Being a Christian, the argument of Creation vs. Evolution is very intriguing. The evolutionists believe that the Biblical account of Creation is wrong and the Christians believe that the Theory of Evolution is wrong. So who is right? There are arguments for each account of how life began. The evolutionist believe the earth is millions of years old and the Christians believe the earth is only thousands of years old. Again, who is right?

In addition to being a Christian, I am also an Engineer and I truly enjoy science and logical thinking. However I am not a scientist. I do not pretend to know everything about the theory of evolution and physics. But I have come across some very good arguments against evolution (given by Dr. Kent Hovind) that I would like to discuss in this forum, since there are some very good debaters here (namely EdwardC) that obviously know a great deal about science.

So for our mutual edification, I would like to ask some questions (one at a time of course) so that every one can see both sides of the story. Again, I don't claim to have all of the answers which is why I don't want this to become a heated debate, just a good discussion so that both points of view can be heard. With that being said, question number one:

1) How do evolutionists prove the earth is millions of years old?

well i dont know of any reasons to prove that it is millions of years old and im not a huge scholar in this area but ill give what i know about the subject about why its not millions of years old.

when we first set on the moon, the spacecraft if you remembered had huge dishs as legs so it wouldnt sink in all the dusk that the moon had collected over the millions of years. turns out there was only a few inches. personally i believe the earth is only about a few thousand years old.

also, i cant remember the coments name (haleys comment??) circules around the sun every 70 years if im correct. obviously, if the world was millions of years old the coment would cease to exist because it would be burned up.

i guess, these arent really very strong points but this is all i can pull off the top of my head. however, i think main arguement from creation vs. evolution is wast there a creator and how did man come about?

Wow, definitely opening a can of worms here! OK, here's the age-old evolutionists response: How do you explain the artifacts and other physical proof of life millions of years ago? You are comparing actual, physical, scientific proof to a book written thousands of years ago. But, that's my opinion.

well, my response to that is carbon testing accurate??

and your last statement, are you talking about the bible?

Yes, I believe it is accurate enough to serve it's purpose. Yes, I was referring to the bible. I thought after I posted I might be getting myself into a little trouble referring to it that way, so I apologize if I offended anyone.

I actually had a pastor do a sermon on this the age of the Earth. This is how he explained the existance of artifacts that date back millions of years: Satan is intelligent beyond our understanding. I'm paraphrasing, but he said (and it makes sense to me, also a Christian) that the devil planted dinosaur bones and the like in order to test our faith. Makes us question if God does exist. Kinda like what we are having this discussion about.

To address that Halley's comet issue I'll just say this: do we know how long it has been circling our solar system? It might have been floating through our universe when it got caught by the Sun's gravitation pull. My $.02.

Yeah, I realize that I am opening up a can of worms, but I am curious.

I too want to know how accurate carbon dating is if that is the sole proof that the earth is millions of years old.

No, that's fact. We are comparing modern day scientific findings to a document that was written thousands of years ago.

In my experience, the ones who are convinced that creation is an accurate account of the origin of species, are also those most out of touch with modern day science. There seems to be a very good correlation.

I have found that it is very hard to find people who have spent enough time thinking about the arguments from both sides. It seems that people are either die hard Christians who have spent a significant amount of time being taught by the chruch, parents, or school, and as a results are initially biased to believing the teachings on faith, or you have the others who have little or no exposure to religion at all, and find the idea of religion laughable right from the start of the discussion. As a result, it is hard for either party to ever convince the other of any valid points. Both seem to have blinders on.

If this were not true, I believe that every intelligent discussion that took place on the subject would result in the Christian at least abandoning religion altogether - not necessarily faith in a higher being- but religion.

I personally find it remarkable that I have come from an upbringing of religious exposure and through years of such debate I have slowly abandoned ALL of it. I'm shocked that I could have been so fooled, but thenI realize that it was likely due to my lack of exposure to science.

I hope we all have our blinders off for the debate.

So many opinions, so little time! Hope I can pick this up later - have to get some work done.

Unless I am wrong, the only why scientists can determine the age of objects is by using carbon dating or something similar. And yes, the method of carbon dating is fundamentally flawed. Basically, due to the half-life of carbon 14, most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. If anyone is interested, I can post why it is scientifically flawed, but for brevity, I will just post some evidence why it is flawed:

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

*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 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

*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

kinda off topic about whether the earth is millions of years old but it still retains to creation and whether the bible is true.

lemme put it this way to something similar...for example can you prove world war 1 happened? you may say yes, ive seen pictures, actual guns and such from the war, ive even spoken to "people" from the war, etc. however people can give evidence that it happened, but they cant prove that it happened.

in the same way this is true with the bible. jesus had 12 "people" (the diciples) in which they were to spread the "good news". we have documents from jesus' time that give evidence that he actually existed. there has even people (cant remember the guys name..but ill get it later at home) who have saught out to prove chritianity wrong but have been overwhelmed with the amount of evidence that it actually converted them to a christian. also, there is a man (once again cant remember the name, but ill get it later) who actually believed that jesus died and rose from the dead but didnt believe he was god. we have evidence on christianity, but like i said, we cant prove it.

Ah, but it is on topic to prove that the earth is not millions of years old. Without Time, evolution has no legs to stand on.

cpursor - Great response! But that still leaves the question of the simple existence of the remains. Also, it sounds like some of the disputes of carbon testing are on things that contradict the bible to begin with (ex. wooly mammoth).

Speaking of Dr. Hovind. Check out his website (www.drdino.com), he will give you $250,000 if you can scientifically prove evolution. I know he has intelligently debated many college professors. He poses some really good theories on dinosaurs and the actual age of the Earth.

HAHA ... how convenient. :rolleyes:

I asked my sister the same thing (born-again Christian) and her explanation was that if dinosaurs really existed ( ) then they must have existed in another part of the world where humanity didn't yet exist and thus didn't come in contact with them. But my response was, if the Bible is God's Word and teachings then surely he would have mentioned something about them in there... Truth is, there is no mention because there was no archeology back then so no one had yet uncovered the dinosaur/mammoth relics.

I grew up in the Presbyterian church, and my wife had a strict Catholic upbringing. She and I have been going over this a lot lately. We've watched various programs on history, evolution, the Bible and religious events in an attempt to educate ourselves either way. At this point, we believe in God and Jesus, but think the Bible is just a book written by man to explain history and things he didn't understand (Old Testament) and as a collection of moral lessons to promote Christianity/Catholicism (New Testament). I believe people like Noah and Abraham (if they existed) and Joan of Arc were all just a bit insane and not really spoken to by God. At least that's how they come across to a 21st century, scientifically educated man like myself. I'm not sure whether I believe in God because I want to or because I'm supposed to, but I do find comfort in faith when times are tough. I don't believe in Divine Will or whatever (that everything happens according to God's plan). Genesis is full of contradictions as far as that goes. Or maybe God just hadn't figured out his whole plan yet.

not-so-newsvt, I am not sure what you mean by "But that still leaves the question of the simple existence of the remains." Why can't there be remains that are only 6,000 years old?

The wooly mammoth example (as were all of them) just shows the inaccuracy of carbon dating. The 3 parts that were dated had such a huge spread (9k - 40k years) that how can you even count on the those numbers being correct, or even in the right ball park?

More info on carbon dating: Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. (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.

I am just disputing a method of dating that evolutionists take as being proof of evolution.

If the Earth is only a few thousand years old, wouldn't that mean man roamed the Earth at the same time as all the dinosaurs - even the meat-eating ones? Man and dinosaur bones have been found in the same areas. Tough to believe T-Rex and man could coexist peacefully, especially given their vastly different dietary and environmental needs.

As for "satan planting the bones to test our faith," well, one could use that argument against anything. Problem is, if we're just going to dismiss anything that contradicts the church as evil magic, why bother doing any research or expanding our scientific knowledge at all?

Ok, who is to say that dinosaurs weren't created at the same time as man? We have been taught by evolutionist that dinosaurs lived before man. Why do they say this? Because of carbon dating? Well, I told you before what I think of carbon dating. Also, ponder this:

Job 40: 15-24
15 "Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly!
17 His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron.
19 He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.
20 The hills bring him their produce, and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants he lies, hidden among the reeds in the marsh.

I know that it is hard not to get off topic on this subject, but let's try to stick to the original post. The orginal post wanted a discussion on Creation vs. Evolution, with the first question asking for proof of the age of the earth.

actually, there are some Christians that do believe the world was created more than a couple of thousand years ago. some people do believe that the seven day creation wasn't exactly seven days. but perhaps just an analogy of how God created the earth. i think that the official theory is called the Seven day theory or something like that. hope this helps...

Plus...it's always good to see strong Christians still out there. Keep the faith brothers and sisters.

Ok..I?m game

Don?t prove evolution is wrong prove that creationism is right. In your argument you cannot use reference to carbon dating, since that would have to be incorrect for your theory to stand. Now explain to me why the earth is 6 thousand years old and if all your going to do is recite scripture?don?t bother.

Ready set go!

Letting the Fossil Record Speak

FOSSILS are the remains of ancient forms of life preserved in the earth's crust. These may be skeletons or parts of them such as bones, teeth or shells. A fossil also may be some trace of the activity of what was once alive, such as an imprint or trail. Many fossils no longer contain their original material but are made up of mineral deposits that have infiltrated them and have taken on their shape.

Why are fossils important to evolution? Geneticist G. L. Stebbins noted a major reason: “No biologist has actually seen the origin by evolution of a major group of organisms.” So, living things on earth today are not seen to be evolving into something else. Instead, they are all complete in form and distinct from other types. As geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky observed: “The living world is not a single array . . . connected by unbroken series of intergrades.” And Charles Darwin conceded that “the distinctness of specific [living] forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.”

Thus, the distinct varieties of things now alive offer no support to the theory of evolution. That is why the fossil record became so important. It was felt that at least fossils would provide the confirmation that the theory of evolution needed.

What to Look For

If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid changes associated with the “punctuated equilibrium” theory acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking fossils.

Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.

In this regard the British journal New Scientist says of the theory: “It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.” As Darwin himself asserted: “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous.”

On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life turning into another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that each different type of living thing would reproduce only “according to its kind.” (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if living things came into being by an act of creation, there would be no partial, unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be complete and highly complex, as living things are today.

In addition, if living things were created, they would be expected to appear suddenly in the fossil record, unconnected to anything before them. And if this was found to be true, what then? Darwin frankly admitted: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.”

How Complete Is the Record?

However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was “wrong” with the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the transitional links required to support his theory. This situation caused him to say: “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”

The fossil record in Darwin's day proved disappointing to him in another way. He explained: “The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists . . . as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.” He added: “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. . . . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.”

Darwin attempted to explain these huge problems by attacking the fossil record. He said: “I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, . . . imperfect to an extreme degree.” It was assumed by him and others that as time passed the missing fossil links surely would be found.
Now, after well over a century of extensive digging, vast numbers of fossils have been unearthed. Is the record still so “imperfect”?

This is my contribution for now.

I am for creationism.

Most people rely solely on "Seeing is believing." Me being a Christian, as well as an engineering basis of thinking, BELIEVE that God exists, and God created the Earth. The engineer side of me thinks "There is much evidence of how many millions of years old things are, then how can the Earth only be created a few thousand years ago?"
Religiously we have to put that evidence aside, and believe the Bible. However there is no harm in thought if there is some truth in this old evidence...

Could it be that the creature they were talking about was a Dragon? Bible has implemented plenty of myths into to it. I wouldn't be suprised if a 'Dragon' was one of them.

As for carbon dating; I believe it is still used somewhat, but it's shortcomings are known and it is getting used less and less. However, there are plenty of other dating techniques. Can't remember them of the top of my head, but I guess alot of them rely on half-life of a some material.

And really, why couldn't earth be old? Frankly, I don't see any evidence why it couldn't be old. If some people want to take the bible as the literal truth about the excact time of creation and when people popped into existance, ok. But you do need to provide some absolute proof to people who do not believe in a higher being. After all, how can you believe in creation when you don't believe in a creator????

As far as when the earth was created I say who knows.

Even in the bible it talks about God's creative days but it also mentions that before these creative days that and I quote

“the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep.” (Ge 1:2)

So techinically the bible does not give a valid date, could if be millions? maybe, I doubt it. 40,000 to 50,000 is my guess. But as I said, Science and the Bible do not give a specific date.

No evolutionist can win this arguement... you're up against people whose fundamental belief systems allow for the existence of God and Satan, who can create and destroy anything, make one thing look like another, create life by sneezing, etc. etc.

Therefore, any evidence that you try to offer to prove evolutionism can always be refuted by "God/Satan made it look that way". There's nothing you can do to prevent that arguement.

Save your breath/time for debates about what the best modification for the 'tour is or something.

To address sboardsvt's comments, I'd say a major reason we haven't found more fossil evidence is the simple fact that whatever's left is embedded in the layers and layers of earth that has been created/shifted over time. The Ice Age(s) and shifting of the continents and glaciers buried and hid fossils under these layers. I'm amazed we find any, given all this.

As far as evolutionary traits, human embryos have gill-like structures and vestigial tails. Most vertebrates, in fact, appear very similar in embryo form. Plus, thanks to fossilized remains, we've been able to trace the changes in man's skull and body architecture as he adapted to his environment.

Or maybe this is just more of satan's evil magic.

WOW I guess the Grand Canyon is just a few thou???? What bull****. I guess the "keep our head in the sand" religious nuts can believe anything they want. Wohoo!!! :rolleyes:

Very good, sboardsvt.

Shaun G, why do you want me to stop proving evolution wrong? If you don't want to disprove evolution, why do I have to prove Creation? Can you prove Creation wrong?

Here is some evidence that the universe is relatively young:

* The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old. (Wysong, R. L. The Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 177; see also 4, p. 51, for information on rock "flow")

* Lyttleton felt that the X-rays and UV light striking exposed moon rocks "could, during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep." -- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, vol. 115, pp. 585-604

The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have easily formed in about 4400 years. (Blick, Edward F. A Scientific Analysis of Genesis. , p. 27; 6, p. 39

I have many more examples........

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.

This issue has been testing me as of late, especially since it has been brought to the media forefront in Ohio with regards to its place in public education. For the record I am not a stranger to science or theory, being a degreed engineer, nor am I generally prone to hide from any possibilities.

Now, aside from the 'age of the earth' issue, lets examine something else. From a creationism point of view, the Earth was created a couple thousand years ago by an omnipotent 'being' who chose a 'messanger' to spread his 'word' to the people of the earth. That's great as far as the current Middle East is concerned, but what about the rest of the world? Why would a being, capable of creating a world, universe, etc... choose only one messanger in only one location to spread his word? Thats not only inefficient but poor planning, and as a result here we are debating the issue.

Another glaring inconsistancy I can't get around is that over half the planet (that's a whole lot of people) doesn't believe in a singular Christian god but rather in their own dieties with their own creationism ideas. So, what makes the Christian creation idea the correct one for all the people of the Earth?

One of the most powerful things that evolution theory has going for it, I believe, is that like most scientific theories, it is fundamental and generic enough to allow for all the religions & beliefs of the world to have their place over time. It does not claim that they don't exist.

also another reason why we havent found more fossils is because alot of them were buried in the Flood. Scientists also wonder how shells and other aquatic fossils end up on the top of mountains. hmm wonder how they got up there.

Tectonic theory explains all of this. Movement of land masses due to changing climates, etc.

Viss1, that is true, tectonics could be the answer. I don't disagree, but I believe there was a great flood of noah's day, based on one simple fact.

In every religion, if you study enough, you will find a account of a flood.

A little to eerie for me to disbelieve.

This is a good discussion but one that will never end and I must go home.

did anyone ever watch that tv show special about 5 years back where they believe they found noah's ark on top of a mountain buried under a bunch of snow and ice? pretty interesting.

I went to catholic school most of my life, and when IW as in high school, in religion class, the priest who was teaching the class said something I will always remember. Regardless what people believe, the Bible is not a 100% literal documaentation of the way things happened. Back then, history and such were told by stories, because not many people could read/write. What happens when people tell a story? They exxagerate, leave out parts, add parts, change words around, etc. Anyway, he said the church doesn't discount any scientific theory, but, we do believe that at one point God came and gave man a human soul.

I myself don't practice much faith anymore. The only thing that bothers me about the scientific theories regarding the universe and it's creation is..where did it all begin? I mean, we know the big bang was caused by gases and such that were so compressed they just exploded and kept expanding, creating the universe....ok, well, where did those gases come from? They had to come from somwehere right? ? It's actually scary to think about, because we just don't know. That's where beliefs come in and science goes out the door. It's easier to just imagine some higher power created the universe.

Even though we all know religion is something created by man to calm his own fear of impending death.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cpurser:
[QB]Very good, sboardsvt.

Shaun G, why do you want me to stop proving evolution wrong? If you don't want to disprove evolution, why do I have to prove Creation? Can you prove Creation wrong?

hhhmmmm....prove creation wrong...hmmmmm..let me think....uhhh..how about...uhhh..mmm...A magic being made all the animals at the same time 6000 years ago.. ok...are you all convinced?

"Wouter Bleeker and his colleages in the Geological Survey of Canada determined the age of the rocks by a process known as radoiactive dating. they measured how much of the uranium origanally contained in the rocks had decayed to lead. This slow change, when measured, yields a very precise scientific clock." S.J. Mercury News Science and Health section 3/19/02
"Last year, radioactive dating showed the zircon to be approximately 4.4 billion years old-97% of the age of the planet. Less than one-hundredth of an inch wide, the tiny speck is the oldest object discovered anywhere in the world, according to geologists Simon Wilde of Curtin University of Technology in Perth, Austalia, and John Valley of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who preformed the dating." Same source
I have other sources but can not get to them right now as I am at work. But will be sure to add to this as soon as I can.
Well cpurser you better call the universities and geological foundations and tell them that they are wasting their time and money because you got it all figured out. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I really hate smartasses.

LOL, funny.

Moses wrote the first book of the bible Genesis. Moses lived during Egyptian times. Moses grew up with the egyptians and was taught by them during his childhood.

Egyptians knew how to write very well. There society was well advanced.

For you pastor, priest to say that it is not literal because people didn't know how to read or write well, is absurd.

OK, ASSVT, I apologize for being a smart@ss. I have tried to be as professional I as could during this discussion. However, my emotions got the best of me.

Now, as for the uranium dating, I refer you to sboardsvt's post:

"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.”

As far as uranium dating there are alot of factors.

1. the rock has to be free from lead at the beginning. *This is usually not the case; there is some lead to start with. This gives the rock what is called a built-in age, something more than zero.

2. We assume that the uranium was tightly sealed in the rock so that nothing could get in or out. Sometimes this may be true but not always. Over long periods of time, some of the lead or the uranium might seep out into groundwater. Or more uranium or lead might get in, especially if it is a sedimentary rock. For this reason, the uranium-lead clock works best on igneous rocks.

