Hi Russ,

Many of the points in your posts have been addressed here but I'll pick up a few.



The thing is, there's the fossil record. Some species can be traced back in it for millions of years, such as foraminifera.

Then there's the geological column, and dating methods. In the Grand Canyon thread, at least three of these were discussed: uranium and cosmogenic dating (which measure the amount of time a surface has been exposed to the sun), and radiometric dating. So far the only attempt a creationist here has made to discredit radiometric dating has consisted of semantic obfuscation and a convincing demonstration of a lack of understanding of the maths and science involved in the subject. For me, scientific dating methods (including the agreement in dates when different labs compare their results) are very strong evidence for an old earth. If you wanted to claim that these methods are erroneous, which is easy, then you would need to provide some evidence for why this is so -- maybe not so easy, but you are welcome to attempt to do so.

There's also genetic evidence of relationships among species. It can also show us which species are not directly related: neanderthals and homo sapiens, for example.

Contrary to your claim above, this is all science. There are many scientific discussions here also which have been developed by evolutionists. I am always asking creationists to explain how creationism is scientific but to date I have never received a straightforward answer to this question.



We can see evidence of evolution in the fossil record and genetics, and of an old earth in the geological column and via dating methods. These aspects of physical reality appear to me to be no more opposed to the Bible than gravity or the moon going round the earth. What's more, the first scientists who began amassing evidence for an old earth were Christian creationists. I don't expect they were deliberately setting out to discredit the Bible when they studied rock strata. They wanted to learn about the world around them and made some interesting discoveries.

One more point here. You said:


This is news to me. Can you provide a quote?

I'm not an atheist and I'm not anti-religion. We all know that religion can function as social control, though this is not always the case, and when it does it's not always a bad thing. If the social control is to tell people to behave themselves and not be nasty to one another, then I can't imagine anyone would object to it. I'd rather not have a dogma tell me what to do, personally, though that doesn't mean I don't also live by a moral code.

I know a lot of theistic evolutionists. Attempts here to portray evolution as a social system which requires people to be atheistic, amoral and hedonistic, are obvious straw men because while you might be able to find a quote from someone who thinks this is so, the vast majority of people who accept evolution see it as no more or less than part of reality in the same way that the earth orbits the sun. Accepting that there is a change in heritable traits in populations over time does not mean that we are obliged to behave in a certain way, nor does it mean we must abandon religion.