Evolution vs. Creationism

[Zhukov]

#1 The fossil record is NO proof of evolution, at all.

Why not?

#2 Adaption of species on the galpagos(sp) islands, you said it yourself, it's adaption, NOT evolution

Evolution is the adaptation of species over generations.

#3 there is absolutely NO scientific proof to disprove creation, while there are tons of facts to disprove evolution
shall i get into them?

Science doesn't deal with the questions of theology. Everything science can prove could have been created by a god or not.

Again it's only a matter of what one chooses to believe.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by deciophobic
I do

Then we'll start simple.

http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/biol114/Chap09/Chap09A.html

How would you explain the existence of conserved sequences of DNA nucleotides over species?

 

[deciophobic]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Why not?



Evolution is the adaptation of species over generations.



Science doesn't deal with the questions of theology. Everything science can prove could have been created by a god or not.

Again it's only a matter of what one chooses to believe.

the fossil record is so screwed up it's not even funny, they find human bones alongside dinosaur bones, they find shoe prints stepping on mollusks(supposdly millions of years old)...there are just so many examples why the fossil record is a joke.

that's a nice trick, saying evolution is adaption of species aver time...what about the other types of evolution (like macro, cosmic etc. with no proof of those) adaption is an example of MICRO evolution, really it shouldn't even be called evolution it should be called variations. variations is actually the opposite of evolution, because you're losing genetic information, not getting better.

one more thing, for people who belive in the bg bang, how did something comefrom nothing?

how did the ori

 

[deciophobic]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Then we'll start simple.

http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/biol114/Chap09/Chap09A.html

How would you explain the existence of conserved sequences of DNA nucleotides over species?

very easily...a common designer.

the lugnuts from a honda will fit onto a buick, but that doesn't mean they both evolved from a chevy billions of years ago.

 

[deciophobic]

i'm going now, but i would love to discuss this more.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by deciophobic
very easily...a common designer.

That is what I assumed you would say, and that is what you'll say to everything, so really what's the point?

really it shouldn't even be called evolution it should be called variations

That's what it is. Chance genetic variations of single generations, mutations, are constant. Some mutations are beneficial and are passed on. That's evolution.

the fossil record is so screwed up it's not even funny, they find human bones alongside dinosaur bones

The spatial location of fossils with respect to other bones is infinitely less important than the age of those fossils. Do you not believe in carbon dating?

one more thing, for people who belive in the bg bang, how did something comefrom nothing

The same way god did.

I for one don't believe 'nothing' preceeded the big bang. I believe existence is infinite, without begining or end, just like your god.

that's a nice trick, saying evolution is adaption of species aver time

Trick? That's what evolution is. There is no direction or goal of evolution, nor is there a billion year long plan. Evolution is the natural result of nature selecting to retain specific transcription errors in DNA replication which by shere chance happen to be beneficial to the recipient.

the other types of evolution...cosmic

There is plenty of evidence for the evolution of planetary systems from interstellar dusts, but I don't see what that has to do with the biological form of evolution.

 

[Big D]

http://www.freewebs.com/humanfamilytree03k/australopithecusfamily.htm

 

[Palestinian Jew]

My belief is that God created everything and then set it into motion, a sort of hybrid of creationism and evolution.

But here is one try to disprove all-out creationism:

1) If God created everything in seven days, how come the sun was created billions of years before man walked on the earth, (proven through carbon dating)?

2) Why did the Dinosaur come before man?

3) Why come there aren't any homosapien bodies carbon dated farther back then homo habilis?

Have fun with those!

 

[Palestinian Jew]

If life can come out of a puddle of water, is that still happening to this day or is there any proof of a totally new organism unlike any other having been created? Could be a point against evolutionism.

 

[NewGuy]

Carbon dating:

Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, this topic always comes up.

First: explaination of how carbon dating works and then, the assumptions it is based on.

Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc.

In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years.

Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950's. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon.

Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Example:

If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.

The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants breathe CO2 and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the less carbon-14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5,730 years old (the sample has gone through one half life), and so on.

Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. An illustration may help:

Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assumes an initial height of the candle. The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.

 

[NewGuy]

Potassium Argon dating:

Potassium Argon dating is based on many of the same assumptions and gives wild dates shown below. Since so many wrong dates are found, how would we know which dates are "correct?"

For years the KBS tuff, named for Kay Behrensmeyer, was dated using Potassium Argon (K-Ar) at 212-230 Million years. See Nature, April 18, 197, p. 226. Then skull #KNM-ER 1470 was found (in 1972) under the KBS tuff by Richard Leakey. It looks like modern humans but was dated at 2.9 million years old. Since a 2.9 million year old skull cannot logically be under a lava flow 212 million years old many immediately saw the dilemma. If the skull had not been found no one would have suspected the 212 million year dates as being wrong. Later, 10 different samples were taken from the KBS tuff and were dated as being .52- 2.64 Million years old. (way down from 212 million. Even the new "dates" show a 500% error!) Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow, pp. 247-266

Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (122 BC) gave K-AR age of 250,000 years old.

Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55. See also: Impact #307 Jan. 1999

Lava from the 1801 Hawaiian volcano eruption gave a K-Ar date of 1.6 Million years old.

Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55. See also: Impact #307 Jan. 1999

Basalt from Mt. Kilauea Iki, Hawaii (AD 1959) gave K-AR age of 8,500,000 years old. Impact #307 Jan. 1999

Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (AD 1972) gave K-AR age of 350,000 years old. Impact #307 Jan. 1999, See: www.icr.org for lots more on dating methods.

In addition to the above assumptions, dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy. If a date obtained by radiometric dating does not match the assumed age from the geologic column the radiometric date will be rejected.

The so-called geologic column was developed in the early 1800's over a century before there were any radiometric dating methods. "Apart from very 'modern' examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils."Ager, Derek V., "Fossil Frustrations," New Scientist, vol. 100 (November 10, 1983), p. 425. Laboratories will not carbon date dinosaur bones (even frozen ones which could easily be carbon dated) because dinosaurs are supposed to have lived 70 million years ago according to the fictitious geologic column. An object's supposed place on the geologic column determines the method used to date it. There are about 7 or 8 radioactive elements that are used today to try to date objects. Each one has a different half-life and a different range of ages it is supposed to be used for. No dating method cited by evolutionists is unbiased.

A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:

Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61

Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637

A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p.211

"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.
--Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30.

"One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000.
--Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30

"The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY.
--In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124

The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 670 and 16,150 230 years respectively."
--In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124

"A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, [Carl] Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years— a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans."
--Kaufman, Leslie, "Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us?" Newsweek (December 23, 1996), p. 52.

"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first."
--O’Rourke, J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54

 

[acludem]

The real issue is this: Creationism is based solely on the notion of some higher being. Without the higher being, creationism cannot exist as a theory. If one rejects the notion of the higher being or creator, then creationism is out the window.

Evolution however, remains silent on the starting point. It only argues that the species have changed and adapted over time. This is irrefutably true. The best example is humankind itself. In our human history we have become on average taller, thicker, and live far longer now. Why? Natural selection has created a taller human species. How did this happen? Simple, women like tall men (not that this bodes well for me as a short person). Women are also becoming taller on average for the same reason. Human beings have evolved over time.

The most common misconception is that evolution theory and creation theory are absolutely mutually exclusive. They are not. Darwin remained silent on the beginning point. Could it be that some creator started the proverbial ball rolling and then stepped back to let nature take it's course? According to Darwin, absolutely.

acludem

 

[MarieL]

Ok" I will give u a simple one, have a friend analyze the components of the amnioic fluid of a woman during pregnancy. The components will match most of the components found in the
chemical composition if the sea. Meaning we evolved from creatures in the sea.
I will now give u a harder one. What happens when a race of people unconsciously believe (the Bible have been manipulated by the elders of a church to fit their business purpose, i.e we all know Jesus was not born on the 25th of December, but in reality around July, etc) that God made them to his own image?

What happens when these same people realize that men(meaning mankind) comit horrible crimes. How can God (the creator create Good and Evil?) As He put man in the Garden Of Eden, as an afterthought, remember he created animals first and everything else, He decided to give Man a Woman. And He does the rib thing!!

As the evolutions of Man in the religious world becomes more convoluted, we struggle to understand why Mankind is so mean. Meaning that if GOD created Man in his own image, therefore GOD is both Good and Evil. As, we refuse to accept that, because if we did, we would go totally crazy, we logicallize, and we continue to create(as we did before) and then we create the embodiment of Evil. Satan!!

So, to save ourselves from ourselves, we create a creature (as we created God) on which we can bestow all evil. So when we
find in our midsts evil, either against the weakest , women, children, as we have been brainwashed to not take responsibility for our own deeds, as we can put it all on the God's shoulders, we justify everything, as we are nothing but cowards, and one of the things we do, is become Creationists. We are always looking for excuses, and we always are able to create them.

Come back to me with all you've got!!

 

[NewGuy]

Carl Sagan and other prominent scientists have estimated the chace of man evolving at roughly 1 in 10^2,000,000,000. -Carl Sagan, F.H.C. Crick, L.M. Muchin in Carl Sagan, ed., Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 45-46

This is a figure with two billion zeros after it and could be written out in about 20,000 booklets the size of 4"wide x 6"tall at 50 pages each.

According to Borel's Law, this is no chance at all. In fact, this chance is so infinitely small it is not even conceivable.

For argument's sake, lets take an infinitely more favorable view toward the chance that evolution MIGHT occur. What if the chances are only 1 in 10^1000?

Even this figure is infinitely above Borel's single law of chance (1 chance in 10^50) --beyond which, simply put, events never occur. -Emile Borel,Probabilities and Life(New York: Dover, 1962), Chapters 1 and 3; Borel's cosmic limit of 10^200 changes nothing.

Batter up?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by MarieL
Ok" I will give u a simple one, have a friend analyze the components of the amnioic fluid of a woman during pregnancy. The components will match most of the components found in the
chemical composition if the sea. Meaning we evolved from creatures in the sea.