3.Other complications arise from the fact that another element, thorium, which may be in the mineral, is also radioactive and slowly disintegrates into lead. Besides that, uranium has a second isotope—the same chemically but different in mass—that decays at a different rate, also forming lead. Each of these ends up in a different isotope of lead.

So Like I said a guess at best

cpurser hey no hard feelings it's a discussion after all and one that can bring out emotions in people. But they are not looking for how much uranium is left but rather how much is now lead. I think there is a difference not sure though. Need to do more research when I get home.
Edit: just saw sboardsvt's post but will research more on topic later.

Unfortunately it looks like some heated discussion has occurred. I didn't start the post to provoke people to anger.

The topic of Creation vs Evolution is one of those topics that will go on until the end of time, and maybe this is the wrong place to discuss issues as these, or is it? It seems that most people confuse the issue of religion in discussions such as these. Religion does not equal Christianity. Religion is something you believe in. For people who believe that the Theory of Evolution is correct, that is their religion.

Now, if we get back to initial question of how evolutionists determine the age of the earth, most people can agree that Carbon dating is not accurate. If you use science to prove or disprove science, then science has disproven the use of Carbon dating to accurately determine the age of anything. (Just out of curiosity, I wonder how old I would be if Carbon dating was used?)

So if evolutionist use the fossil record to determine life, what do the Creationists use? The Bible. Some say the Bible is a history book. It does have a lot of history in it. It mentions actual kings and other events in history so that with some research one can determine the time when certain events occurred. This is how and why Creationist believe the earth is only thousands of years old. Some say the Bible contradicts itself. I personally have never been shown any proof that the Bible contradicts itself. So if you have some examples I would like to see them. Some say the Bible isn't complete and that some things were left out. Well, if you view the Bible as a history book, I challenge you to look through your school history books, there are a lot of things that are left out. School history books have to leave out things because they would be too big. Some say the Bible is all figurative. I agree that some of the descriptions in the book of Revelation are figurative. You try to explain something you have never seen before using only words that you know and tell me how figurative your language will become.

In the book of Genesis, the creation of the world is explained. It is hard to imagine an all power and all knowing God simply because our minds are too limited. But the Bible says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and that the earth was formless and void. Then God created the light and divided it from the darkness and this was the first day. (Obviously I am paraphrasing). It goes on to say how He divided the lands from the seas and created the plants and then the animals and finally man.

Now I realize it takes a lot of faith to believe the Biblical account of Creation, but you know, it takes a heck of a lot of faith to believe the Theory of Evolution too. It's just me, but I would rather believe that God created the human race than to believe that the human race evolved from some muck.

I guess the biggest problem for me when it comes to dating is all of the assumptions that have to be made. How much of this radioactive element was present at certain times is almost impossible to discover. But, if one uses all of the events in the Bible and counts them up as far as age of people, kings reigns and so forth I think it can easily provide the answer to how old the earth is.

I personally, dont believe that the bible was meant to be taken so literally,,,In the old jewish traditions and books, The Kabbalah, It describes the universe as beginning from a vacuum, basically describing the big bang....You guys hsould read a book called G-d and The Big Bang...

There are archeological artifacts describing the stars in an alignment that wasnt present after 6000 years ago,,,and disputing star alignment is futile.

The world can be millions of years old, and still have been created by G-d..I am personally not very religious, and have a masters in science, so I tend to view scientific evidence a bit stronger than writings of faith...
Actually Darwinian evolution is found at the microbiology level,,,constant evolution for survival,,changes are observed in every generation..

I wonder if God is turning the world into such a sinful society because of overcrowding in Heaven? Allowing all his children to go to Hell for the sake of the angels having more elbow room in the eternal afterlife. (It's apparently a given that I'm going to Hell since I'm not Catholic.) Mankind is lower than we have ever been. Most of the world's population makes Sodom and Gomorrah look like the Vatican. Why is God letting this happen? Time for another flood?

Oh, I just recalled -- I was washing my car this weekend and saw a rainbow in the mist. Despite being completely materialistic at the time, I remembered that God put that rainbow in my hose water to remind me that he would never flood the world again and wipe out all flesh. Phew, I'm safe -- for now anyway. And by his Divine plan, murderers will go on murdering, thieves will go on stealing, and priests will go on raping little children. Maybe FOX can sign God and Satan for the next episode of Celebrity Boxing!

Edit: Sorry that was so facetious. Just that the more I read from the pro-Creationist, pro-Biblical folks (not just on this site either) the more it seems like a big farce. But I can't shake the blind faith I was raised with, so for now I do still believe in God as I stated earlier.

Ok this was a shot, I have to respond. Why is some one that believes in religion a "nut"? That's what you are saying isn't it? 70% of the world population are all nuts? You must be one the chosen "sane" people.

Look, I don't general like to lay into people but geez woman! Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't make them nuts. You are probably one of those people that never listen to an opposing point of view. They just sit there thinking of ways to argue back. Let me guess, when an arguement isn't going your way, you throw up the big W..."WHATEVER" and walk away.

The whole point of this topic is to tell each other the opposite view points. NOT to argue over who is right and who is wrong. I won't be able to convince you I'm right if you believe you're in the right and vice versa. Please, let's try to keep it civil.

Dude man, why in the world do you think you are going to Hell because you are not Catholic?

God never talked about certain religions as the way to get to Heaven. He never started a religion, only a relationship. Religions are man made becuase none of us can agree with each other and we all have different views of God. And yes, evolutionist, anthiests, and agnostics all have a view about God. This is why I hate it when people talk about religion. The whole purpose of the Bible is to establish the relationship between God and man. It shows us where we fit into the greater scheme of things, and gives us a purpose and meaning to our lives.

Now as far as Evolution goes, what kind of meaning to life can we get out of it? Are we all just hap-hazardly here? Do we start from muck and return to muck when our life is over?

Sorry about that, I kind of got off the subject of Creation vs Evolution.

I really appreciate everyones views on this subject. How can I understand your point of view and you understand mine unless these kinds of subjects are talked about.

WhiteSE brought up the Big Bang. Let's discuss that for a moment.

Scientists say that they can see stars and galaxies billions of light years away. How do they know they are billions of light years away?

First, no one can measure star distance accurately. The farthest accurate distance man an measure is 20 light years (some textbooks say up to 100), not several billion light years. Man measures star distances using parallax trigonometry. By choosing two measurable observation points and making an imaginary triangle to a third point, and using simple trigonometry, man calculates the distance to the third point. Due to the fact that the stars are so far away, the angle of the triangle is so small that the distance can't be determined.

Several other methods such as luminosity and red shift are employed to try to guess at greater distances but all such methods have serious problems and assumptions involved. If one is to believe the red shift theory, it has been found that some objects are traveling faster than the speed of light. That is clearly in opposition to the Big Bang.

Another assumption is that light travels at the same speed throughout the universe. It has recently been discovered that it is possible to slow down light:

* On February 18, 1999, Houston Chronicle ran an article on page 10A about a Danish Physicist, Dr. Hau working at Harvard, being able to slow down light by cooling it. They cool it to fifty-billionths of a degree above absolute zero -459.67. The light was slowed down to 38 MPH!

* "Eureka! Scientists break speed of light", Jonathan Leake, Science Editor, Sunday Times [UK] June 4, 2000.
UNITED STATES SCIENTISTS claim they have broken the ultimate speed barrier: the speed of light. In research carried out in the United States, particle physicists have shown that light pulses can be accelerated to up to 300 times their normal velocity of 186,000 miles per second.
The work was carried out by Dr Lijun Wang, of the NEC research institute in Princeton, who transmitted a pulse of light towards a chamber filled with specially treated cesium gas. See also: New York Times May, 30, 2000

Just wanted to throw this in:

I saw this earlier, and I thought that it would be a great out, but there is a problem with this...Satan is a created being...he can not create. So, where did he get those dinosaur bones?

Another point:
A problem with scientific dating of geological strata is circular reasoning. For instace...
A scientist finds a fossil. (S)he claims that it is X million years old... How do they know this? Because of how deep it was found in the rock. Well, how do they know that layer of rock's age? Because they found that particular fossil in it!

Not very scientific, if you ask me. BTW, carbon dating is inaccurate, because the half lives of C-14 atoms is so long, we can never witness its decay.

I'm on God's team. 'Nuff said!

One more thing...If evolution is true, which I don't believe it is, but if it is, why, after countless billions of years, is everything not perfected yet? It has had ample time...

...One more thing...If evolution is true, which I don't believe it is, but if it is, why, after countless billions of years, is everything not perfected yet? It has had ample time...

Well, who is to say what is perfect...maybe its the process that is occurring thats perfection ....I cant believe how little sense of awe or respect for nature and its processess some you you show...no wonder the natural state of the planet is going to pot....Why is it that evolving from muck, if it is so, so bad...If you had bad parents that gave you birth, but you are better than they,,,should I judge you on that fact that they were crappy?

If you guys paid attention, you would realize that God is supposed to be everywhere, and he is a part of everything,,,Even if evolution is true (which I think it is). I would say...awesome, God created life to be chaotic and everchanging, evolving towards some unkown goal...

The difference is that some evolutionsists can still believe that God created everything, but creationists are a lil bit static in their reasoning... Its a lot easier to believe due to faith, than because of science..

I have to agree with WhiteSE on this one - who's to say what perfection is? Time is too relative an entity to base a statement like that on. Who's to say that billions of years is enough time? If the universe sticks around for another trillion years, then what time has passed so far would appear pretty small.

Likewise, according to the popular evolutionary timetable of our planet, humans have only been around for thousands of years in comparison to the billions of years age of the universe. Again, that's a pretty small time comparativly.

ok first of all, just because your not catholic doesnt mean your not going to heaven. there are many demonimations of christianity. as long as you belive that jesus died, rose again, and have personal relationship him your going to heaven. and believe me i dont think heaven is going to run outta room. god is omniscient, so he already knows how many people are going to be entering His kingdom.

secondly, your right about god not having another flood, but He will reap his wrath once more in the second coming.

Evolution doesn't bring nature closer to a perfect end! If any of you creationists knew anything about the theory of evolution, you'd know that evolution is simply a process. Nothing to do with an ending. The environment has never stayed static so evolution has never ceased. If there was a perfect ending, nothing would ever die, the world would become overpopulated, and every being would end up fighting for the finite resources of the earth, killing each other in the process.

I believe Elizabeth said "religious nuts", not all people who believe in religion are nuts. Stop looking for a fight.

Nobody can prove anything about where the world came from and when so why bother talking about it.

creation is right and evolution is right. god created everything and it has evolved from there. now everyone is happy. your welcome.

You have a good point here. What is perfect? To me, God created everything perfect. Nothing has a need to "evolve", or change, into something else. Just look at the human body, how much more perfect can it be? I too believe that God is everywhere. Just looking at His creation you can see His hand at work. How could life happen without the work of God?

Now that brings about another question, it is obvious that things do change. So is the change a product of evolution or adaptation? If I understand the definiton of evolution correctly it is one species changing into another. But adaptation is one species changing to fit the environment. For a stupid example, if you have lived in the North all your life, your body is use to the cold winters and low humidity summers. However, if you move to say, Florida, your body has to change to withstand the extreme humidity during the summer. So, are you evoloving or just adapting?

I don't think my views are static. Shoot I learn new things all the time, believe it or not. I try to have an open mind to different points of view and yes I will give my opinion on them. But if I have to be tolerant of your view, it is only fair that you are tolerant of my view.

If an evolutionist can believe that God did create the universe, then why is there such opposition to teaching Creationism in our public schools along with Evolution?

well as a christian i will offer my 2 cents...
im no scientist and will offer no numbers ...as far as carbon dating i see where some of u have said that method is not as widely used as it once was...with that being said the 'shroud of turin' believed to be the burial cloth of christ was dated to be from around the time jesus walked the earth...to me that would prove that he existed which proves god, his plan and therefore 'creation' over 'evolution'....i follow creation but i think (maybe wrongly) that there is room for evolution...only to the point of knowing that certain species adapt over time to there environment...

people in the biblical days were given different tounges (languages) so that they would go out and spread across the earth and not just stay huddled up together in one region....as the population spread out people took on the adaptive characteristics to survive the region...some began less pigmented as the colder climates were inhabited and some became darker in the hotter regions...same thing happens more or less to most living creatures

as far as the earth's age and the scientific age of things the only way i can come around to comprehend this is at maybe our yrs aren't the same as god's or the bibles years....this is a terrible analogy but think of a fly...its life span is 3 days...some animals only live a few yrs...humans now live to roughly 60-80's...with the 'size' of god his yrs are measured in milliniums....there maybe be room for something identified as evolution to have come about during the course of the earth's life from a biblical standpoint

some people ask 'if god exists or if he loves us why does he allow bad things to happen to us'....in my opinion god is our parent...afterall he is referred to as 'our father in heaven'...what happens to us as children when we disobey our parents or we do something that our parents were wise enough to tell us not to do because they knew it would be harmful to us or not in our best interest??? we usually would be punished in some way for it....it is my opinion that god does not do a specific bad thing to us but we are allowed to have that bad thing happen because we somehow have sidestepped his rules for us living

also i feel gods creation is perfect...we were equipped with most of what we need and as humans we were given the ability to learn and adapt and develop the world and things no base animal could ever achieve....if science were perfect i wouldn't get blue screens and have my dsl go belly up in 2 months

further off topic....one way satan 'attacks' u is by putting doubt in your mind that god exists....if u dont believe u wont go to heaven...people like to make jokes about partying in hell....i dont think there would be much partying goin on when you;re on fire....how bad does it hurt to burn yourself with a lighter on maybe just your fingertip??? multiply that by eternity and add your entire being.....theres a quote ' the smoke of your sins will rise to heaven for ever and ever'...that sums it up pretty well

whether u believe or not there is a series of books called 'left behind'...its about the rapture of gods church and those who were left on earth to figure out what happened....great reading and put alot of the bible into modern day terms that are easily digestible and shows how maybe some of the things in the good book can and will come to pass....really hits home reading the series of books and thinking about the horror 911...and reading these books gave me the courage to read the bible even the scary parts like revelation and the parts that make me feel like a finger is being pointed directly at me and my actions

whew.....im done and i think the lord for letting get that out as well as i did

some may scoff laugh or otherwise post negatives aobut this post but im goin to heaven whether u like it or not :p ...dont think the contour will make it though

cpurser you have done an excellent job so far!!!
I do not know if you have been to this link but if not it will become very useful to you!

www.answersingenesis.org

Said previously:

.....If an evolutionist can believe that God did create the universe, then why is there such opposition to teaching Creationism in our public schools along with Evolution?......

Well, because science is a science in every country of the world...there is an agreement on the scientific methodology...Religious beliefs are personal and vary from person to person....If you told me that every religion would have equal time to show and tell, that would be more fair...
religion is being taught by parents and churches, or synagogues, mosques, etc. There is the principle of separation of church and state, and teaching religion in schools may violate that, and I dont really think its necessary...

I didnt say that...I was just referring to that statement....why would I quote that and then disagree with it? :rolleyes:

Just wondering.. anyone here know the definition of a theory?

Since both creationism and evolution are theories.. not facts I thought I'd mention this.

I do have to point out that there is very little credibly evidence for the Creationist theory that the world is 6,000 years old. If only for the fact that even with the failings of Carbon dating, we can easily find examples that are 30,000 years old.

If you think that a God would place on this earth fossils and other such evidence for the sole purpose of misleading. I'd say you've lost more than a few screws. That or God is just insane. Ohh and also, go up to any.. I repeat any Catholic Priest and ask them about the existence of Satan. Then ask them to explain who and/or what Satan is. If you've studied western philosophy and have read many of the writings of Saints and other religious thinkers you would know (like the priest does) that there is only God and the absence of God. To think that there are omnipotent and omniscient beings that are somehow limited by "rules" is plain nonsense.

After reading through many of these posts here, I do wonder what has happened in this country. It seems to me that too many of us do not understand what critical thinking is. If you want to take a course about creationism great, it will probably be done in about 3 hours tops.. maybe 20 if you're really really desperate for every little detail. On the other hand, you can take years to study the evidence that exists for evolution. And while it may be wrong, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of evidence pionts to evolution. And yes, many of the tests to date things have been proven wrong however, the great thing here about science is that it requires REPEATABLE results.

And while your articles pointing to individual failures are nice and well appreciated there exists thousands more expirements out there that are fact. The New York Times as a guide?? that is good, a bunch of liberal unscientific minds writing about the scientific process. Wonderful credentials there, I find them TOTALLY trustworthy. Just like I find the rest of the news COMPLETELY factual and unbiased. Remember cold fusion??? the uproar that caused and all the "Reports" in supposed credible new sources. It was also shown how poorly the experiment had been conducted in the first place. BECAUSE science require repeatable results for something to become a fact.

So while both theories may be in fact correct or incorrect when you look at the total evidence for each. On one side creationism with it's anthill of evidence and on the other the Mount Everest of evidence, I'd say I think I'll follow the Mount Everest side and believe in evolution(with reservation, it is after all a theory).

A perfect example that everyone should remember from high school biology class. In the late 1800's to early 1900's the White moth in britain had almost totally disappeared. While the Moths with the recessive gene(remember those???) for being black almost completely took over. This was due to the dirt and pollution accumulating on the trees turning them black. The white moths stood out and the birds feasted on them, while the black moths flourished. Now with the pollution controls and etc. of the modern world, the white moth (with the dominant gene) has returned and the Black moth has almost disappeared. Think on that one.

After all if we teach Creationism, we need to teach the muslim viewpoint, the Hindu veiwpoint and probably most of the other major religions in the world. That would only be just and fair. I'm just wondering how you give equal time to creationism as to evolution. After all creationism isn't exactly mounting up warehouses of evidence.

Posted by: DaveAndrews
Why, then, In the book of Job, does God limit Satan's effects on Job. God will not allow Satan to harm Job in the beginning...Then he allows harm, but no death...sounds like rules to me!

That leads me to say that satan is NOT omnipotent, nor omniscient, since if he knew all, he would have known that:
1. He would fail with Job.
2. He would fail at the cross.
3. He will fail in Armageddon....

And if a catholic priest doesn't believe in that, then he shouldn't be leading a church!

Uhhh Catholics don't take the Bible literally. If you did that you end up getting way too tied up in the many contradictions that exist in the bible. Which is even more ludicrous.

Agreed....Neco has this rule....I think it is a great one, too!

Evolution isn't mounting up warehouses with evidence either!! Most of their proofs are frauds or they don't turn out to be what they are supposed to.
eg. life on mars
all supposed missing links
archeoraptor

The big bang has been abandoned and so has darwinism. Now absurdities such as punctuated equalibrium are being considered.

Who made God?
Am I a monkey?

no one made him

and yes you are, want a banana???

blitzkrieg53:
Thanks for your support.

whiteSE:
It can be said that evolution can be considered a religion. It is a belief, just like creationism.

Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. True, evolution has been mixed with science for the last thirty years, but that does not mean that it is the same as science. And I am sure I will get flamed beyond belief that that statement!

Daveandrews:
I have taken a lot of time to show evidence that evolution cannot have taken place. Correct me if I am wrong, no one has done a good job of refuting the evidence that I have provided. You say that "the majority of evidence points toward evolution." I have repeatedly asked for this evidence that you speak of. Could you please provide some of this overwhelming amount of evidence? You speak of repeatable results? Please provide me these repeatable results! That is all I ask.

Your example of the moths in Britian is a poor argument for evolution. It is an example of adaptation within a species, not evolution. Creationists fully agree with adaptation within a species.

Also, someone mentioned that there are many contradictions in the Bible. Could someone please point these out to me?

why do people who are tired of such posts always read and reply to them....tons of those posts to read on here... :rolleyes:

Well, you ask for Biblical contradictions... There are many of them. The very first book has one. King James Version

Which came first... Man or beast

Beast?

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

or Man?

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

...There are many, many more. I just found this one on the first couple pages.

TheMark:

I have a feeling this "contradiction" is caused by the translation from Hebrew. Let me research this:

from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1272.asp

On the surface, this seems to say that the land beasts and birds were created between Adam and Eve. However, Jewish scholars apparently did not recognize any such conflict with the account in chapter 1, where Adam and Eve were both created after the beasts and birds (Genesis 1:23–25). Why is this? Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb "formed' in Genesis 2:19 to mean "had formed' or "having formed'. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation* does), "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …', the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.

Here is what I found in the New King James Version:

Genesis 2:18-19 : New King James Version (NKJV)

Genesis 2
18And the LORD God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him." 19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.

This is what I found in the New International Version:

Genesis 2:18-19 : New International Version

Genesis 2
18 The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

This is why, when you come across something in the Bible that doesn't make sense, take a look at another translation, and read commentaries on the passage. Because, rest assured, you are not the first person to question the Bible.

Has anyone ever considered that maybe God used evolution to create life. The bible doesn't tell us how God created the world and universe, but at the same time we can't trust science to prove or disprove Christianity. Christianity is based on faith, and therefore science or anything else human based is not going to prove or disprove this. I believe that no matter whether evolution happened or didn't, God chose when and how the world was created.

Can someone explain to me why when anyone stumbles
across, "the oldest human remains yet found". To
my knowlege they are always still bones. The latest still having mummified skin in fact. Yet scores of different varieties of dino remains are unearthed and every last one I'm aware of is so old that its structure has BECOME STONE. Dating inacuracies or not, how long would you guess it must take for that to happen?

Interesting article. Your reply does open another can of worms regarding different versions, though. I will sidestep that for the time being.

Another one, a little farther on in the same book.

? How many animals get to buck the high seas with Noah?

(King James Version)

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

This one looks like a typo to me, actually. *shrugs*

PLEASE.. NO MORE..

Listen up...I am only going to post this message. The battle has persisted since the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859. Along the way, the battle field has migrated from the Ivory Towers of late 19th century English universities to a small courtroom in Dayton, Tennessee (sight of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial). From movie theaters throughout the USA which presented the Scopes Monkey Trial story in the film Inherit The Wind in 1960 to contemporary Kansas and Ohio state school boards. The battle has raged.

Let us step back for a moment to examine the facts. In America of 2002, many Americans still espouse the biblical literalism as the basis of all "scientific" pursuits - there is no denying this. However, as in any war...the outcome of hostilities are not determined by shouting matches between opposing civilians...which this debate boils down to. The battle is won in the trenches. Where are the trenches? The high schools and universities which are educating the next generation of Americans.

Let's look at some numbers for enrolled students:

US private school (elementary and secondary) enrollment: ~6 million students (~11% of total US students)*

US Public school (elementary and secondary) enrollment: ~55 million students (~86% of total US students)*

Home Schooled (elementary and secondary) enrollment: ~ 1.5 million (~2.5%)*

Of these private schools, the ~70%* are Catholic and do not espouse the biblical literalism that serves as a breeding ground for the instruction of pseudoscience in the form of creationism. In fact, the science and math instruction in many Catholic secondary schools and universities is excellent in terms of scope and rigor. Of those students being home schooled, ~53%* are subjected to an "incomplete" science education lacking in a comprehensive treatment of the biological sciences.

The bulk of US Public schools incorporate the theory of evolution into their science curricula while excluding the pseudoscience of creationism. Of those that have decided to allow equal treatment for the pseudoscience of creationism (Kansas and Ohio), Kansas has already restored the theory of evolution as the basis for their treatment of the biological sciences after a 7-3 decision by the ( Kansas state school board ).

The implication is that ~3 million students out of a total of ~62 million are being exposed to only the pseudoscience of creationism and not the theory of evolution. With the current increase in secularism in the US, the number of students not receiving proper instruction will likely diminish as the biblical literalism of the evangelical and protestant denominations no longer hold sway with a better educated public.

In a nutshell, the theory of evolution has already won the war in this context. What is left is a mopping-up operation akin the final stages of Operation Anaconda. There may be some fanatical fundamentalist holdouts that still pose a threat to certain weak-minded midwestern school boards but the days of Anti-evolution legistlation such as the Butler Act are long gone.

Does this mean that all reasonable persons should let their guard down when it comes to the education of their children now that the pseudoscience of creationism poses little threat to the integrity of science curricula? Of course not! If anything, our vigilance needs to increase - complacency yields indifference and indifference will ultimately yield regret.

As far as addressing specific points concerning perceived shortcomings in the theory of evolution or in other fields of scientific inquiry - I will not. By doing so, I elevate the pseudoscience of creation to a position that it does not deserve. Nothing satisfies creationists more than having their claims considered by legitimate scientists - it gives them the impression that their flawed scientific methodology can stand on equal footing with real science. It cannot and never will because "creation science" cannot and never will be real science.

I once had a harsh physics professor as an undergraduate at the University of Maryland. He was exceedingly tough in terms of grading. He gave no credit for mathematical derivations which began with a single erroneous expression even though the rest of the derivation followed all of the necessary steps that would have yielded the correct answer otherwise. He called it "the rat in the pickle barrel" i.e. even though the pickles one obtains from a barrel may look good to eat, normal people would throw out the entire barrel of pickles if a dead rat was discovered inside.

Thus it is with "creation science". You begin with an assumption which cannot be supported explicitly i.e. the Judeo-Christian god created the cosmos and all life there in and this being occasionally interferes with human affairs. This is the rat and the pickle barrel of "creation science" must be thown out.

-Edward Colón, Ph.D.
Computational Physics, Inc./Naval Research Lab

*National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 1999 survey

I am gonna hazard a guess here, sacrifice was in practice at the time so maybe this would have something to do with taking seven of the clean. If someone can confirm this for me please do so.

hmmm for a group that is supposedly not a threat the evolutionists certainly get worked up over them. I wonder why that is? If these people are not real scientists, they cannot provide adequate reasons for what they believe or provide proper reasoning against evolution origin (which is supposedly well documented by science) then what are you worried about???

Here is a link, we have been to this museum and he has an interesting presentation of creationism. http://www.creationevidence.org/

In the same area of the museum, there are places along a small river bed where there are human footprints inside very large lizard prints. These looked too real to have been manufactured. If these are not real they are a very expensive scam as the trails leading to them look very natural. I have done miles of trail walking in my time and the layers where these occur jut straight out from the soil.

Unfortunately, school boards *could* rule any way they wanted to on this issue - you need look no further than the current battle in the Ohio educational circles. And religion (as demonstrated all over this posting) is far to sticky an issue to make clear public policy over - hence the 'separation of church and state' stance in our laws. Evolutionists worry because creationism doesn't have to actually be 'correct' or 'founded', it just has to 'sound good' at the time of the school board ruling.

A prime example of this occured a few years back in Illinois (could be wrong about the state) when the school board wanted to mandate that the value of Pi be equal to 3 because they felt it was much easier for kids to comprehend than an irrational number (3.14159....). Again, the math and science folk were terrified b/c the school board actually stood a chance of enforcing that policy, for no other reason than 'it sounded good at the time' - even though it could be proven wrong in an instant.

Actually, we were created 5 minutes ago..I created it all. All those memories you people have were implemented by me. Everything you see, that would have taken time to be 'formed', I made 'em.

And this is the truth. Believe my word and I won't put you all in a dark pit for eternity.

How about that for a creation theory.. Just try to prove me wrong.

TheMark:

Genesis 7
2 Take with you seven [1] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,

[1] 7:2 Or seven pairs ; also in verse

With the statement "a male and its mate", I read that as a pair. So Noah took the animals in pairs. He just took 7 pairs of the clean animals.

EdwardC:
You are the one person I would have figured to lay the down most evidence for evolution. The fact that you "will not" give any evidence, because "By doing so, I elevate the pseudoscience of creation to a position that it does not deserve", makes me LAUGH! OH my gosh, that is the biggest cop-out I have ever heard.

Also, I like how you call creationism a pseudoscience, yet evolution is science? As I said before, science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. You have offered no proof or evidence that evolution is testable, observable, and demonstrable. I must admit, you seem to have a great deal of knowledge about real science, but you (along with many other evolutionist) have confused science with the theory of evolution.

Here are some things that scientists say about evolution:

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.

The odds of accidentally producing the correct DNA code in a species or changing it into another viable species are mathematically impossible (J Leslie, "Cosmology, Probability, and the Need to Explain Life," in Scientific American and Understanding, pp. 53, 64-65; E. Ambrose, Nature and Origin of the Biological World, 1982, p. 135).

I can't remeber were I found this. But some scientist are starting to through out the Idea of evolution, and are saying it was such a small chance of evolution happening that there saying that alliens set us on this earth. I'll have to find this article

So the lack of knowledge is proof of creation?

So intellectual open minded people living 1000 years ago should have all believed in creationism?

Bible ain't any more the truth than a stephen king book.

I will offer up this website as an excellent source of basic information about the many possibilities relating to how we got here. I think it may help to put us all on common ground.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm

daenku32:

So the Bible is totally fictional, huh? Most reasonable people as least admit that the Bible contains valid historical events. Here is one example from http://www.bible.ca/b-archeolgy.htm:

***********************************
"At the turn of the century, skeptics viewed the Bible as myth rather than real world history. For example, the Bible makes over 40 references to the great Hittite Empire. You see, 100 years ago, no archaeological evidence had ever been found to prove it really did exist. 'Just another Bible myth!' skeptics charged in an attempt to destroy our faith in the Bible. This, however, cannot be said today, for in 1906, Hugo Winckler uncovered a library of 10,000 clay tablets. These ancient records fully documented the long lost Hittite Empire and confirmed the reliability of the Bible. Later excavations uncovered Boghazkoy, the capital city of this 'mythical' empire."
************************************

I have not said that the lack of knowledge is proof of Creation. Matter of fact, as much as I hate to say it, I have not given any proof of Creation, because there is no solid proof of Creation. Nor is there is any solid proof of evolution.

However, I have given evidence discounting evolution, and evidence supporting the view that the universe is not billions of years old. And My main goal of my posts here is to show that evolution is not science, and that it has not been proven as fact. So let's stop taking it as such.

How do you prove old age? Modern scientists would say lets use a dating method...
okay... rubidium strontium, or c12-c14, or potassium argon, or lead-lead, samarium-neodymium, rhenium-osmium, uranium-thorium-lead,lutetium-hafnium, or maybe argon-argon, or even potassium calcium. Remember this folks. CARBON, that is dating works exclusivly on organic samples. The basic assumption to ALL these methods is:
1. rate of nuclei decay has been predictable AND uniform over all time
2. isotope composition or rock samples has not changed, due to other chemical processes
3. the samples have been in a closed area. No leaching of any substance into or out of the test material.
4. We must know the original amount of a given isotope in the sample, at time of death, or burial, or formation.

The popular view is that dating methods prove...
these types of assumptions are simply not acceptable in a court of law as fact.
The measureing of the decay of different isotopes is EASY, and scientific, the assumptions about original composition, and constant rate of decay, and guessing over a sealed sample is simply not scientific.

A few quick answers to posts from the beggining...
Satan in incapable of planting physical things.. that is a cop out answer. starting with a noahic flood, and looking at the fossil record, you expect to find the rapid burial of billions of dead thing, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth! This is what you find. Fossils have never been buried slow any gradually whether it be in the desert, or ocean bottom, or mountain tops. scavengers go to work quickly, and decomposition does the rest!

Shawn... there are only two ways we got here. Created, or evolved... you can muse about aliens, or other ways, but it boils down to either they evolved or were created. only two possible options... I would challenge you to make a list of reasons why you beleive in evolution... start with maybe five.. then starting at the first point, do some indepth research.. for example, with regards to old age, don't pick up a book that tells you fossils are all old, rather pick up a book, and learn about how dating methods work. Then you can see, as you get through your list whether or not evolution, or creation, if there are still reasons for your beleif. If not, then we can through out our ideas, and re-educate..

Bold statement saying "genesis is full of contradictions". When we make statements like this we perpetuate myths. Please, ifyou think there is a contradictions, allow someone to give you a reasonable explanation. Again, not all answers will seem to fit your ideas, but with an open field for discussion, the things learned should atleast not contradict one another!

Apologies for spelling and grammar. Just finished a graveyard shift

Joshua...
if we can stretch our minds to say "why could God not have created using evolution" then why bother discussing anything here. The God of the bible does not use a sloppy evolution approach. The bible tells us that God spoke, and things came into being. The whole salvation account.. Christ dying on the cross for our sins, has its roots in genesis. If God never created a REAL ADAM AND EVE, then there was no one to bring sin into the world. After creating, God said "It was good".. that does not encompass millions of years of evolution, and death, before ADAM, to lead up to Adam.. Otherwise the created world would not be good, but rather a playground for death. It was through Adams sin, that death< a temporary enemy> entered the world. Christ took our sin, and guilt upon himself at the Cross, and died there. God raised him from the dead, and because he took our sins, we have forgivness from them. If you argue that evolution happened, then you destroy the christian message. This is why christians need to stand up and stop the sillyness, that is proseletyzing evolution. Scientific laws state,
Energy can not be created or destroyed
Entropy is happening
Spontanious generation is impossible.
These laws, proved over and over and over and over again, should be the measuring stick for the evolutionary theory.

Lab after lab will tell you this, yet some people have a great faith in evolution and say if given enough time, we can contradict even the firmest of scientific laws.
I would like one question answered properly. EdwardC, I do not need statistics, because they just show that the masses are uneducated, and heavily indoctrinated by puesdo-science evolution...
Question. What mechanism exists to spur evolution forward. What onward and upward maachine.
Please no hasty responses. Your answers will be checked for scientific veracity.

Mutation takes existing dna, and alters it, causing a "NET LOSS" of genetic information. There are examples of short term benefits, but always at a great loss to the organism. Sickle cell enemia as a great example. People with this condition are less prone to get maleria, because of the reduced efficiency of their blood cells in carrying oxygen. Now this is a small benefit to those few people in maleria prone areas, but only until they have to work hard for their food, or participate in sports or other activities that require lots of oxygen in the blood. They have a small survival advantage pertaining to maleria, but in all other areas, they are less likely to survive because they can't get the oxygen to their bodies as quickly as the rest of us.

I find it interesting that my Catholic school education considered everything up to the age of Abraham to be mythogical, as a primitive society's lore for how the world began, a flood story, and a few other stories. Abraham was the "founding father" of the JudeoChristian tradition, and history flows from there.

cpurser, I'm sorry that I don't remember the sources for my information. I take the information, remember it, and throw out the wrapper. However, unless you have been extremely isolationist in your study of the history of life on this planet, you have already seen it.

A theory doesn't have to stand up to the standards of a criminal court. It's more like a civil court, and the strong preponderance of the evidence still supports evolution. Maybe it needs some tweaking, but the basic theory is sound and well supported. You've already seen the evidence, and I don't remember the sources, but I've seen enough to be comfortable with my conclusions.

I do like your plays on semantics on the Biblical translations. However, it is still clear that there are two creation myths that are contradictory, even in your readings of them. Your two translations say the exact same thing, the NIV is just in simpler prose.

So if no one made God then how did He get here? Poof I'm here, now what? Who does He worship? Who does He think He is, God?
How did the filling get inside the twinkie?
I am a monkey?

And I'm still waiting on proof that I didn't create everything couple of hours ago.

sorry daenku32 I dont think anyone is gonna answer, because it is just so absurd!

daeknu - the fact I can remember back over 20 years ago, and the fact that recorded eyewitness human history has existed for thousands of years is proof that you didn't create the earth a couple of hours ago.

Let's keep this limited within the bounds of reason, please!

No one took a shot at my earlier question???
Oh well, here's another;

If you entertained the thought of a "god" creating
"everything" from scratch, out of "nothing". Think about the tremendous amount of complexity in the design of just the "living" creations. The details tended to in bodily functions alone is mind-boggling. It seems as though examples of truely masterful planning and thought processes are evident everywhere. Yet, one of your "creations" develops a "glitch". Sin. So, as master, creator, of all that there is, anywhere, you decide that no personal visits to all men at once are necessary to quell the problem. No, you won't "stop the world", and everything in it for the VERY short time [with all the TREMENDOUS power at your command] it would take to "remind" EVERYONE of their "roots", and the proper way to indeed...live. And after 4000 years or so of sin, "build up", if you will, you decide the best plan is to make a virgin pregnant with your son so that he may die for their sins? Why would something like that be required if you are the "creator"? Why would it even work? Your sacrifice??? Why do YOU have to sacrfice? [your son] You're GOD!! It just seems like such a haphazard way of getting your point across after all you've acomplished before.

I feel like going on here, but you most likely see what I mean by now. I'm REALLY NOT trying to offend any body here. I don't think you are crazy, or stupid if you believe. I'm just throwing
out a thought on the subject that troubles me. Why would something SOOO all powerful be reduced to using a "flawed" creation, [man kind here] to comunicate with the other flawed creations over the centuries [man kind again] to get his message out???

As some others have stated, the evidence is there pick up any anthropology text or any book on species and you'll find plenty of reference material to go look up. I did, I'm not going through the excercise again for you.. I'm satisfied with the answers I've found. And the anecdotal evidence you've provided is in itself highly questionable and not nearly enough to overcome the evidence I know that does exist.

I disagree here, what I was pointing out was the first step of what occurs in evolutionary theory. Not the total theory just the first step, which you say is adaptation.. ummm isn't that what evolution is all about??? Just over a much longer time period.

