Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Creationism vs Evolution

Unless you can prove otherwise. Most things we don't know the dates. Like what was said earlier different methods of dating are flawed.

Like I said before, Neither the bible nor Science can prove exact dates. That would be a pointless neverending discussion on how old things are.

Now whether things were created or evolved. That can be discussed.

Viss, you hit on it but didn't make a big enough deal of it... you folks make it sound like everything that has ever died and fallen to the ground ends up fossilized! The conditions that must be present for fossilization to occur are known and are VERY specific. The incredible majority of things that have lived on this earth most likely have NO fossils anywhere. Furthermore, considering those that do exist could be anywhere in the depth of the crust of the earth, what you think of as "years of excavation" hasn't even scratched the surface! Heck, we're finding new LIVING animals all the time, finding a fossil for each of the extinct ones most likely will never happen.

Creationists constantly use arguements based on things that don't exist anywhere anymore in any fashion, why can't they accept some of the evolutionists?

Can it?? This "discussion" will never end. I am forever done on this subject. I believe stuff like this should not be allowed on this board. www.contour.org should not be used to discuss relgious beliefs. I don't a damn what you believe, so don't tell me. Keep it off the board!!

-Antonio

I'm trying to remember the name of the method, but it is used more frequently for dating older objects, as it has a much longer half life.

In terms of the topic itself. Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. Both can be correct, and both can be wrong.

I do think those who are putting everything together in one timeframe are overlooking a lot of scientific evidence, stretching a tiny minority (usually found to have problems in research technique) into their whole theory. The evidence supporting the existence of a long timeframe strongly outweighs the evidence that doesn't. I don't even know of any theologians that are trying to say the earth isn't a few billion years old.

Personally, I think evolution did occur over eons, and that it was directed by a Creator.

As far as the age of the Earth there are natural monuments to it age. Like the Grand Canyon and Pangea, I hope the Earth isn't only a couple of thousand years old call in a few millienia Alaska and Russia are going to have some problems.

Ok, bigwalton, I agree that a HUGE majority of remains have not fossilized. You mention the conditions necessary for fossilization: what are they? How long does it take? How do you know how long it takes?

Viss1, you say that most vertebrates, in fact, appear very similar in embryo form. In my mind, that lends even more credibility to a common Designer.

Also, you said that you are amazed that any fossils have been found at all, given all the geological events that have happened. I think you just jumped over to my point of view. The fact that we have found any fossils after all the so called millions of years is amazing!

Well according to scientists using radioactive uranium dating they have found a zircon crystal that is 4.4 billion years old. Any other b.s. theories to disprove that. I will cite the source as soon as I find the damn article.

One method being used to measure the age of fossils is called radiocarbon dating. This dating system measures the rate of decay of radioactive carbon from the point of death of the organism. “Once an organism dies, it no longer absorbs new carbon dioxide from its environment, and the proportion of the isotope falls off over time as it undergoes radioactive decay,” states Science and Technology Illustrated.

However, there are severe problems with the system. First, when the fossil is considered to be about 50,000 years old, its level of radioactivity has fallen so low that it can be detected only with great difficulty. Second, even in more recent specimens, this level has fallen so low that it is still extremely difficult to measure accurately. Third, scientists can measure the present-day rate of radioactive carbon formation but have no way of measuring carbon concentrations in the distant past.

So whether they use the radiocarbon method for dating fossils or other methods, such as employing radioactive potassium, uranium, or thorium, for dating rocks, scientists are unable to establish the original levels of those elements through ages of time. Thus, professor of metallurgy Melvin A. Cook observes: “One may only guess these concentrations [of radioactive materials], and the age results thus obtained can be no better than this guess.”

Viss1, you say that most vertebrates, in fact, appear very similar in embryo form. In my mind, that lends even more credibility to a common Designer.
Or the theory that all life evolved from a simple, single-celled organism.

Also, you said that you are amazed that any fossils have been found at all, given all the geological events that have happened. I think you just jumped over to my point of view. The fact that we have found any fossils after all the so called millions of years is amazing!

I'm also amazed that Ralf Schumacher won the Malaysian Grand Prix. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Man, where is EdwardC? I thought he would be all up in this discussion!

Wow, ASSVT!! You should send that article to Dr. Kent Hovind! He offers $250k for evidence of evolution. Oh, wait, that doesn't prove evolution.... never mind.......

Scientist date one rock to be billions of years old. Then they should be able to do that to ALL rocks.