Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Creationism vs Evolution

I will be busy with work today, so I will not be able to answer as quickly as I would like. However, I will be answering the points brought up by the evolutionist. Now we have something to discuss!

A double blind study Dave, in short, is a control group test where neither the evaluator nor the subject knows which items are controls. This is supposed to reduce bias, self deception and error.

Dave wrote:

I have been wanting to ask someone about this very thing. Are the fossils that are found actually complete ? Are they even half complete ? When you read the fine print on the museum table in front of a lot of fossil proof for evolution, usually there are only a few fossils (1 or 2, maybe 3 ) and the rest is an artists interpretation, or a reconstruction of what they think it looked like. Are there any interesting complete works that can be viewed ?

One of the most recent T-rex fossil discoveries is OVER 90% of an adult animal. [some of the tail is missing] It was found, as most T-rex are, in Montana. It's funny, it was actually on the discovery channel last night. The big bone of contention is not IF T-rex existed, but rather if he was a predator, or a scavenger. Facinating discussions from top scientists in the field. Just thought I'd share

??????

There will never be a biblical approach, and explanation for aliens.. they do not exist, The Bible is clear on that. I have made the arguement already once in this post.. as for cave drawings.. I have there are many that include dinosaurs, and psoropauds..
Dave andrews... once again I have answered what you say, and still you insist on slandering us.. I have reasoned with you that what you call micro evolution.. has infact nothing to do with species developing new or better somethings... What you call microevolution is a miss nomer... for exactly that reason.. if we can name something real such as natural selection, with a name that includes evolution... its reality will help our floundering theory.. it will lend credence.

The problem with the evidence you call on.. such as all these "prehistoric people", is that you see plaster casts, and not the real thing. I don't have time to cataloue the whole book for you, but if you could find a few hours on some sunny afternoons, you could read the book entitled Buried Alive. Authors personal thoughts aside.. he is a 20 year plus orthodontist, and has
written in his book about his many encounteres with the real fossils. I guess most people take it for granted that a fossil expert has nothing to prove by doctoring his fossils, but lets be objective. People that dig up bones may have a rudimentary knowledge of the skeleton, but would they really be able to place pieces together. And if they do (which I am sure some are more than capable of being experts in more than one field) will they place the fossils together in such a manner as to further their story. Bear in mind, that their funding comes from sources that are only interested in certain things. If their bones don't seem to match up, they make them match up.
A lot of what you see in the museums have gone through this doctoring stage. Again, you will say things like "I can't beleive he said that", but have you ever seen the real fossils... Are you not even a little bit skeptical of people that produce studies, but are heavily biased because of their funding sources...
Regardless.. major evolutionists would agree that there are some serious problems with the fossils and the way they are shown to the public. If you have nothing to hide, then bring it forward. Don't show us a plaster cast, so us the real thing, incomplete, and cracked.

I understand that superficially atleast, all these pithecines seem incredible.. but find out how many are debated by people in your own camp, then find out the different dating methods used, and the many different dates for the bones.. etc...

"Lucy... a three foot tall australopithecine. 40% of her skeleton was recovered. Since she was beleived to be more than 3 million years old, her completness was most unusual; At a 3 million year age, paleoanthropologists expect only a few bits and pieces." (first clue your age idea is wrong)
Bone of contention, marvin lubenow

I would have to type out half the book to continue to show in great detail how the things you take for granted simply don't appear. The reason we say where is some of this tons of evidence, is that we would like some real evidence. Fossilized bones, being subject to fit into a preconcieved notion of evolution can not be used as a good proof of evolution. You started with the idea that evolution is true. you then say that because of these bones it is true. But the bones don't really fit the story, so you simply modify the date of the bones. Use a different dating method.
We are probably going to argue this back and forth for a long time (this post hasn't been the most productive yet) but I would say to the serious person, read some books about where the fossil dates need to be.. .according to evolution.. the fossils need to be x age... now.. if they are not, they use different dating methods, until one erroneous number agrees with their age. Read up thoroughly (sp) and see if your basic assumptions about dates are right! Gotta eat.. (must be an annoying evolutionary left over) To bad we couldn't evolve to not have to eat, and just get out energy from the sun!

Hey Dave.. Iam interested to be challenged by your question a "double blind"; study.. I have never heard that used before, but then I don't really read much about human studies, and population studies (which I assume however incorrectly your study methods are used with)
I have been given one example of this by another user a few posts back. Let me know if this is your take on it. I don't see a relevance to proving evolution to it, but nevertheless, I will take up your challenge. Now, I see one small problem with it (very small).. is the "doudle blind" study a universally accepted method for the studiers.. or do the europeans use a different method under the same name. I have no idea, so I am not attacking, just questioning.. I will make an attempt to find out before the end of this week. Please.. if you now any good definition spots let me in on 'em..
thanx..
taxed2poverty.. other personality trait of taxed2death!!! grin

Not having time to read all twelve pages of debate, I will attempt to only comment on the topic at hand.
There will never be a "resolution" between the theories of creationism and evolution, since the debted is rooted in the larger relationship of religion and science. Religion and science are complimentary fields that have the potential to engage in healthy discussion and exist mutually in a dialectic tension. They can learn much from each other, but will never really agree on such matters as the origins of humankind.

In regards to the Bible, it is necessary to remember that the biblical accounts of the creation (note there are two)are stories to make a point about the nature of the Judeo-Christain God. The stories are derived in format from the creation stories of Babylon. The intent of the myth is what matters,not the story.

As for science, I cannot speak to the carbon dating and such specifics as science is not my field. However, I would be inclined to trust the methods of the derivation of emperical data that have developed over the centuries.

dfordham, for a good summary of past and current thought I refer you to chapter four of the book "Systematic Theology: Volume I" edited by Fiorenza and Galvin.

I'm sorry, but are you serious in saying that Aliens don't exist cause the Bible says so?? Do you really believe that in a universe as big as ours, with millions upon millions...probably trillions of other galaxies and solar systems...there isn't ONE planet with the same characteristics as our earth, which make it relatively easy for living organisms to propagate???? I really hope i'm missing something you said because...man that's a really big statement to make with an old book as your only backing.

Aliens don't have to fly around in space ships, or look like us, or anything else for that matter. If there's a little single celled organism flopping around in a puddle of it's own waste trillions of miles away, it's an alien!

Some food for thought...how about the concept that life didn't even begin on earth? Rock fragments that have fallen from space, or are atleast believed to have fallen from space have shown traces of bacteria, etc. Some of which can remain dormant for very long lengths of time. Some have even been "waken up" I believe. Sure that's not to say these things weren't blown off the earth a long time ago by some huge impact, and just by chance found their way back here - but come on, just because it isn't said in the bible doesn't mean it can't be true.

Unusual to you = impossible??? Ok.. THAT makes sense.

As for reconstructing Fossils.. and plaster casts vs. the real thing. NYC Museum of Natural History displays the real thing. And also plaster casts.. with the following "probable reconstruction" or some other wording. I fail to see your point here since many of the reconstructions of say.. a head.. this head only has the eyes and jaw.. however another one on display in Russia has parts of the eyes and the cranial cavity... yep the reconstruction is totally fictitious. Ever seen age regression/progression software?? Pretty amazing stuff.

I'll leave the dating up to someone who's more familiar with the chemistry involved. While I understand rates of decay etc.. I'm out of touch with developments and such.

BTW Lucy is not a homo sapiens sapiens.. she clearly has other bone structures.. so even if she isn't as old as is claimed.. can you explain where she came from?