I not so worried about the theory of creationism winning out in the end. And if it does prove to be true, I'll be one of the first on the bandwagon. The evidence however points in a very different direction. And for now, I put my belief in evolution (with doubts as I said before.. it is a theory.. not a fact)

What bothers me is the preponderance of psuedo-science that exists and how modern media sensationalizes things that are just bad science. And to continue on with that, how so many people understand nothing about cause and effect/action reaction. Basic fundamental physical science. The way people can look at an issue and be swayed by the gloss words that evoke emotional reactions rather than stepping back and honestly looking at an issue. Regardless of what the issue is. That's what really bothers me about the fact that people are putting so much effort into creationism and other psuedo-sciences.

how about this.. "studies have shown that ________ has an amazing effect on __________ to help reduce unwanted ____________ at an amazing rate."

fill in the blanks as you see fit. I find that people will buy things like that to the tune of billions of dollars a year. Stop and think.. what studies??? performed by whom??? what credentials do they have??? What makes them an expert on this???

Do you know what a triple-blind study is??? Do you know why they are performed??

The biggest problem with evolution is that it has a fatal flaw. And this is taught in Logic 101, small sample. Given the relative time frame we are dealing with, and the amount of evidence, we really don't have enough to prove anything, we only have bits and pieces. Hence, it's a THEORY... However, it is the closest theory that fits the facts as we now percieve them to be. As science advances the theory will be tested and retested, and further refined until we get to a point that it becomes a fact. Ugh.. I can't believe I'm explaining this..

---

..Thank you captain obvious :rolleyes:

Did egyptians write the entire bible??

What's absurd is the fact that you can't read the words on the screen in front of your face! No I'm not going to copy and paste the words here so you can see either. Common sense by itself proves that most of the stories in the bible are not factual representations of the way things happened. Especially when it comes to the creation story. Do you really believe that woman was created from the rib of a man? Come now....

There's nothing wrong with science, or scientific fact. And the reality of this whole thing is that god did not sit down and wave a magic wand and create the earth. We have theories that help us understand how the universe, our solar system, and our planet were created (more or less). One God getting bored one day and creating everything we see unfortunatley doesn't fit in there. Perhaps when we get to the very beginning of the universe - where did the "stuff" that exploded and created our universe come from? That's it.

But anyway, back to my original statement. Back when the bible was written...we know, that MOST people (Yes, Moses could read and write...moses was an egyptian prince..."his people" were mere slaves - when's the last time you saw an educated slave??) couldn't read or write. What's the easiest way to communicate with someone? Tell them a story. That person will remember that story and tell it to other people. The story will spread...by word of mouth - even to those people who cannot read and write. Whether or not you say so, the Bible is not 100% factual, and It makes sense because telling symbolic stories is probably the easiest way to convey a point, moral, lesson, to anyone..much easier than memorizing a text book and repeating it to someone else.

Yes, there are people who take the Bible literally...and that's just fine, but, to do so means you completely deny the existance of Dinosaurs, and other prehistoric creatures.

This does not mean you don't believe in God or a higher power. Again, you can believe in evolution, but what's important (so i'm told) is that you also realise that at one point, God came to us and gave man a human soul. Next time read a little slower and don't take it so personal....

quotequote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by scooby757:
No one took a shot at my earlier question???
Oh well, here's another;

If you entertained the thought of a "god" creating
"everything" from scratch, out of "nothing". Think about the tremendous amount of complexity in the design of just the "living" creations. The details tended to in bodily functions alone is mind-boggling. It seems as though examples of truely masterful planning and thought processes are evident everywhere. Yet, one of your "creations" develops a "glitch". Sin. So, as master, creator, of all that there is, anywhere, you decide that no personal visits to all men at once are necessary to quell the problem. No, you won't "stop the world", and everything in it for the VERY short time [with all the TREMENDOUS power at your command] it would take to "remind" EVERYONE of their "roots", and the proper way to indeed...live. And after 4000 years or so of sin, "build up", if you will, you decide the best plan is to make a virgin pregnant with your son so that he may die for their sins? Why would something like that be required if you are the "creator"? Why would it even work? Your sacrifice??? Why do YOU have to sacrfice? [your son] You're GOD!! It just seems like such a haphazard way of getting your point across after all you've acomplished before.

I feel like going on here, but you most likely see what I mean by now. I'm REALLY NOT trying to offend any body here. I don't think you are crazy, or stupid if you believe. I'm just throwing
out a thought on the subject that troubles me. Why would something SOOO all powerful be reduced to using a "flawed" creation, [man kind here] to comunicate with the other flawed creations over the centuries [man kind again] to get his message out???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------:

Let's first understand that man turned his back on God. Man was created faultless. Sin ruined that. Once God created people with free will, sin was up to them. Why was it this way?

Well, without the possibility of sin, we would not have been human. Would the world be without hate? Yes. Without suffering? Yes. But also a world without love, which is the highest value in the universe. Real love-for God and each other-must involve a choice. But with the granting of that choice comes the possibility that people would choose to hate rather than love.

I think you should do as he says, I mean the creationists have been the ones answering the questions so far, and they have done a good job.

I have an idea why don't you make a list of five things that you feel are "Proof" or strong reasons to believe in evolution. Make reference to your sources and address it to one of us then give us some time to reply because work, school, life does not always permit us to be on the board.

Really!!! Why?

Maybe we could take this discussion to email? Mine is blitzkrieg53@hotmail.com

I would reccommend two books for some people to read...

1. The Face That Demonstrates The Farce of Evolution By Hank Hannegraaf

2. The Case For Faith By Lee Strobel.

These will answer all of your questions. And the second one is a darn good read! It covers many objections of faith. Maybe one of you tough cookies could learn a thing or two...
In case you are scared, there are actual SCIENTISTS interviewed which offer lots of evidence for creation and God's existance.

Because there's no mention of them anywhere. There's no mention of anything before the creation story. And the creation story only mentions man and mammals (man and dinosaurs did not walk the earth at the same time). So, if you believe the Bible is 100% fact, then you believe that these creatures do not exist....You believe that in 7 days...well six days plus one day of rest, God created the earth, sun, moon, stars, man and all the animals on earth, which is false.

chris9581@yahoo.com

Actually, the Bible says,

Gen. 1:24"And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind. ^25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. "

There you go...not just mammals...Oh...notice that it was good...And not our measure of good, but God's. Meaning that it needed no improvement.

i dont see the contradiction there may have been beasts created after adam...the beasts of the earth were made before adam....adam was made to tend the earth (garden) and he named the animals....then eve came along and then mtv

Not to leap in in the middle or anything (page 5?) but why are people limiting the discussion to evolution vs. the Bible. What about the Koran, Shinto beliefs, those of Native Americans, Inuit, Africans...the list goes on. What about Zeus, what about Thor? With a panoply of faiths to look at, who is to say Chritianity beats out other faiths, much less modern science? Remember Douglas Adams' theory that Man, needing omnipotent beings to believe in, creates Gods, makes them immortal, and then moves on to other, newer Gods, leaving the earlier Gods (since they're immortal) stuck wandering around London rail stations scaring commuters. Works for me.

blitzkrieg53 and T-red2000se:

Great comments!! I am really getting tired of us Creationists being the only one who posts evidence and references!

scooby757:

I didn't reply to your previous question because it has been answered before. As for your questions on believing in God, it almost doesn't deserve an answer either. But, I will give it a shot.

You admitted that the vast complexity of living things is amazing. Yes, it is truely amazing and astounding. So much so, I say it takes just as much faith to believe in God as it does to believe the universe came from a spontaneous, pin-point explosion, and the earth and its living things came from non-living material. Order came from chaos? Yeah, right. There is a little thing called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which CAN be applied to the universe and the earth.

Daveandrews:

Ah, once again, you are getting microevolution confused with macroevolution! With the moth example, changes occurred WITHIN a species (microevolution). A new species was not created through a mutation (macroevolution).

You say evidence of evolution is in any anthropology text or any book on species. I would like to discuss this statement.

In the first place, any objective paleontologist must concede that one's interpretation of the fossil record will invariably be influenced by one's presuppositions (in the case of the evolutionists, the presumption that evolution has taken place), and that everything must therefore be forced to somehow fit into that framework. This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]

Also, Steven M. Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

Let us be reminded at this point that one alleged evolutionary ancestor of man (Piltdown Man) was exposed as a deliberate hoax; that another (Nebraska Man) might as well have been a hoax, a whole hominid “species” having been contrived entirely from a single tooth, which turned out to belong to a pig; and that among other now seriously questioned human “ancestors” is Ramapithecus (since reclassified as Sivapithecus), based on a few teeth and jaw fragments that turned out to so closely resemble those of a modern day orangutan that Richard Leakey's associate and co-author Alan Walker has cautiously alluded to the orangutan as a potential “living fossil”. The history of paleontology abounds with the rise and fall of various fabrications and complete reversals, demonstrating the need for extreme caution in accepting any claims based on what is often scant and equivocal evidence.

Having asserted that transitional fossils abound, some evolutionists cite Archaeopteryx as an example, declaring that it “is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact).”
Yet concerning Archaeopteryx, at least a few leading authorities on the subject seem to disagree with Isaak:

“... Archaeopteryxwas, in a modern sense, a BIRD.”
[Allan Feduccia (evolutionist), Science 259:790-793 (1993) (emphasis added)]

It should also be mentioned here that full-fledged crow-sized bird fossils have been found in strata believed by evolutionists to be 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx (and as old as the oldest fossil dinosaur), making the “transitional” nature of Archaeopteryx (between dinosaurs and birds) less defensible than ever before. [Tim Beardsley (evolutionist), Nature 322:677 (1986); Richard Monastersky (evolutionist), Science News 140:104-105 (1991); Alan Anderson, Science 253:35 (1991)]

And GEEZZZ, don't get me started on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!!!!!!

NOTE: I do not claim to have all of this evidence in my head. I have pulled much of my evidence and references from an excellent website, http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp and www.drdino.com. Check them out.

"Without the possibility of sin, we would not have been human."
I don't understand how a being can "create" man, and, "everything" of his own design and in his image, and then once they are "made" suddenly have no control over the "rules" governing their existance. If he is the end all/be all of existance, whose rules would we be breaking? A one and ONLY god would have no use of sin, hate, suffering, etc. etc.. Who made the rule that says to be human you must have the sin factor in there some place? So why would God make-up all these rules, and hence invent the actions themselves, yet try in all manor of odd ways to get "his" message across not to sin etc... It makes no sense to hope for an outcome you could have factored out from the beginning. I mean, you designed it from top to bottom right? Who would accuse God of cheating on the experiment? Man? Beast? I don't get it. It's so common to talk of all the power one minute, and having hands tied the next. How could that be? Who would keep God from changing things anyway he wished? On the one hand it's common to throw out examples of "rules" and "laws" of life, as if we follow the grand recipe book of "creating a world". Yet we are supposed to be the only ones, and God being the only one of his kind. So where did all the "laws of hate, love etc. come into being? They just came into being on their own?

"Man turned his back on God". Then I suggest he didn't try very hard to convince him of the truth.
Someone capable of such grand creations should have no trouble convincing the likes of man to the point of NO skeptics with relative ease. Yet the being responsible for everything there is, has a real hard time with that one...?????

TheGreatOne:

The Bible does not use the word "Dinosaur." However, check out the following verses. (I posted this back on page 1)

Job 40: 15-20
15 "Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly!
17 His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron.
19 He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.
20 The hills bring him their produce, and all the wild animals play nearby.

And I also offer evidence that shows that man could have walked the earth with dinosaurs:

Leakey's Footprints (1977). Throughout the 20th century, human footprints have been found in supposedly ancient rock, sometimes with dinosaur prints. In approximately 1977, Mary Leaky found at Laetoli in Africa, 30 miles [48 km] south of Olduvai Gorge, human footprints which, by the strata they are on, evolutionists date at nearly 4 million years in the past. Yet they are identical to modern human footprints. These and other footprints disprove evolutionary theories, especially those in which dinosaur prints are found with human footprints. Dinosaurs are said to be dated from 65 million to 135 million years ago; whereas man is said to have appeared far more recently (National Geographic, April 1979; Science News, February 9, 1980).

Dinosaurs.. the word dinosaur was not invented until the late half of 1800's... that means that no bible before then would use that word. It didn't exist. Now, through away your assumption of old age with dino's, because the reason they have old dates is based on flawed dating methods. Then, check with almost every culture, and nation around the world, and listen closely for dragon, or scary lizard stories. The reason dragon myths abound the world over is because they are tales of terrible lizards, . People have a flare for embellishing stories. Dino's, in stories are referred to as dragons.
You argue with us saying dino's and man didn't exist. However what leads you to that conclusion? I understand that you say that because that's what your basic assumption is, but on what type of evidence is your assumption based? Please be careful referring to dating methods, as even the most careless REAL scientist will tell you there are serious problems with it. The math is easy, the assumptions and presuppositions are not.

I guess we can't use greater than less than signs for quote purposes, in a post.. just lost a great post... ohwell

wanted to spread kudos around ... we can have wildly differening views on all types of things, and still keep it friendly!!

Kudos

Dre!

The Bible verse referring to a behemoth can be referring to any animal. The fact that is is not described as a lizard makes it safe to assume they weren't talking about dinosaurs. I understand the word dinosaur wasn't in use back then, but that's what they are called now.

Flawed or not, the oldest human remains found today are younger than dinosaur fossils..significantly younger...and if man had walked the earth with dinosaurs, would we not have been destroyed with what was it, 90% of life on the planet when the earth was struck by a planet killing asteroid? I'm sure a few people could have survived...but the cold combined with no food/vegetation would have led to people ultimately starving to death. Just because someone found a footprint with a human footprint in it doesn't mean anything. There's no way to prove some human was walking through that place hundreds or thousands of years after it was created. And even if man were around with the dinosaurs, it would have been a very primative man...certainly not smart enough to document anything - aside from smearing feces on the wall of a cave or something. And where does the bible document the asteroid impact that ended pretty much all life on earth? There is scientific fact supporting the theorey that this did happen. We are talking about things that happened millions of years ago, and a book that was written a couple of thousand years ago.

The vast majority of books on dinosaurs are written from an evolutionary perspective which assumes that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. Yes the leading model for the demise of the dinosaur involves a large asteroid hitting the earth. Yet the most obvious alternative explanation is almost always ignored. Almost all fossils are the remains of creatures buried by sediment filled water which has subsequently turned to rock. If this is due to a flood of worldwide extent, as the water rose to cover all land surfaces, animals would have been drowned, sank, and buried by massive amounts of rapidly accumulating sediment. It is not at all surprising to find a general lack of burial mixing between these very different kinds of animals due to local or ecological grouping.

The humans that were around during the flood would have tried to do anything to escape drowning. Climing mountians, hanging on to floating debris, etc. It is no wonder there are not many human remains with dinosaurs.

Genesis 7:2 states that Noah saved two of every representative "kind" of land animal on the ark. Noah would have taken young specimens, not huge, older creatures. Dinosaurs would have emerged from the ark to inhabit an entirely different world. Instead of a warm, mild climate worldwide, they would have found a harsh climate which soon settled into an ice age. If climatic hardships did not cause the dinosaur's extinction, man's tendency to destroy probably did.

In the early 1900's on the Doheny expedition into the Grand Canyon, Indian cave drawings were found which closely resembled a duck-billed dinosaur. Legends from ancient China to ancient England have recorded descriptions of dinosaur-like creatures. The Kuku Yalanji aboriginal people have paintings which look exactly like plesiosaurs. These and other intriguing evidences seem to indicate that perhaps that age of the dinosaurs ended more recently than is commonly taught.

And if that doesn't make sense, take a look at the pictures on this web site that show dinosaurs that were discovered in this century and they are not fossils.

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=15

I think everyone can agree that no one knows what exactly is in the deepest parts of the ocean. Could there still be dinosaurs in the very depths of the ocean?

TheGreatOne:

"The fact that is is not described as a lizard makes it safe to assume they weren't talking about dinosaurs."

Why do you say that?

"the oldest human remains found today are younger than dinosaur fossils..significantly younger"

Once again, how do you know the human remains are younger?!?! Geez, we have posted may times and provided much evidence saying that dating methods are severely flawed! If both a dino fossil and a human fossil are both stone, how do you know one is older than the other? And what if they are found in the same strata?

"Just because someone found a footprint with a human footprint in it doesn't mean anything."

So I guess fossils don't mean anything? Man, you make no sense. Oh, and evolutionists say that early humans had different bone structure. How could their feet be exactly the same as humans now?

Oh, and the "Great Asteroid" is another evolutionary theory on how the dinos where killed off. I know they think they found a huge crater off of Mexico, but what does that prove? Can you provide this evidence that an astroid DID wipe out most life on earth? That theory is very disputed. Why couldn't they have just died off due to environmental changes?

Oh, and this is a thought I just had. It may be a faulty thought, but I will write it anyway. If the asteroid wiped out most life on earth, wouldn't have evolution had to start over? Like I said, just a thought.

I think you answered your own question. The complexities of life prove that their existence didn't happen hap hazardly. Hence, God created them. Now, let's say for the point of discussion that you had the power to creat a living person from nothing. (The best scientists can do today is create life from existing life and then it is an exact copy.) Would you want your creation to be a robot that would do exactly what you said with no thought process? No! You would want the person to have a mind of their own to think with. You would want that person to be able to love you because they wanted to love you and not because you made them love you. That is called "free will". Now if you give your person free will there is going to come a time when they disapoint you, and turn their back on you.

When God created man from the dust of earth, He ceated them with a free will. A free will to think and act for themself. God knew before He created them that there was coming a day when His creation would disapoint Him and turn their back on Him. Does this mean His creation was flawed? No, it just means that we have the free will to choose whether to trust in God or not to trust in Him. Another interesting tidbit if you read through Genesis, is that Adam, Eve and God talked to each other just like we talk to each other. But Adam and Eve disobeyed God's law (notice singular law, "do not eat the fruit of this one tree.") and because of that, they had to face the consequences of their disobedience. They had to leave the Garden of Eden that God had placed them in and they had to work the land themselves.

Look I realize it takes a lot of faith to believe in an all powerful, all knowing God, but it takes just as much faith if not more to believe there isn't a God.

Oh, one more thing, I forget who posed the question, but why couldn't God create Eve from a rib of Adam? I believe it is still fact that women have one more rib than men do. It just shows that women are apart of men. Even God said that when a man and woman have sex they become one. They are apart of each other.

I suppose this post has gone just about everywhere it can for a newsgroup. None of us can really prove our sources, and I think the wonderful world of semantics really gets the last laugh here.

The evolutionists can't accept the creationist point of view b/c its pretty much all based on a collection of ancient writings that they will never be able to prove the validity of. The creationists won't believe in evolution b/c it relies heavily on the ability to accuratly date fossils and planetary events.

So, for me, I guess it all boils down to this: Something died a long time ago, got buried and became oil, and an evolved man at my local BP station made it into gas that makes my SVT go vroooom! In fact, I think I'm going to go driving right now. See ya!

The reason you have those memories is because I put them there. I put everything everywhere. I made it 'appear' as if world is older than a day (from now).

It's easy when your omnipotent.