:

Are you serious?

I found iron in my car. I have iron in my blood. I must have evolved from a car.

I will now give u a harder one. What happens when a race of people unconsciously believe (the Bible have been manipulated by the elders of a church to fit their business purpose, i.e we all know Jesus was not born on the 25th of December, but in reality around July, etc) that God made them to his own image?

That belief in the image by the way, is Biblical text, not opinion. The date is not in the Bible. What you refer to is differences in calendars and the choices of which each society used at a particular time caused a discrepency in dates. The December 25th is a representative date, not the factual one.

What happens when these same people realize that men(meaning mankind) comit horrible crimes. How can God (the creator create Good and Evil?) As He put man in the Garden Of Eden, as an afterthought, remember he created animals first and everything else, He decided to give Man a Woman. And He does the rib thing!!

So, how does this "rib thing" mean anything absurd to you when we have cloning?

As the evolutions of Man in the religious world becomes more convoluted, we struggle to understand why Mankind is so mean. Meaning that if GOD created Man in his own image, therefore GOD is both Good and Evil.

The definition of image is one of likeness. It usually refers to the visible properties. It also never means exact duplicate of. Your logic assuming God to be evil therefore holds no weight.

As, we refuse to accept that, because if we did, we would go totally crazy, we logicallize, and we continue to create(as we did before) and then we create the embodiment of Evil. Satan!!

No, this is Biblical text, not a ghost story we created. If you need to debate authenticity of Biblical text, we can do that in another thread since it would overwhelm this one.

So, to save ourselves from ourselves, we create a creature (as we created God) on which we can bestow all evil. So when we
find in our midsts evil, either against the weakest , women, children, as we have been brainwashed to not take responsibility for our own deeds, as we can put it all on the God's shoulders, we justify everything, as we are nothing but cowards, and one of the things we do, is become Creationists. We are always looking for excuses, and we always are able to create them.

Again, we created nothing. Biblical text.

Come back to me with all you've got!!

What is your next point?

 

[Zhukov]

What about Uranium series with Thorium-230, which is reliable up to 350,000 years ago?

Carl Sagan and other prominent scientists have estimated the chace of man evolving at roughly 1 in 10^2,000,000,000.

So what?

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Carl Sagan and other prominent scientists have estimated the chace of man evolving at roughly 1 in 10^2,000,000,000. -Carl Sagan, F.H.C. Crick, L.M. Muchin in Carl Sagan, ed., Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 45-46

This is a figure with two billion zeros after it and could be written out in about 20,000 booklets the size of 4"wide x 6"tall at 50 pages each.

According to Borel's Law, this is no chance at all. In fact, this chance is so infinitely small it is not even conceivable.

For argument's sake, lets take an infinitely more favorable view toward the chance that evolution MIGHT occur. What if the chances are only 1 in 10^1000?

Even this figure is infinitely above Borel's single law of chance (1 chance in 10^50) --beyond which, simply put, events never occur. -Emile Borel,Probabilities and Life(New York: Dover, 1962), Chapters 1 and 3; Borel's cosmic limit of 10^200 changes nothing.

Batter up?

At least you didn't cut and paste it verbatim.

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0402.pdf

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
At least you didn't cut and paste it verbatim.

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0402.pdf

I don't think you can cut and paste a pdf. In any case, does that make this information any less viable? The sources are scientific leaders. While others give links to articles of opinion or little strands of science that need an entire picture, I have given a whole contextual proof.

This makes evolution and carbon dating reasonable only by using more faith than believing a God created us while looking at other Biblical accounts of scientific theory and prophecy as well.

Prove my information false.

The idea was to prove either side. I have proven the science of evolution to be to remote for possibility.

I have proven carbon dating to be wrong.

Anything utilizing these two things as foundation is therefore unfounded.

 

[Hobbit]

I've been saying this for years, yet everyone keeps telling me how their view is more valid because it's backed by "science," while mine's only backed by "scripture." Science seems to be as infallable to liberals as the Bible is to Christians. That's interesting, considering it was only a few years ago that scientists were saying that it was aerodynamically impossible for a bumblebee to fly. I remember reading the article explaining why they do fly. Also, remember this: 1000 years ago, science was that the Earth was flat and lead could be alchemically transmuted into gold. 500 years ago, science was that the sun revolved around the Earth, and several celestial bodies had sub-orbits. 100 years ago, bathing in Hot Springs was supposed to have miracle-like healing properties above and beyond the soothing properties of hot water. 50 years ago, your tonsils were worthless. 10 years ago, your appendix was worthless. Science keeps second-guessing itself every few years, while religion remains constant. Personally, I'm going with the theory that remains constant to be more likely to be correct.

 

[NewGuy]

Isaiah speaking in 700 BC correctly identified the Earth's shape.

Isaiah 40: 22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

The literal Hebrew word is "khug" or circle. It is said "sphere" is the more correct meaning of the word.

There is quite a bit of science in the Bible, but people don't think about it.