolites.

 

 

Many of the corals were found in situ or in the place they had lived and in the same attitude, and were rather delicate. This allowed a verification that the rocks were not overturned, as did the stromatolites. The branches of these corals (measuring up to about a foot in height) were incased in fine-grained limestone. Obviously the limestone bed they were found within was deposited rather quickly, and not in the millions of years I frequently see cited when setting up a strawman about what non-creationist geologists hold true.

 

 

However, I found crinoid debris and never a crinoid in "growth position"...neither were the abunadant horn corals, that probably did not attach themselves on the bottom in contrast to Syringopora .

 

A study of the limestones in thin section revealed evidence of deposition in shallow water. Intraformational clasts showed some re-working of already lithified material. The clasts were not formed at the same time as the matrix material.

 

Some of the largest fossils were found in the strata furthest uphill in the outcrops I studied, but the grain size of the limestones was often the same, indicating similar "energy" in the environment in terms of currents or wave action.

 

So I have faith in Christ and some first hand knowledge through scientific study that what is seen in the rocks of the past can be compared with the environments where rocks are presently being deposited and that a correspondence in almost all factors except the life forms present can be established. I found similar rocks with fossils unlike modern forms.

 

I can either accept or reject learned opinions about the dating of these rocks. It was not necessary for me to concern myself with this in order to do the study. I did need to correlate using fossils. It worked very well. Virtially the same assemblages were found across distance in outcrop. However, although analysis throughout the section indicated a variation in water depths during deposition, it also was indicated that the water was never more than a few tens of meters deep. Some limestones showed micro-lamination, typically an indication of low-energy waters. The young earth models I have seen postulated do not account for what I found.

[PhilC 1]

Fascinating! There are things in there such as the rapid formation of limestone which, as Geode says, YEC people claim that evolutionists say did not happen. Geode presents evidence that it does happen in such a way that does not misrepresent the science but uses it to show that it has to be so.

 

He also includes his personal testimony of his faith in such a way that there is nothing that I, non-believer, could argue with.

 

Surely this is an excellent marriage of faith and science.

 

Thank you, Geode, I found that very interesting indeed.