Well, I stand corrected on the rib comment. cpurser sent me an email with a web site that explains how ribs actually do regenerate themselves. So that is cool. I'd hate for my wife to be one rib up on me. :-) LOL

Here is the web site if anyone is interested.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4145.asp

If I were talking about a lizard, I would call it one...

Ok so they might not be accurate to the same year or century....but are you telling me that these methods cannot show such a vast difference, like that between millions of years and thousands!? Oh yeah, didn't they do a carbon dating on the shround of turin? I don't remember the results, but if they coincided with the time of Jesus' death, what would you say about that? And what if they are found in the same strata? The earth is a constantly moving thing. Earthquakes, floods, erosion, volcanic eruptions...any one of these things could uncover fossils and move them around. So what?

No, what I'm saying is that weather and the various other elements mentioned above "could" have uncovered a footprint, or a land that was hard dry desert, then a change in weather or something...water softened the ground, primitave man wandered through there, viola 2 footprints from 2 different times. Doesn't mean fossils mean jack, it means things aren't always as they seem. And I don't know what you're talking about when you mention bone structure...I didn't say anything about that so you lost me on that one.

Take away the water on this planet. The coast of Mexico IS a freaking crater! And there are various other giant craters around this world..what's the one in the US? Mile high or something...Can I provide evidence it did wipe out life on earth. Well, there is a layer of some type of mineral or something (sorry I do not remember the exact names) in the ground, found in various parts of the world, where such a mineral is not otherwise found in the ground - Which makes sense that something at that time (looking at layers of earth is like looking at rings of a tree) blew a ****load of crap into the air, and it settled all over the world. We know that such an explosion that put that much debris in the air would have blackened our sky, blocking out the sun, killing plantlife, freezing animals, and those that did not die from freezing simply starved to death. Not to mention those erradicated by the initial blast, firestorm, shockwaves and tidal waves caused by such an impact. Yeah, species could die from environmental changes, but these changes do not just happen overnight. Something had to happen fast enough to kill dinosaurs and everything else before they had a chance to adapt. How do we have proof that these asteroids could cause so much damage? Well, aside from the obvious, and data collected from our own nuclear tests back when we were still testing, we just recently witnessed the shumacher-levy comet slamming into Jupiter - and comets are generally not made of the same hard rock or metal ore that asteroids are. The damages caused are well documented and the planet still bears a scar.

So the dinosaurs died, small mammals survived and adapted, and continued to evolve. Sure...if life were COMPLETELY wiped out, evolution could have started over, but then who says things would have happened the same exact way they did before, producing the same exact species, etc.

The Bible still was written only a couple of thousand years ago, no mention of dinosaurs or the catastrophic events that led to their demise. Mentions of giant lizards make sense. There still are close relatives to dinosaurs walking this earth. Alligators, crocodiles, kimodo dragons, other reptiles.

Prove it. I gave evidence stating why you're wrong, now you have to prove your position, and why my evidence is invalid.

Your statement would never stand up to legal or scientific scrutiny without evidence to back it up.

You put the ball in our court, I provided evidence and lobbed it back into your court. Now the burden to provide evidence is on you.

TheGreatOne:

"If I were talking about a lizard, I would call it one..."

Yeah, if it was actually called a "lizard" back then...

"Ok so they might not be accurate to the same year or century....but are you telling me that these methods cannot show such a vast difference, like that between millions of years and thousands!?"

Man, have you not read any of the past posts? All types of dating have huge assumptions built into them. (Read back a few pages for some posts for those assumptions.) As I and others have posted evidence for before, and no scientist will dispute, carbon dating is not anywhere near accurate beyond 40,000 years old, due to the half-life of carbon 14. As for the shround of turin, I never gave evidence that the shroud is real, and I never quoted the age of the shroud.

"...weather and the various other elements mentioned above "could" have uncovered a footprint, or a land that was hard dry desert, then a change in weather or something...water softened the ground, primitave man wandered through there....."

Oh, so after millions of years, rain and weather softens stone, a man steps into the dino footprint, and then it turns back into stone... Makes sense to me!! :rolleyes: Please excuse my sarcasism, but man! Come on!

"...various other giant craters around this world..what's the one in the US? Mile high or something..."

Must be the Rocky Mountains... or maybe the Smoky Mountains.... :rolleyes:

The Great One, you state that creationists' evidence is false when we find human remains in the same strata as dinosaur remains...You say that the earth is always changing (Volcanoes, earthquakes, etc.)
You then offer your evidence for an asteroid impact as a layer of strata that is common the world over. You can't have both...which one is it? Are the strata correct or not?

This kind of circular reasoning is the best you've got?

I have a bumper sticker one my truck that says it all " I believein the big bang theory, God said bang and it happened!!

Omnipotent being doesn't need to represent evidence. His word is divine knowledge.

And since the existence of omnipotent being is possible, according to many billions of people on this planet, what's to say I'm not an omnipotent being capable of performing any action or presenting any situation.
Unless, this court will not consider the possibility of the existence of a supreme being (me), meaning any creation that requires the supreme being (me again) could not have possibly happened.

Creation requires a creator; if you won't at least consider me being a creator then you are dismissing the possibility of a creator. Hence, no creation.

Scientist doesn?t study whether there is a god or not. He studies what CAN happen without external influence (god). This might sound like just leaving god out, but then again, do raindrops really need god's divine interference to form.

So, is it possible for me to be Omnipotent being that created everything yesterday as they appear (memories, canyons, pictures, etc)?

Excuse, me...Omnipotent one? What's my middle name? Answer correctly and I will follow you!
:rolleyes:

daenku32, you're being utterly ridiculous. Separate out two concepts. The first concept is that there is an omnipotent Creator. I have no problem with that, though I believe the Creator acted through evolution. The second is a claim that you are that Creator. Prove it. Just because there is a Creator in no way forces me to think that you may be that creator, and if someone comes up to me making such claims, I am going to want proof. Jesus gave proof, in his miracles. I don't see you performing any such miracles.

To answer your question, I will say it is not possible for you to be the Creator, a different being already did before you had the chance.

Ok cpurser, so 40,000 years is still a long time before the time of the Bible. Very long. Now, if you're trying to say the earth is only 40,000 years old, more or less....lol!

As far as lizards go, fine...but the animal was not described (hairy, not hairy, scaly skin, etc.) It was merely described as a behemoth. That can be anything....That's like seeing a hit and run and telling the police "Yeah the person was driving a big car" What is that solid proof of? Nothing.

Nobody said the footprint was fossil to begin with. We've seen people, artifacts, plants, animals preserved for many many years. Covered in ice, or sand (not organic remains unless we're talking mummies though...but look at the remains of pompei). Something does not have to be a fossil to be preserved. Merely isolated from weather. Where in the world was this footprint? Is it not possible it was under a deep layer of ice for a number of years, thawed out somehow, primitave man wanders through and steps in it...then it became a fossil? You make it sound like things are either one thing or another when it comes to nature, and it's not there are simply too many possibilities to account for. Meaning sometimes things happen that are not so easily explained. It doesn't mean "God did it" and it doesn't prove man and dinosaur walked the earth together. And who verified this human footprint? Or is it something that resembles a human footprint in something that resembles a dinosaur footprint? How can you know for sure?

There is a crater somewhere in America..Nevada I believe. Sorry I do not know the name of it, but it is a tourist spot. It does exist.

T-Red, yes the earth is constantly changing...but not all at once. Since when is an earthquake a global event? There are parts of the earth that are intact, atleast below ground level. Yes, you can have both. This layer has been found at dig sites in different places around the world, and in places where these elements are not found in the ground. Nobody planted them there.

Oh, now I see the light....the fossil record is only conclusive if it compliments your argument! Wonderful...We need to look at it from the viewpoint that the Bible is looked at. If you don't believe 1 word out of it, you don't believe any of the words...This is not something you pick and choose so that it suits you or your argument. Fossil records are either....Evidence that man did live in an age of "dragons" (Dinosaurs) or they are 100% false. We can not empirically say that what is true in this part of the world is false in another. The same physics apply.
Oddly enough, the element you are thinking of is an isotope of iridium, I believe. This layer is found very close to strata containing many bronze age artifacts. hmmm....weird. It proves nothing.
The argument that this element is found in asteroids or comets is irrelevent, because it is found on earth also...not just in this strata, but dispersed throughout the world...

We'll see soon enough...REV. 6:14
I won't be here...will you?

Wo said that? I wish I could draw you a diagram. 65 million years ago, an asteroid hits earth. Distributes a layer of Iridium across the world. Continents move, earthquakes happen....but the layer is still there, not anywhere you decide to dig a hole due to the events mentioned but there is still evidence of this at different parts of the globe. I don't understand the problem.

Sorry to cut in but IIRC earlier in the posts the creationists were saying that the earth is only 6 thousand years old and that carbon dating was only a guess after that amount of time. Now it comes to light that it is accurate out to about 40,000 years. Well if that is the case that blows the thought of the earth only being 6,000 years-old out of the water. To ask one question that was asked earlier in the post by someone "who created god?". I really have pondered this question myself. After all if the creationists feel they can side step theories like the big bang by asking what caused it and where did the ingredients for it come about, then I venture as to ask you who made god. Someone or something would of had to after all he couldn't make himself if he didn't exist yet. What did he just kinda pop out of nothingness? I don't think so. After all if you can say that it is possible for a all knowing, all powerfull, invisible, non-validatable being to just appear out of nothing. Then I can't see how you can be so quick to dis credit an explanation such as the big bang, evolution, etc...

I stumbled with that question of evolution and creation too!! I would recommend if you get a chance to look at a book called (Life How did it get here, By Evolution or Creation) Not trying to change anyones religion or anything but you can get that book from Jehovahs Witnesses!! People like to give us a bad rep. but all we try to do is draw people to the bible. Anyway it hits it from both the scientific field and from the bible, so you see both sides. Just my 2cents for today!! Very glad some people can have a decent discussion without blowin up!! Later

ASSVT:

You did not remember correctly. Back on page 1, my original statement quoted the 40k number. I never said that dating techniques are only good for less than 6k years. More on age dating later.

TheGreatOne:

I will ask once again. Have you read the other 5 pages of this discussion? From your uninformed posts you have made here, it sure doesn't sound like it.

This is part of what I posted a couple of pages back:

"My main goal of my posts here is to show that evolution is not science, and that it has not been proven as fact."

Ok, here we go again. Just based on the half-life of carbon 14, carbon dating is only accurate for less than 40,000 years. However, throw in all the assumptions that have to be made on top of the half-life calculations, and carbon dating's accuracy (as with all other dating techniques) goes down even further!

But, just say that the earth is 40,000 years old. According to evolutionist, that STILL isn't long enough for evolution to have happened. Fourty thousand years is a LOONNNGGG way away from 200 million years. Fourty thousand years isn't even long enough for the earth to have cooled and the little one celled thing-a-ma-bobbers to have "evolved"!

As for the footprint arguement, I posted the exact evidence and reference on a previous post. But now I will go even further! Photos here:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-3b-java.htm

I myself beleive that the earth is billions of years old. But that is beside the point. My main question was as stated by another ceg'er was who made god? I asked this question of the creationists in one of edwardc topic from a few weeks ago( too lazy to search for it right now) but it never got answered. And in this topic the same question was also asked by someone else and they still get no answer. So I ask again. Who made god????? Where did he come from?????

ASSVT:

I did not answer your question before because I did not have any physical evidence to support my answer. I have limited my arguments in this discussion to what I could offer evidence. However, I will answer you now.

According to the Bible, God has always been and forever will be.

And believe me, I am the first to tell you, that is a hard statement to accept. It is beyond my comprehension to grasp that statement. BUT, that is where my Faith comes in.

Now, I am sure I am about to reap some flames from the evolutionists about that statement. That's all well and good.

But, before you cast the first stone, let me ask you this:

Where did the spark of the Big Bang come from? Where did that pin-point explosion originate?

Let me answer it for you. You don't know. Period. That is where YOUR faith comes in.

Where's God gonna go when our sun burns out in 5.5 million years? Earth won't be too exciting after that.

cpurser: that is my point exactly I can't prove the spark that caused the big bang just like you can't prove the creation of god. Becuase how can he always have been when there was nothing, same thing can be said about the big bang how did an explosion happen from nothing. So you can see that the evolutional theory is not alone in having some major what ifs. But the creationists theory just seems to have more far-fetched what-ifs.

ASSVT:

Your point is taken. We will have to agree to disagree on that point.

But once again, my goal in this discussion was to provide evidence to show that evolution isn't "gospel," and that it shouldn't be taken as fact. And hopefully I have been able to do that for at least one person that has braved the 7 pages that this topic has become.

your talking as if he has to be bound to the physical confines of the universe that he created. As if he has to abide by the same rules we have to exist by (eg. time) This is not so but I am at school and I have to go to class I can finish this later.

I think the main differences between the followers of Creationism and Evolution is that people who believe in Evolution don't tell you that you are gonna spend eternity in hell if you don't believe in it.

On that note I just want people to understand that creationism isn't "gospel", (pardon the pun) and that it shouldn't be taken as fact. Kinda works both ways doesn't it? Fact is we will never know. I guess I'm more comfortable with knowing that when I die, that's it, game over, lights out. But I can understand people not wanting to accept that fact.

Ok, so evolution is not proven as fact...neither is creationism, and when it comes down to it, evolution makes ALOT more sense.

I know the earth is not 40,000 years old....you're the one who seems to have trouble grasping that fact. 40,000 years is an eye blink in terms of evolution. It's obvious that is not enought time for any type of evolution to take place. That is IF the world is only 40,000 years old - which it's not!

I can't seem to find anything about the dinosaur print, I know it was mentioned but I'm at work and a little pressed for time lol but that picture shows 2 "prints" like was said...now my question is, what was the dino print identified as? I would imagine something this groundbreaking would have a bunch of studies going on.

I agree that's where faith comes in as well...it is hard to know where everything came from. However, it is not it is not beyond our comprehension.....physicists around the world will one day have an equation, one inch long, that explains the universe as we know it. Might I recommend reading some booke by Michu Kaku (I think that's how his name is spelled). Very smart man...

When the "great flood" killed off everything that Noah and company didn't load up on the ark. What killed off the ocean-going dinos [someone mentioned pleasiosaur for one example] that some of you suggest lived at the same time as man?
Please don't say they "drowned".

scooby757:

That is a good question. These pictures are quite interesting:

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=15

OK I don't have time to read everything but I read someone saying how evolution and creationism doesn't necessary disprove the other. I believe that evolution is possible and tend not to believe in creationism. However, I do have a strong belief in God and believe that he is behind everything. Even he has to make everything out of something. Those that believe in creationism is saying the chicken came before the egg. Doesn't it make sense that god would create the egg to form the chicken out of? That is my belief because I believe the bible can not be taken literally word for word. It's not that I don't believe in the bible like someone mentioned, it is something that was passed on by word of mouth before it was written down. Also, how does anyone know that each "day" is not actually a day? a day is a measurement of time that came after the earth was created. How do you know how long he took for each step in creating the world?

Posted by ASSVT:
What comforts me is I'll know if I'm right...you never will...You'll know if you're wrong. I never will...

the oceans would be so full of sediment that most of the life in them would suffocate and die. I didnt say drowned I said suffocate. :p

when is anyone going to make that list of five things that they believe are strong arguments for evolution? instead of asking questions that are really nothing more than attempts to change the focus of the discussion.

So am I to understand that the ark had holding tanks for ALL the species of fish, and sea mammals that we now have, including all species of sharks, and all species of whales.[remember they couldn't just grab two small pilot whales, and have all the other species "evolve" from it later...right?] Since sediment can't distinguish between blue whale, and plesiosaur, for example.
EVERYTHING here now must have been on for the ride eh?

you didnt read what I said

Must have been one f***ing big a$$ boat.

and yes it was one really huge boat roughly the size of a modern day tanker or freighter

Fact is it would of had to have been a lot bigger than that in order to carry ALL the different types of animals not to mention carry all the food for those animals, oh and what about a freshwater source. Yeah that boat would have had to have been the size of 3-4 aircraft carriers at the minimum. And to think they did it all in wood. :rolleyes:

Thoughts about the Flood:

* Over 250 Flood legends from all parts of the world have been found. Most have similarities to the Genesis story.

* Noah's ark was built only to float, not to sail anywhere. Many ark scholars believe that the ark was a "barge" shape, not a pointed "boat" shape. This would greatly increase the cargo capacity. Scoffers have pointed out that the largest sailing ships were less than 300 feet because of the problem of twisting and flexing the boat. These ships had giant masts on them and sails to catch the wind. Noah's ark need neither of those and therefore had far less torsional stress.

* Even using the small 18-inch cubit (my height is 6-ft. 1-in. and I have a 21-in. cubit) the ark was large enough to hold all the required animals, people, and food with room to spare.

* The length-to-width ratio of 6 to 1 is what shipbuilders today often use. This is the best ratio for stability in stormy weather.

* God told Noah to bring two of each kind (seven of some), not of each species or variety. Noah had only two of the dog kind which would include the wolves, coyotes, foxes, mutts, etc. The "kind" grouping is probably closer to our modern family division in taxonomy, and would greatly reduce the number of animals on the ark. Animals have diversified into many varieties in the last 4400 years since the Flood. This diversification is not anything similar to great claims that the evolutionists teach.

* Only land-dwelling, air-breathing animals had to be included on the ark (Gen. 7:15, "in which is the breath of life," 7:22). Noah did not need to bring all the thousands of insects varieties.

* Many animals sleep, hibernate, or become very inactive during bad weather.

* The large mountains, as we have them today, did not exist until after the Flood when "the mountains arose and the valleys sank down" (Ps. 104:5-9, Gen. 8:3-8).

* There is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the earth 8,000 feet deep if the surface of the earth were smooth.

* The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals.

* Sedimentary rock is found all over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed in water.

* Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mount Everest.

* Bent rock layers, fossil graveyards, and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a Flood.

so when do I get my five proofs list????? Dont ask us anymore questions we have been doing that most of the argument. Stop avoiding giving me a list or do I just assume that you cant?

I can't believe I missed this discussion. Oh well. I do have a few points to make.

To answer the question as it is asked. Evolutionists cannot prove the age of the earth.

From Starr and Taggart: Evolution is simply the character of the population changing through successive generations.

This has nothing to do with proving the age of something, just studying a given population of creatures over the course of time and noting the changes in their characteristics.

As for Evolution, I suggest anyone who doesn't believe it just doesn't understand it. Read any Biology book. They will always describe Evolution, as it's the basis of Biology...or the study of life. Nowhere in the current study of evolution (and I'm not talking about Darwin's notes) does it mention religion.

From Webster's Dictionary: Religion-An organized system of beliefs, rites, and celebrations centered on a supernatural being power; belief pursued with devotion.

The last fragment is the key, belief pursued with devotion. No sense in arguing with one's devotion.

Why mix the two....Evolution and religion. Why can't a religious individual believe in the change of a species characteristics over time? They can, ask anyone who studies Islam. My best friend gives lectures upon religion and evolution. Islam believes in both.

Now, scientists determining the age of the earth, not Evolutionists, is something entirely different.

I will attempt to answer that entirely different question when it is asked.

Greatone..
just a quick thing... if they dated the shroud of turin, and it dated to christ's time.. I would discount that date right off the bat. We were not there at the time of the making of the shroud, so we can't tell how much of whatever isotope was there to begin with, and we creationists, seeing the world around us, would correctly surmise that we can't be nieve and think that the current rate of isotope decay is and has been the same since then, and also that the shroud was in a closed system for the entire time. After all this, we wouldn't even know what dating method to use, because c12-c14 wouldn't work. It's highly unlikely there would be potasium, or argon... lead?? I don't think so.. there are about 15 other methods I could think of, but none would even be possible for a shroud..
Anyways.. my point is, yes.. dating methods are SO fataly flawed, and based on such FLIMSY assumptions, that an honest creationist would say no to a dating method.. regardless of whether "it agrees" with him or not...
we don't say yes to something that agrees, and then in the same breath, like many evolutionists say but this date is unacceptable...

I lack the overall tact to make my point in a non-offensive way, so please accept my apology for any perceived hostility. Not supposed to sound that way!

Great one.. I would like to look up further this substance that you are taling about.. if you could try to find a reference for me.. a name of the substance or something I could use to maybe research it a little. I find that intriguing...

Others... I suggest you read study by Dr Russell Humphries suggest runaway plate tectonics, as a cause for a global flood. The catalyst for this runaway plate tectonics was gigantic meteors colliding with earth. Nobody disputes giant meteors hitting earth. We dispute you saying the meteors wiped out dino's.
The main concern I can see is that most people talk dogmatically of evolution, when in reality it is only man's theories (regardles of good or bad not debating that in this talk) and these theories change all the time.
A proper, straight forward reading of genesis however, will give you information that has not changed in many years... infact has never changed since it was compiled by Moses. So, although creation scientists will be honest with the evidence and drop bad science, puluxy riverbed tracks.. etc... we don't change our basic premise. God created.

assvt... please follow along...

humans.. we always look at things from a time perspective.. everything has a beginning because we are subject to time, time is not outside of the universe, but rather inside. God, "the same yesterday, today, and forever" is outside of time. This is why the first few versus of genesis say that "IN THE BEGINNING"
When... the beginning... it is explained this way, because God creates time, then, says... at the very first moment in time.. the beginning... I created the heavens and the earth...
We can not wrap our heads properly around perhaps Him being outside of time, but it is not a stretch! He is not a physical human.
Hope this answers it. Contact me at blumchen@rogers.com for a more indepth answer if you care!
I think I speak for most christians on this board.. we are trying our best to give you REAL answers to some REAL questions... one small dilemna many of you will have however, is that you start with the premise that Evolution happened. Then you look at the world around you, and say wow... looks like it did happen.. Well, if you picture an analogy... You are wearing evolution glasses... if you take those glasses off, and wear a pair that say creation start with the assumption there is a God. and watch the evidence make sense. Again, with your evolution glasses on, some evidence makes sense, but the majority just doesn't seem to fit just quite rightly.
I would challenge you to take up blitzkrieg's 5 most favoured arguements for evolution idea.. and make that list.. see if it stands...

Small point concerning dating again... most people say that a certain fossil was dug up in a certain layer.. say precambrian.. or messazoic...
then you say that that fossil must be 60 million years old.. it is in a certain layer... The problem is, the people that designed the stratographic column, relied on the people designing the geologic column, for dates, and vica versa.. the geologists say the rocks are this age, because of the fossils contained there in... the (word escapes me.. fossil diggers.. sorry guys)say that fossils are so old, because of the rock layers they are found in...
this is circular reasoning. An honest person would look at the situation, and say that we need to look at our ages...

The 40000 year upper age limit for carbon dating, is simply a math formula...
it doesn't mean that the earth has to be that old...
example...
formula works like this
we take an organic substance...
we surmise it has 1 ounce of carbon12 to begin with, we know at present that 1 ounce of carbon decays into 1/2 ounce of carbon over x years...
therefore... with our original assumptions, we plug in the exact(currently measured) half life of carbon12, and that gives us a date.. the problem is, imagine if carbon was leaching into, or out of the organic substance we are dating!!
also... we were not there originally to acuratly measure how much carbon was in it to begin with...
so we guess... (not terribly scientific)
anyways, half life of different isotopes is up into the billions of years. that does not mean that the universe has been around that long.. it just means that the isotope is VERY stable.. it take xbillion years for 1kg of said isotope, to decay in 1/2 kg of said daughter isotope!!

cpurser... if you read the latest creation mag... from AIG... you will see an interesting article about plesiarours... Your photo's however, that you point to, are not used as evidence by major creation organizations, because those photo's are not conclusive, and preliminary reports seem to indicate that thosae carcasses are mearly a wierd type of whale.. < Article is in the magazine in my car. Email me if you want to know the name of the whale...> sorry..

Taxed2Death:

You have done very well with your posts. About those pictures: I agree that they are not conclusive, but I found them interesting, none the less. The magazine that you mentioned sounds interesting. What is it called again? Creation? And the publisher is AIG?

MystiqueSVT:

I am glad you have joined the discussion.

"From Starr and Taggart: Evolution is simply the character of the population changing through successive generations.

This definition is very broad and vague, and it is one of MANY definitions of evolution. The way it is worded here, it could be taken as Micro- or Macro-evolution.

"This has nothing to do with proving the age of something, just studying a given population of creatures over the course of time and noting the changes in their characteristics.

But without enough time, macroevolution did not have time to happen! That is why Creationists dwell on this point. There has been enough time for changes within a species (micro-), but not enough time for mutations and other factors to allow across-species changes (macro-).

So after the flood, how did these animals get all around the world? did noah transfer them to all islands in the world. or was it just another godly miracle...

The biblical flood is totally absurb.

most of the 'evidence' is incomplete and has other more logical explanation as to why they exist.

large scale floods do happen all the time, but there is no evidence of a global flood that would have covered all...

Except if that flood occoured on mars right! I mean a planet that has yet to offer us one drop of water, is now thought to have been completely flooded at one time but it's impossible for the earth which is over 70% water to have been covered by a global flood??? Which sounds more like a stretch, which takes more faith to believe in???

Taxed2Death, I do believe the "substance" is called iridium. It's something commonly found in "extra terrestrial" rocks IE: asteroids. What makes it so interesting is that there is a fine layer of it spread across the world. Again, not anywhere you decide to dig a hole, because the earths crust is a ocnstantly changing thing, but when you find this at various points across the world, it suggests that something catastrophic happened to spread that layer over such a great distance. I believe it is also evidence of Pangea, the one giant continent that once existed.

I think this is a great discussion, I wish I had the time to thoroughly do all the research I want, but oh well.

I believe in both. I think there is a God who created things and allowed them to evolve. I think during the "7 days" (which couldn't be seven actual days because a day is based on the revolution of the Earth around the sun, neither of which were created until after the second day or so - so 7 days is most likely a way of explanation for a complicated process of creation and evolution) man evolved and at some point given souls. That's my theory.

Evolutionism- If man evolved from chimps and apes then why do we still have chimps and apes.

Creationism- If god created everything then who created god?

I'm so torn.

pangea is a creationist idea. they have been using it for a few hundred years I believe. Good to see the evolutionists listen every now and again.

I have been avoiding this thread for...well...182 posts. I believe that creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive and that what we see today was a combination of both. I'm not sure why this is being discussed as one vs the other.

blitzkrieg so I guess I have been singeled out to provide a list of five arguements for the evolutionists theory. I was not ignoring you just didn't know it was directed at me. Well I will provide a list but it is going to have to be later as I just got to work. I would also like to see a list of five arguements from your point. I will be posting mine in 4-6 hours maybe earlier depends on how work goes.

Argument #1
According to cpurser noah only had to take one pair of each type of animal, besides clean animals of which he took 7 pairs. Well I would like to know how in 4400 years did we end up with hundreds of different breeds of dogs,cats, etc..
That applies to just about any type of animal. After all if there was a EVOLUTIONARY event on that scale with that many different species just popping into existence why did it stop we should within the last 200 years have been able to see these mutations still happening. I mean if you got a dog the size of a wolf how many generations do you think it's going to take to get a chihuahua sp?. Wouldn't we as creationist so like to point out have a fossil record of such great change of species over a relatively short period of time? Oh and why didn't noah have to take insects are they not land dwelling air breathing animals? If he didn't how did we get thousands of different types of insect from the realtively few (read none) that would have survived the global flood. So people on the creationist side say they do not believe in evolution yet what would have had to had happened was in fact evolution, even if it was on a completely absurd scale. I can't believe that all these different species came about without millions of years of gradual change. Will have more later, I'm still not awake. Edit: One thing I forgot. How many people were on the ark? And did noah just drop them off all over or what? Oh yeah he wouldn't be able to becuase it was a barge which means that they were stuck in one place when the water went down. Oh yeah where did all the water go? That much water didn't evaporate and it for sure didn't freeze up that quick.

ASSVT.. you may want to have a look at a scientific study done on the biblical dimensions given for the ark....
The rather indepth technical work is entitled
Noah's ark, a feasability study.

It deals with questions such as which kindso f animals were on the ark, floor space allotment air exchange, waste managment, heating, ventilation, and illumination. It also deals with living conditions, preservation of foodstuffs for the duration of the trip.. feeding challenges (animals with special diets) etc...The list goes on. The ark was a VERY large boat... Conservative measurements peg the internal size at the cubic footage of 500+ standard sized american railroad box cars. (under time pressure, and couldn't find the exact number.. I beleive its 552)
That is a lot of animals.. and remember that (it was already posted here once) not every single animals today needed on the ark. not a sheppard, and a husky, and a great dane etc... only one pair of the dog KIND... taxonomy is not my specialty, i haven't studied there yet, but I recommend the book for further questions... also, to dispell the myth before it even gets mentioned here, REALLY large boats have been built in the past by many different civilizations..
ark... 450 feet long
75 feet wide,
45 feet wide... Fairly large

leontifera
Naval battle ship in the Aegean sea in 280 BC
"This one had eight tiers of oars per side...in her were a hundred oars per tier, so that on each side there were eight hundred rowers.. For a total of 1600 rowers... on the upper deck or hatches there were 1200 fighting men under two special commanders... authority philostephanus.. 3rd C. BC(larry pierce, page 2, large war ships of antiquity. (report for creation mag))

another ship 130 meters long
18 wide, and 22 high.. four steering oars...
40 tiers or oars.. double bow, double stern carried seven rams.. it was manned by 400 sailors to handle the riggings, 4000 rowers and 2850 men in arms for a total over 7250....
It was almost to large to be of practical usage as a war vessle. Inventor Ptolemy Philopator, surname Tryphon.. Authority Philostephanus.. (ibid)

Taxed2death: Nice research those were some big boats. Well anyways I have posted first argument of the five that blitzkrieg asked for. I have more unanswered questions.

Assvt.. you are confusing genetics with evolution. Are you suggesting that dog breeders are hurrying along evolution.. they have nothing to do with evolution.. the dna structure of original dog kind is from a single doglike KIND... current dogs, and wolves and coyotes are simply offspring of this kind... read about this science called genetics from Mendehlson or other greats...This will explain it for you. sorry gotta run.. This board is a lot of fun though. have a great day folks!

ASSVT:

I don't think you were being targeted for providing the 5 arguments. I think it was to anyone who wanted to take the challenge.

Argument #1:

Once again, Creationists agree with micro-evolution, or the changes within a species. Also, humans have been breeding cats, dogs, horses, etc. for many, many, years. Your example of a chihuahua represents selective breeding by humans to bring about desired results within a species.

As for insects: I don't have a definite answer for you. But I would say, as with any flood, you will have floating debris. If Noah didn't carry some species of insects on the ark, I can imagine that most species could have survived while floating on debris. Have you ever seen a colony of ants that has been caught in a rainstorm? They clump together and float. (Actually, it is pretty cool to watch.)

Where did the water go?

This question assumes that the pre-flood world was like the world is today. The Bible states clearly that the water was 15 cubits over the tallest mountain. Sea-shell fossils have been found on top of mountain ranges all over the world. The top of Mt. Everest is covered with petrified, closed clams. They had to be buried alive to be petrified in the closed position. The Bible says in Psalm 104 that as the flood ended the mountains lifted up and the valleys sank down and the water hasted away. Today's mountain ranges are well above sea level, but this was not the case before the flood. If the earth were smoothed out today, that is, the mountains pressed down and the ocean basins lifted up, there is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the entire earth 8,000 feet deep (approximately 1.5 miles).
All of the water ran off rapidly through the soft sediments into the ocean basins during the last few months of the flood. This would explain the rapid carving of features such as the Grand Canyon and the Bad Lands.

Did Noah drop off/pick up all the animals?

This question assumes that the world before the flood was like the world is today with animals specialized for certain areas. Today the world is 70% water and the oceans separate the continents. Also, some animals only live in a few selected locations. The Bible teaches that before the flood the water was gathered into one place (Genesis 1:9). There was probably one ocean and much more landmass. Also, if the climate was more temperate animals could live in all types of places which means Noah did not have to go gather animals from all over the world. In fact, the Bible says that the animals came to Noah (Genesis 6:20).

Taxed2death: Yes I am aware of Mendel's work with flowers and punnet squares as I selectively breed reptiles for different traits. But the fact is that any animal that progressively shows a change of traits which over time(many generations) leads to an adaption that will preserve the life of the animal,that animal has evolved. It is a little bit of a stretch. And I don't think that there was very many breeders of animals that were doing genetics experiments along the line of Mendel. Most selective breeding has happened in the last few hundred years. So I really don't think that all the different types of animals could come about from a single pair. How long through selective breeding do you think you think it would take to get a 2 lb. dog from a dog that started out at 90-100 lb.? Even with extremely aggressive selective breeding program it would take 50-100 generations to get that dog to make a change that drastic. And mind you that is just one type of dog. My main point in this argument is that there is not enough time in 4400 years to get that many different types of animals from one pair. Or seven for that matter. I used a dog as a example but this works with any animal.
Selective breeding can only get you so far.

Oh one other thing if you breed animals within the same bloodline to each other (which would have had to have happened) after 2-3 generations they will start showing deformations and will be prone to more health problems. Just like in humans. That is why breeders have breeding stock from different bloodlines. I have seen it happen in reptiles, birds, and cats, and have heard of this problem with dogs and other species.

ASSVT:

I am still doing some research on your last post, but how does this sound:

Mankind/animals would not have had the myriad of genetic mistakes now present on our DNA. In opposition to what evolution teaches, mutations or mistakes on DNA do not lead to better and improved humans/animals. These mistakes cause hundreds of debilitating illnesses and birth defects. The reason all of us are not born with enormous numbers of medical problems is because our genes are a combination of the characteristics of both our parents. It is only when both parents have the same mistake in their genes that their children manifest the resulting genetic problem.

Furthermore, these genetic mistakes accumulate and increase with time. In other words, the information on our DNA gets more garbled - it never increases in clarity. Since mistakes are accumulating on DNA, it is logical to assume that as we go back in time there would be less mistakes. The reason brothers and sisters cannot marry today (except in Louisiana and Mississippi, of course ) is because they are likely to have similar DNA errors leading to children with birth defects.

You should find this interesting.
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution...is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered
evolution; individual organisms don't evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution maybe slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population ( such as those determining blood types) to successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, dandelions."
-Douglass J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology
Sinauer Assoc. 1986
"Infact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
Helena Curtis and N.Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed.
Worth Pub. pg.974 1989

Edit: Oh by the way Gregor Mendel was also using artificial fertilizations for his experiments. Besides anyone who had high school biology class would have studied Mendel and his work.

ASSVT... I agree whole heartedly... selective breeding can only get you so far.. (sorry about the spelling on mendel.. you knew him though.. great.. sorry again... there is no process known to us, that takes an animal from an existing state, and transforms that animal. A dog will never grossly change its form, or figure, in an infinite amount of time. The genetics of it is simply impossible. You can mutate "till the cows come home", and you will have a dead dog, but not a better, or more complex dog.
I tried to post this the other day, but I used square brackets and it didnt post.. ohwell.. here goes again

Lets play the evolution game... we put a bunch of letters into a hat and randomly pull them out millions of times, until we have a genetic code that somehow gives this animal a survival advantage... so we pull out "Grossly oversimplified" the letters

I NEED A LONGER TAIL

representing the genetic code for a longer tail.. if that were possible..
now.. we have a perfect evolutionary example right. I mean, proof for evolution given enough time. The problem is, I NEED A LONGER TAIL doesn't mean anything to a german person, or a russian, chinese, japanese, korean, israeli, mexican, or any other person that does not have the PRE EXISTING LANGUAGE (in this case english) to interpret the genetic change. This analogy is excellently suitted for the evolutionary arguement. At first glance, its a proof. Upon study, we find that it falls short. Without the language for interpretation existing before we get the message, it is totally useless.

I should have included this above..
an excellent point ASSVT... you get deformation, and generally bad things, when you breed from the same bloodline.. WHY?? Because over time, the genetic code in these animals, after trillions of reproductions gets mistakes... these mistakes.. say for example something to do with no hair growth will.. (when the offspring of parents that both have this problem as a dominent characteristic) pass that on to their children, and from then on, those kids will never have hair growth again, until an outside source, from a different bloodline is used. Now.. I do not know the exact numbers.. but what is a dogs average lifespan.. 15 years or so... but he breeds maybe every five.. so you could have 20 generations of dogs per century.. (maybe more, but does that sound reasonable)... if that is the case, then we can have over 50 centuries since the approx date of the flood... 50X20.. 1000 generations of dogs.. in each dog, how often are the cells duplicated, and the information halved?? Even SUPER conservativly maybe 1 trillion.. maybe.. for arguement sake lets say 100 times... 100 times 1000 generations.. that is 100000 copying times... room enough for error to creep in, however, lets work backwords, and say that 100000 times ago... the information in that specific animal "X" would have had atleast 99,999 less copies.. less chance of error.. so the closer you work back to an original kind.. the less error.. there fore... you can have breeding along the same bloodlines.. for a limited time...
bible application..
God creates adam and eve, they have kids, who marry each other.. no problems.. still very little room for mutation, and genetic errors creeping in through copying.. you get a few thousand years in... Moses's time, and God gives the people a law.. saying no inbreeding... don't marry your sister, brother, cousin etc (you know what I mean).. logical right, he knows the effects of the mutations are adding up!!!

I think I see what you are getting at. Well I think it is more Darwinian than that. I will use giraffes as an example they progressively got longer necks due to the fact that the ones with longer necks could reach the food on the higher branches. So when one with shorter neck can't get food it will die. But the ones that can reach the food (with longer necks) they live and reproduce passing on the favorable trait of a longer neck, which inturn passes into the offspring. Now the change isn't going to be to dramatic in 1-2 generations, when you wait 100's of generation you end up with current very long necked giraffes. Hope this makes sense.
But it is based on Darwins findings.

Another quick answer.. One major problem in a lot of arguements in the understanding of the words being used.. First off....
there is a common misunderstanding that micro, and mcaro evolution have anything in common. They are completely seperate, and vastly different.
Creationists frequently say we beleive in micro evolution, (This is true, however, Microevolution is improperly named.. ) There is no evolution in microevolution.. it is simple breeding, and genetics that is micro evolution... it should be reffered to as natural selection. This is a great thing! it also has nothing to do with evolution.

Macro evolution is the speculative idea that natural selection, somehow working over huge time spans, and mutation, and errors, somehow lead to completely new forms of animals..

I would like to propose that if anyone has a problem with the above, please lets discuss it... but.. and this is a but... can we please refrain from using micro evolution, as a word that somehow implies any help to macro evolution. (I do not feal backed into a corner, or beat up) I just wanted to clarify the understanding of the terms we are using. Perhaps if anyone disagrees they can post their definition, for the rest of us to agree with?!?

Cheers!! and if we don't talk till the end of the weekend, make it a good one!

Alright. First off I'd like to say I'm pretty amazed, and pleased, that after all this discussion of one of the most explosive topics
imaginable. Everyone has remained pretty respectfull of each other over all!! Impressive I think, no matter your origin!

I would just like to ask one more question of the creationists in my last post on this topic if I may. I personally can't offer anything I believe YOU would accept as undeniable proof of evolution. I'm okay with that, btw.

To cut to the chase here. I'm curious if there is any sort of "discovery" at all you can think of, that would change your minds? For instance, I'm sure I would personally be very responsive to actually SEEING for myself, [not just reading, or taking someone's word.] the actual "parting" of a sea, or a spontaeneously combusting bush that spoke to me. Or people turning into pillars of salt. Etc... I'm really being very serious here I promise.

Would the undisputed existance of extra-terrestrial life do it? For instance an actual craft, or aliens, or both together in the form of a visit? [I don't mean reports of "someone saw a flying...today] I mean here they are/it is for ALL to see. Or would there be some "interpretation" of a passage someplace that would "make room" for this and put things "right" again? Please be honest, take your time. I'm just curious what "evidence" would suffice, if any.

Makes great sense.. the only problem is...
and I must have lent my article out to someone...

from memory here we go... okay. the giraffe starts out with a short neck.. can't reach tall trees for food.. okay... somehow selective breeding favours the longer necked giraffes.. so in a few generations the information for shorter necks is gone, and the longer ones are there.. excellent.. that is going to get you a few inches tops...
if you continue with your growing neck idea... you need a special type of heart, a heart that is different than that of a short necked giraffe. It needs to be able to pump blood up an extra lets say 4 feet.... Also, a giraffe drinks water by tipping its neck/head forward, and down to the water... this will not work with a normal neck.. You need special valves through out your neck, that would allow you to lower your head, and not have your heart pump with the same amount of force, because it would blow your head up! Secondly...
The short necked, and short+ necked giraffe could breath fine, but the + 4 foot neck giraffe, unless his lungs, and his airways and passages are modified with special lubricant releasing "machines" would get so severly wind burned that he would die! These are just two of the problems with the neck growth theory. I am talking however about two different types of growth.. the growth that I first talked about is in the genetic code, it is there, and just not in every one. So natural selection will get ride of the shorter necked giraffe and leave you with the SLIGHTLY longer neck. However, then somehow.. using a yet unknown method, the giraffe's genetic code for a neck changes, but so does their heart, and their lungs, and their airways, all at the same time, to give this animal its survival advantage. This.. according to darwin himself... dissproves his theory... he states that if two things had to simultaniously evolve, to give something an advantage, then it can't be!

ttt

Short answer for Scooby..
God says he created the world for us. He created it to share with us. We sinned, he cursed the "whole creation". He then sends his son to fix OUR problem.. the sin, therein lies the answer... Christ came to die for MAN...(mankind)not for anyone else. He did not die for all the creation, but for man. So, using this as a basis for our theory on aliens.. They don't exist.
We can argue symantics later... my wife's hungry.. gotta go get grub.. or else get in trouble

Taxed I will go on about other things and my list of arguments later. But why would this whole vast universe be made just so that there could be life on this one piece of rock we call home? Don't you think that that is a little overkill? How can you say there isn't any e.t.'s out there. After all that wouldn't be in the bible, would it? Because well we haven't had any visitors to tell us about it. Isn't possible that maybe god tried more than once with life? When you look at it why would he just give up after one failure. I think that is slight underachievement on his part. Hey maybe that why jesus hasn't come back yet. He found a place his dad didn't screw up on. Now I am not a big ufo believer but I think it is a little arrogant to think we are the only ones out there. Whether we got here by creation or evolution I don't see how of the millions of galaxies and billions of solar systems that this planet is the only one supporting sometype of life.

Wow..

you leave for a day or so.. and lookie what happens.

Micro evolution as you put is simple adaptation, however that is a key component of the first part of evolutionary theory. (Since no one seems able to understand this.. let me explain it further) A species moves into a given environment(from a different one.. for those needing everything spelled out for them..i.e. can't think of it on their own), and subtle changes occur that allow that species to adapt to that environment. Now take it further, (which is what evolutionary theory does.. which is why I said it's the first step) The species crosses over into another new environment and adapts yet again.., then a strange thing happens a slight genetic mutation occurs (it's called genetic drift) and while the species is still able to breed between group A and Group C.. they are separated by environment B which neither is very well suited for. So they don't intermingle.. a few more genetic variations occur for whatever reasons and soon you end up with distinct species. Maybe able to reproduce with each other.. but they'll only be able to make mules. (do I have to say what a mule is???) So that's it in a nutshell. And to say that genetic drift doesn't occur what do you say to the epiphatic fold (i think i spelled that right.. not sure though) Sickle-Cell, etc.

Species variation comes from isolation over a long time (unable to interbreed).

So again.. adaptation is the FIRST STEP.. in evolutionary theory..

Some people here don't quite seem to understand that examples are made in science to prove each part of a theory. Then they are tested and retested.. Everyone seems to agree on adaptation.. (which I find wildly impossible) I mean why would God create something only to have it fail/destroyed??? Isn't he all-powerful and all-knowing so why would any rational being create something to kill it?? The only answer I can come up with is that God is irrational and well.. You can see how that wouldn't make sense (I hope). I mean God may be testing humans (again though same question) but why would he test something that doesn't even have the intelligence to understand a test???

Again Evolutionary THEORY (I'm not sure people understand the idea here behind a theory.. the reason it's a theory is because there is doubt as to it's validity.. ) has many parts. Each part of it is taken apart and examined, if it's found to be faulty.. which admittedly parts of it can be found.. new ideas are postulated and tested to be included in the THEORY..

So evolutionary theory is in itself in a process of adaptation and evolution as parts of it are proven and/or disproven. The problem with creationist theory is that like God, it cannot be proven or disproven. It's just a statement.. God created the world in XXXX amount of time. Which to me is patently absurd and a very primitive way of looking at the world.

So yes you can poke holes in evolutionary theory, after all it's not a fact, however it does fit the facts as we know them today. Each scientific endeavor from astronomy to engineering to chemistry has facets that support evolutionary theory. I've as of yet to see a single one that supports creationist theory.

And again.. I'm not going to bother quoting examples.. because in truth all the counter arguements here just raise doubts about evolutionary theory... they do nothing to prove creationism. And as I admitted from the start evolution is a Theory, which means it's imperfect and not a fact. But at least it has more going for it than the primitive creationist stories from 2000 years ago. So go ahead poke holes in it.. that's part of scientific endeavor, to question and not take blindly it's tenents. It still fits what evidence we do have better than any other theory that exists today. And if someone comes along with a better one.. that fits the scientific evidence better.. great.. I'm all for it, until then though, I fall on the side of evolution.

Kudo's all, I'm glad to see that this debate has not turned into nothing more than name calling and other childish games. It means that we are keeping respect for each other!!! Keep it up!!!

Hang around.. we usually have one of these on here every couple months.. Same people always tend to be involved too. You shoulda seen one we had going with Sandman about police and stuff...if you look back about 6 months I'm sure you'll find it.

I think too many of us just like to debate things. I know I do.. keeps my mind sharp.

Yeah this is the second or third one I've been in.Though I didn't post much in the other two. I'm rather surprised Edwardc only posted once (I think) in this topic.

Dave

The problem with creationist theory is that like God, it cannot be proven or disproven. It's just a statement.. God created the world in XXXX amount of time. Which to me is patently absurd and a very primitive way of looking at the world.

I find your statement very interesting DaveAndrews....you won't believe in a God that can create the earth in 7 days but you will believe in something that takes about a billion times as long, and billions of chance occurances happening in exactly the required order by random chance ? Does that not seem stranger than science fiction ? Just wondering.

Runaway plate subduction read it here. It is rather long but seriously check it out.

http://www.icr.org/research/jb/runawaysubduction.htm

For those discrediting all types of dating that are brought up I have an interesting page for you to look at.
Bad news for dating naysayers
Read part about isochron dating

Well I'm too lazy to type all of this info so you will have to check it out. It has to do wih the claims that have been made about there not being any transitional fossils. Looks like there have been many well documented transitional fossils found. the goods

So I guess the thought of a all-knowing all-powerful being that trannscends time&space. Who knew he was screwing up before he made everything is a little easier to swallow.

Thanks for the reply, but maybe you miss-read my intention of the post. I didn't ask for a explanation of aliens, or lack of them etc.

Look, all I'm asking, if you re-read my other post, is HYPOTHETICALY [sp?] speaking. [The alien reference was ONE example I threw out there. Not one you HAD to respond to.] WHAT event, device, object, etc. etc. COULD POSSIBLY make you have a different opinion than you do now? I'm not trying to trick you into renouncing your faith here or anything. :rolleyes: I see no reason to be afraid to provide an answer if you have anything tucked away in your mind. After all, the "thing" you select would have no real chance of coming to pass anyway, so whats the harm?

I think a concept of God is involved here as well. I believe in an all-powerful God, just like the Creationists. However, I don't believe that God works in the same manner as they do.

Time segments are a man-made creation, meaning nothing to an immortal being. Time is actually like an endless river, constantly flowing. Even in terms of man's wordings for these segments, they can mean different things. "Day" can mean the standard 24-hour period of time we use. However, you talk (usually with an older person) saying "back in my day", suddenly the period is longer and of an indeterminable length. "Day" takes the same meaning as "Era" in this context.

That said, I believe that God works in subtle and mysterious ways. As time means nothing to Him, I don't see God suddenly saying the Word, and *POOF*, there's the multiverse (I believe in multiple planes of existence, but that's another topic). The idea of being so rushed about Creation is a very human characteristic, not a characteristic of someone unfettered by time. So He Creates, taking time to enjoy each part of Creation, then having it progress. As I believe God is subtle, Creation evolves. Since God is directing evolution, and He is omniscient and all-powerful, He can have creatures modify in multiple ways at once. Part of this process is the extinction of species to make way for the evolution of others. Extinct species aren't mistakes, they just had served their purpose, and no longer have a reason for being.

After what humans would say is billions of years, He decides to evolve humans to take the role as the current pinnacle of creation. As He gave us reason, people are curious, and thirst for knowledge. Scientists study what has occurred, to determine what God has done. The evidence supports evolution, though there are some questions which need further study. Having questions does not invalidate the theory, however. So they put the term "Theory" in stating evolution is how life on this planet came into being. However, evolution is just an explanation of what God did, not a substitute for God.

My model on how evolution and God coexist very well.

LMAO

Thanks for posting this and me not having to say it...

ROFL...

Hey man.. just went and checked out the transitional fossils page.. sounds to me like they are saying that when we look at the fossil record we see evidence of "natural selection at work".. Well, that is to be expected.
No matter where we look however , we don't see a half something, half something else, because natural selection would not allow it. You can't have a whale, that over millions of years grow a leg.. that would be useless to it, and would give it a survival DISadvantage...
Just as a flipper on a horse would be equally as combersome, and make the animal more pron to be eaten.
Try to for a minute, visualize what a half something half something else would look like.
And as for the rest of their claims, I am not sure what they are talking about, but definatly not real transitional (in a macroevolutionary way) fossils. The world's leading evolutionary authorites admit to there not being any transitional fossils..
Stephen J Gould says "the absence of fossil evidence, for intermediary stages, between major transitions in organic design; indeed our inability even in our imagination to construct funtional intermediates in many cases has been a persistant and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
"...transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."
"yet to preserve our favoured account of evolution, by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study" (Coming from someone with a HUGE vast budget, and the resources to do that study. ED)
This man has studied the fossils so much, that he put forth an idea called Punctuated equilibrium. The idea behind it being that he is honest with the lack of fossil evidence for transitional fossil. He thinks that overnight or "in very rapid succesion" the animals have evolved to be the way they are, and the evolution happened so quickly... over millions of years, that there is no fossil evidence for it...
That is the amazing thing about evolution... the whole theory is SO pliable... that it simply can not be refuted because no matter what a person says, evolutionist will come up with a JUST so story.

Yeah I couldn't resist. You can have the next one.

A complete lack of order and structure.

okay... assumeing that we could conclusivly prove aliens... then I would stop beleiving.. but it has to be ironclad... not this normal alien nonsense we hear about. UFO's don't prove anything about alien life. Perhaps aliens like in Independance day...
that type opf thing..

I don't think it's purely a creationist idea. We know the tectonic plates that our continents are on, float around on the magma below them. So, if you figure out how much one moves in a given point of time, and just plot it backwards...you come up with the idea of pangea. And since creationists and evolutionists both seem to believe in that idea, doing the above math pretty much proves the world is older than 4500 years as well...but I don't want to get into that again!

You want to know what I believe? Even though I like to look at things such as our universe and it's beginnings, as well as evolution on our own planet...I do believe there is some "higher power" that set things in motion. I mean if you go back to the beginning of the universe, it's kinda like hitting a wall. If there was nothing, how can there be anything to explode? I don't think this being plays as active role in our world as most believe. I also like to believe that there is some sort of afterlife. Human existance/consciousness seems too much to just end one day.

A quick stab at this list thing here blitzkrieg...
Reasons I beleive in creation

1. An ordered universe. Things in the world today are measurable.

2. Irreducable complexity

3. Fossil record the world over looking as if it has been laid down by water. This seems to be a global trend..This is consistent with a global flood world view. Billions of years of age would not give the same layers all over the earth...

4. Some people find it hard to beleive that God just said poof, and here we are, but harder than that to beleive is that nothing, turned out to poof pring us here.

5. Although this list is not in order, this is probably the main one. We got here by either of two methods. Mutually exclusive methods. one method says that there is order, and there is purpose, and design. The other says it happened by chance, and things keep getting better, and we are constantly evolving. This however flies in the face of modern science. Again, basic laws... 1. Energy can not be created or destroyed. (Some body acting outside of the parameters of this universe namely a creator, can infact create energy. However the laws inside the closed system universe, indicate that it can not be created. Its form can merely be modified, at a loss. Leading to eventual heat death.
2. Spontanious Generation. This has been disproven over and over again. Something does not come from nothing...
This has been the first installment, of an off the top list... To reply to me saying how could I beleive this, evolution is true... does not do anyone a favour. Try and explain certain things, not using the assumption that evolution in general is true.

I'm not arguing micro or macro, simply boiling down what Evolution actually means.

As for your arguement about there not being enough time for mutations and other factors. If you took Biology, you know that mutations are instant, aka it was born with it. This does not require time.

As for time...the time is dictated by what you believe. How do you know how long it takes a species to adapt? This is inherent on the lifespan of this species. For instance, take the moth example given previously in this post. Most white moths in London disappeared due to the fact that their environment was gray. The net result, gray moths flourished. This was proven and you can research this yourself. Do not give me examples from 1974 that prove one small point wrong. Lots of scientists have been proven wrong as time goes on. That is why scientists do studies and experiments, to find truth. If a theory cannot be proven wrong, it becomes fact.

Evolution is not a theory because it has been proven. So when you argue about time and Biology, try doing research. I've taken several Biology courses in college and read extensively on the subject. I think I have a very good grasp on how nature functions. Survival of the fittest. Just turn on the Discovery Channel and see how nature really works.

I suggest everyone here do a little reading on the subject. Learn about genetics, dominant and recessive genes. I am not on here to teach, only to show others that an entirely different world exists that they have yet to learn about. What I argue about can actually be proven with real data and can be reproduced.

There are millions of pages of studies and surveys that show how organisms do in fact, change their characteristics over time to better their chance at survival, and of course, increase their chances at reproduction, hence passing those important genes on to their offspring.

I will not argue religion as religion deals with supernatural entities and is based on faith. You cannot argue ones faith, so I will not. That is the point of faith, knowing something is true without hard proof.

ASSVT... I can see from your possition, and view point, that yes it seems like over kill. But, with a correct understanding of God, the judeo-christian God, the God of the Bible, we see that he is not a trial and error God. A God that is omniscient can not commit an error. He can't fumble the ball...
I am afraid that somehow we are just not comunicating. Well, I am glad however that we are elucidating responses from the masses.. grin!!

A few more questions about the arc.
1.How did the predators survive after they got off the arc? ( If there was only one pair of everything then they would have ran out of food real quick.)
2.What about the animals with special dietary requirements? ( Some animals only eat one type of plant, how did they get enough plants for them, and how did they keep them fresh.)
3.How did the human population rebound so quickly?
4.How did 8 people care for anywhere between 8000-20000 animals?
5. How did the arc stand up to the worldwide tsunami's that would be created by the theory of plate subduction?
6.How did all the plants survive? (Most plants won't live underwater, and some plants seeds wouldn't stay fertile through the trip, not to mention that all the fertile ground would have been washed away by the flood.)
7.Why do ancient redwoods with ages up to 10,000 years old so no ill effects in there growth rings?

Greatone.. the only problem with your math is that you are using one assumption.. that current rates of tectonic shift are infact constant, and have been that way since.. all the way back to whatever date you date this pangea...

ancient red woods... never heard of a 10000 year old tree. (Doesn't mean it doesn't exists).
However the date has to be wrong. How do you get a tree like that. cut it, count the rings...
I am mildly skeptical of that

Here is another one for you.
8.Scientist can accurately tell how much calcium biuld up coral reefs gain on a daily and yearly basis, with some reefs such as the great barrier reef in Australia being the millions of years old. I ask why did it not get wiped out during the flood? As coral need to be in relatively shallow water with access to sunlight. If the flood happened the silt and depth of the water would have killed the coral. Not to mention when the waters went back down they would have destroyed whatever might have been left of the coral.

Perhaps there are some topics that should not be pursued at great lengths.

We are human and fallible...so is our reasoning and logic.

That said, let's focus our energy to pray for our Allied forces overseas fighting amidst the haunting glow of the lights that mark the death spot of the World Trade Centre.

My .02

Well the way I look at it if you have to send your son to be sacrificed to try and prove your exsistance and teach everyone a lesson, you had to have gone wrong somewhere. Especially if you knew before everything was made that that was the way it was going to go down. Not trying to be a d!ck. Good discussion keep it up.

Taxed2Death, I knew someone would mention that the movement of tectonic plates doesn't necessarily have to be constant. However, if you increase the movement of the plates to the amount needed to put all the continents back into one piece, in 4-6000 years....wouldn't you agree the earth would have been a very chaotic place? IE: Very many earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, etc? I'm sure they moved faster in the early days of the world, while it was hotter/still cooling down...but unless it was an astronomical amount the time frame of 4-6000 years is pretty hard to swallow. While not a 100% accurate way to measure the age of the earth, it still gives a pretty good rough estimate.

Uhh that's an easy one to prove.. go plant a tree. Wait ohh 15 years.. cut it down and take a look, you'll see there is a growth ring for each year it existed..

The first 10 or so are the hard ones to see though.. after that.. it's easy. I saw a cross section of one in the Smithsonian, they were claiming someing along the lines of 6,000 years i think. Trust me.. if you saw it. you'd see there were about that many. And no I didn't count them.. but I did take a small section.. count them up.. and then guess at an average growth.. they were definitely in the range.

Well I would like to continue this discussion, but will be unable to participate for the next five days, as I will be in Las Vegas assuring my eternal damnation. When I get back I will be interested in seeing if any of the 8 questions I asked have been answered. Untill then see ya.

ASSVT:

I haven't had much time to post lately - too busy with family. However, I am currently working on answers to your questions.

Have fun in Vegas.

ASSVT:

Problems with Isochrons

and

U-TH-PB Dating - An Example of False Isochrons

1. How did the predators survive after they got off the arc?

In Genesis 1:29-30, the Bible teaches that before the flood all the animals were vegetarians so there was not a problem with, for example, the lion trying to eat the lamb.

2. What about the animals with special dietary requirements?

Sorry, but there is no way I have hard evidence of this, but I would think that Noah knew about these special requirements and would have made extra provisions for them.

3. How did the human population rebound so quickly?

It is relatively easy to calculate the growth rate needed to get today's population from Noah's three sons and their wives, after the Flood. With the Flood at about 4,500 years ago, it needs less than 0.5% per year growth. That's not very much. (The current growth rate of the world population is about 1.7% per year.)

Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there would be 1E43 people today.

4. How did 8 people care for anywhere between 8000-20000 animals?

In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark.

It is also logical that the animals where young (therefore small). Also, many animals become dormant, lethargic or even hibernate during stormy weather.

5. How did the arc stand up to the worldwide tsunami's that would be created by the theory of plate subduction?

Aren't tsunamis just huge tidal waves? Also, at the point of the plate movement, I don't believe (correct me if I am wrong) there is a large tidal wave. It isn't until the wave gets into shallower water and closer to land that the tidal wave grows to huge proportions. However, lets see how the arc could weather rough seas:

Noah's ark was built only to float, not to sail anywhere. Therefore, Noah's ark need neither giant masts or sails. Therefore it had far less torsional stress. Also, the length-to-width ratio of 6 to 1 is what shipbuilders today often use. This is the best ratio for stability in stormy weather. Although there is no Biblical evidence of this, the ark may have had a "moon-pool" in the center. The larger ships would have a hole in the center of the bottom of the boat with walls extending up into the ship. There are several reasons for this feature:
*It allowed water to go up into the hole as the ship crested waves. This would be needed to relieve strain on longer ships.
*The rising and lowering water acted as a piston to pump fresh air in and out of the ship. This would prevent the buildup of dangerous gasses from all the animals on board.
*The hole was a great place to dump garbage into the ocean without going outside.

6. How did all the plants survive?

Many terrestrial seeds can survive long periods of soaking in various concentrations of salt water (Howe, 1968, CRSQ:105–112). Others could have survived in floating masses. Many could have survived as accidental and planned food stores on the ark.

7. Why do ancient redwoods with ages up to 10,000 years old so no ill effects in there growth rings?

Are you sure they were redwoods?

"Redwoods are the fastest growing softwood tree in the U.S. and often grow 130 feet in 30 years and 170 feet in 50 years, yet the redwood can live to be more than 2,000 years old." REF http://www.sunnyfortuna.com/

A Bristlecone Pine is the Earth's oldest living inhabitant ("Methuselah" at 4,767 years).

allthought you have made some assumptions there, there is still couple more questions:

How did animals get to their current locations? Especially islands.

Was there a mass cross breeding effort by the staff of ark after water settled?

Would it had been impossible for other people to survive? Even if they were fishers and had ships of their own?

those being the main issues..

And you claim the growth rate of humans as an factor. Just as animals in the nature do not have a continuous growth rate neither did early humans. The growth rate was almost stagnant.

But as always anything is possible for an omnipotent god so what's the point of arguing?

I'm sorry to see you people waste your life on something imaginary..all I can hope for is that you have fun with it and don't start drowning your kids because of it.

So why one day would a lion wake up and decide to be a carnivore? It's alot easier to be a herbivore than carnivore. Not to mention, if a lion were a herbivore, it would be alot smaller animal. Have you ever seen a lion up close? 300(for the female) to 500 (male) pounds of solid muscle. Designed from the ground up to chase and take down animals twice it's size, or more! They eat 20 or more pounds of red meat EVERY DAY. Even if you could get the proper nutrition (protien, etc.) out of plants to sustain such a substantial amount of muscle mass, it'd be a ****load of plants! Some of the things you're posting here are very interesting to read, but this is simply absurd.

As far as Noah and his 3 sons and their wives, I have just one question, what about inbreeding? I doubt these people would even understand such a concept. I suppose to help keep the gene pool deep...they could "swap" wives...but wouldn't that be **GASP** a sin!? And For 6 people to repopulate the world (unless Noah got in on the action) completely, means alot of "gettin' busy" and very little of anything else. And even if they could pump out a set of setuplets every 9 months, you have to allow for miscarriages, death of the children at a young age, and, death during childbirth, of mother and child...all of which were common occurances. 3 dead wives and now you have to wait 14 years before the children are of childbearing age....assuming there are even any female children surviving.

The tree's he's talking about are Giant Sequoia's. The biggest trees in the world, all i've been able to find says they generally range from 2-3,000 years old.

Okay, I just started reading this post, and I got through about 1/2 of it, forgive me if I am being redundant. Also, I have a lot of debate to incorporate, so this may be a less than linear response.
I should also not that I am not a particularly religious person, I couldn'ttell you the last time I wnet to church, but as I reread my response, I see that I sound like I am fairely in support of creationism, but really, I just want to lay down some ideas and some facts.

1) The Bible
The bible is a document that presents something of a paradox. While it is absolutely full of historical testamony, it is also not to be taken literally. The result from this paradox is that currently, many people view those who wrote down the bible to be inferior to us because we have modern science to help us comprehend everything. We also discount Any eye witness testimony because it seems very removed and distant from us today. When we read such testimony, it often comes across as unbelievable, and because it lacks a scientific understanding in its explanation, we deem it unbelievable.

2) Man today:
The above is actually an excellent segway into the problem we run into with man presently. We as a species are fairly presumptuous. We feel that we have a good enough understanding of how the world works that we have in many ways mastered it and have the right to do as we wish with it. In fact, I believe somewhere in the bible it is said that god made man master of all the animals and whatever else man wanted. The fact of the matter is that we for all our modern science do not know what we are doing a lot of the time. For instance, calling upon some reading I've been doing recently: in our efforts to make crops more productive (including pesticides, fertiliser, and genetic engineering) we have actually increased the imput to yield ratio of crops. In other words, farming is not as efficient because we have to pour a lot more resources into it to get the yield that we get. Pesticides have actually increased the pest problem by killing the natural enemies of the insects that we were actually trying to get rid of (can you say collateral damage). This has also lead to groundwater pollution, increased cancer rates, and who knows what sort of long term damage to the food chain. Also fertiliser causes farmers to be much less likely use crop rotation methods, alond with this goes the practice of planting two crops in the same field at the same time ie: corn and alfalfa (for example) where the corn would grow tall, and the amfalfa would stay low and keep weeds down while preventing erosion. The point is that because there is a chemical alternative that is far more demanding to produce, produces hasardous byproducts, and is no more efficient than the traditional methods, but is still taunted by science as the answer to our problems, we do it. The same problem has developed with genetic engineering, in Asia, there were hundreds of varieties of rice. Currently because rice is being engineered and bred to produce higher yields per plant there are only 30 prominent varieties currently, this was not a natural process, but I think since variety of species is a basic tennent of Darwinian evolution we can all agree that this unnatural progression is a bad thing. That was somewhat roundabout, but what I am trying to say is that man is currently very busy knowing everything. we think we know the best ways to do many things, and fail to look at the merits of how things were done by our "primitive nacestors" and this mindset predisposes many of us to view the old ways as foolish, or superstitious nonsense.

3) Darwin:
Darwin is an interesting character. He was actually a very devout christian for a large part of his life. He held off publishing "Origin of Species" for I believe nearly ten years because he was afraid of the repercussions it might have in terms of his faith. The factor that made him decide to publish was the death of his young daughter. This was very traumatic to him, he could not understand why god would take away someone so innocent and young. In his struggle to reconcile his faith with the events of his life, he decided to publish his theory. This isn't really part of the argument, but it is some interesting background information.

4) Evolution:
The interesting thing about evolution is that it was presented as a theory. Since then, science haslargely swallowed it whole, and done very little questioning of its origional form. Granted, the question of where man came from is certainly a burning one, that begs at least a rudimentary explanation. There are definately some problems with Darwin's theory though. First of all, that picture in all of our highschool biology text books of the embryos that look nearly the same in their early stages...that was a fake, and currently that is taught at college levels (namely Uconn where I go; which should be noted is a fairly liberal school in many reguards) as a farce that should lead us to question long standing theories. Also, evolution should be a fairly smooth process. Yes, dead ends could certainly occur, but the lines of species that still exist should show a very smooth progression. I understand that fossils are only created under very specific circumstances, but our current fossil record is not a slow curve so much as it is a flight of stairs with distinct species at different levels. Yet another problem, and in my mind this is a big one...is that the process currnently supported as the way life [url=startedhttp://evolutionoftruth.com/evo/evogene.htm...the][url=startedhttp://evolutionoftruth.com/evo/evogene.htm...the][url=startedhttp://evolutionoftruth.com/evo/evogene.htm...the]startedhttp://evolutionoftruth.com/evo/evogene.htm...the[/url][/url][/url] basic elements to make the amino acid bases that create DNA were all swirling around in primordial oceans, and then lightning striles caused reactions creating amino acids which eventually formed primitive single cell organisms, was also recently revisited, and is no longer a promision theory. Given the electricity, the existing elements, and the atmosphere http://www.rps.psu.edu/0101/reflections.html of the Earth at the time, only one amino acid base was created, and the byproduct of this was lots and lots of ammonia, to my knowlege, even chemotrophic bacteria do not survive in ammonia rich environments; and I know I certainly don't like the smell.

5) God
In the traditional christian view, God is all powerful, and all knowing. This presents a problem for us because any time something happens that we do not understand, it become an easy cop out to say that god works in mysterious ways. This explanation eventually gets old, and human nature causes us to want something more. I think that if god does exist, and is all powerful, then certainly there would be a lot of things we could not hope to understand (action at a distance forces for example gravity and magnetism). It would also be feasable that god placed all the fossils on earth, all the evidence as a test of faith. Sounds like a cop-out doesn't it? But all things considered, I think evolution is far from a perfct theory http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/cartoon.htm. I think creationism is also a bit hard to swallow in its entirety.

So what do you all think?

Actually Darwin was forced to publish because another 'naturalist' whose name I forget was about to publish in France. With the EXACT same theory. While his daughter's death did help, the main impetous for his decision was the threat of someone else publishing first. We have the same problem today in the world of science. That's why the press jumps on headlines about "discoveries" when in fact they are no such thing. They are only published experiments that point to a given conclusion. ONLY until the process has been repeated many times is any signifigance given to the claim. At which point the discovery is acknwologed in the scientific community.

That was totally uncalled for.

Think back even to the eighteen hundreds... it was very common to have 8 or ten children.. even if theyall never made it to breeding age, lets say only 4 made it... that would mean a 100 % population growth.. hardly something difficult to imagine..
so noah's sons take their original wive's (no swapping necassary) and have 10 kids each.. "it wasn'ta stretch 100 years ago, so why would it be then.) 2 or even 4 die... that still leaves six left over, replacing the two parents that leaves 4... a 200% population growth, and we are allowing for a 40% stillbirth, or disease, or whatever kill ratio before bearing kids of their own.. population studies show that a very small population growth is required for todays world to be populated. With the answers "we" have given on the population exploision... lets agree to put this arguement aside from your perspective. Their is some assumption in our arguement, granted, but it is reasonable, and we are giving you more than enough, 40% as a benefit of the doubt.. can you agree to this.. then we can put one issue out of the way!

And that guy came up with it *independently* of darwin! The fact that two scientists with their careers on the line came up with the same hypothesis with different supporting evidence just validates their ideas.

Great one. I have to tell you that we are divided on the herbivore issue.. the bible CLEARly states that their was no death before adam's sin. After that, there was death. And God sacrificed an animal, to give adam and eve clothes... he also spilt the blood of the animal as a covering for their sin. He showed us how to do the offerings...
That set asside, there was death, carnivoury before the flood. I have done indepth research on the origin scripture, and have always come to the same conclusion. So, we have a small problem. I say there was, another says there wasn't. lets say there was. (for arguement sake)..
The only way that this arguement can be understood is from a larger picture. God says that when he is done creating, everything is Good.. that does not include death. Then, after adam sins, god curses the world, and introduces death. The reason being that we are now seperated from him, and if we didn't die, we would forever be seperated from him. At this point, carnivory starts. So, there was a sudden point in time where yes, the lion all of sudden starts eating meat. I have not found any really good scientific studies done to show how large animals cna survive, and keep their mass up using only berries.. but that doesn't mean there aren't any. I would take a stab at maybe bears. when food gets scarce they eat shrubs, and berries..
(not sure scientifically if this holds water) don't be to harsh on me if the bear thing doesn't work!

I can't speak from an ameican pespective, but good grief.. just because two people come up with the idea that lower taxes is a bad idea(completley independantly of each other) does that prove anything.

:rolleyes:

I'm going to go ahead and use a "symbolic" biblical phrase here:

Don't cast your pearls before swine.

Check out the underpinnings of all modern science, aka the "scientific method". Repeatability, Repeatability, Repeatability.

No, you're right. It doesn't.

Actually, bears are classified as omnivourous. Lions are carnivourous. Go figure.

The fact that we are still discussing darwin's theory some 150 years later should lend some credit to it. The fact that it was independently thought of at approximately the same time should lend some credit to it. The fact that foolish or unsubstantiated scientific hypothesis (for, at the time, the idea of evolution was, rather than a theory, a hypothesis) usually are discredited within a very short time frame should lend some credit to it. The fact that evolution is supported by all the evidence, fossil or otherwise, and has continued to be supported by new finds without any basic modification of the theory... that should also lend some credit to it. The fact is, most scientifically educated people as well as ALL major accredited colleges in the US, never mind the rest of the WESTERN WORLD, accept evolution as a basic fact of life - well, that might lend some credit to it. I don't mean to be a prick, but I would like to hear some arguments against evolution that are actually intelligent. It seems to me as if this thread has continued on and on and on, with no real purpose. People who want to believe in creationism simply throw a rediculous argument against proven scientific theory, wait for an intelligent, reasoned answer... and then refuse to take that answer seriously. The bottom line is that people who at this point are still arguing against the ENORMOUS amount of evidence against them will not be satisfied with any amount of reason, established fact, or logical argument. So let us drop this thread... PLEASE!

Sam:

What definition do you use for evolution? (Since there are many definitions.)

And, using your definition, does it show, or has it been shown, "Repeatability, Repeatability, Repeatability"?

If you say it has been shown, please give specifics.

Sam Sampson writes:

Couldn't agree with you more Sam. It reaches a point where we should let creationists be. Aside from their irritating propensity to invoke verbal gymnastics to "mold" the data to fit in their biblical frame of reference, they pose no threat to legitimate science. The 70 odd peer-reviewed journals focusing on evolutionary processes related to biological adaptations will continue to be published monthly while they scream until they are blue in the face. They are irrelevant in the ongoing quest for understanding.

OK, well that would be the issue at hand. AKA Evolutionary theory.

For pete's sake! I was referring to the comment about independent verification. Stop taking my statements out of context!!! Look at a high school life science book for the definition of "the scientific method" and its applicible uses. :rolleyes:

THAT, sir, is NOT my responsibility. That is YOUR responsibility. You do not need me as your personal life science teacher, and I will not stoop to trying with my time to repeat for you the huge body of evidence that spans across multiple areas of study in support of the fundamental and universally accepted "theory" (fact) of evolution. If you won't take the scientific giants' word about the nature of life, why would you take mine?

The sad thing is that most of these folks cannot re-evaluate their own beliefs, which is ultimately why I am arguing against creationism. You were absolutely dead on about creationism being on its way out. Its just that you would like to help the die hards (having been one myself).

Sam:

"OK, well that would be the issue at hand. AKA Evolutionary theory."

That, right there, is one of the biggest problems Creationist have with Evolutionist. The theory "evolves" to fit whatever you want it to.

What is the definition of Evolution?!?!?!

(1) "A continuous naturalistic, mechanistic process by which all living things have arisen from a single living source which itself arose by a similar process from a non-living, inanimate world."

Has this been proven or observed? NO!! Then why is is considered fact?!?

OR this definition?

(2) "Evolution is simply the character of the population changing through successive generations."

A lot of people on here want to use these definitions interchangeably, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Definition (2) was taken out of a biology book. Now, I don't think it could be stated any more simplistic/generalized than that. This definition actually fits "microevolution" or "Adaptation" very well. Creationist have no problems with it, as long it is changes within a species!

"Check out the underpinnings of all modern science, aka the "scientific method". Repeatability, Repeatability, Repeatability."

Ok, I apologize for misreading your statement. I took this as you saying that evolution passes the scientific method. If this is not the case, then forgive me.

"The fact that evolution is supported by all the evidence, fossil or otherwise, and has continued to be supported by new finds without modification of the theory..."

Depends on your definition! Fossils or otherwise does not support definition (1). It does support def. (2), in the sense of "microevolution" or "adaptation".

"I don't mean to be a prick, but I would like to hear some arguments against evolution that are actually intelligent.

I would say that at least 5 out of the 10 pages on here contain INTELLIGENT arguments against evolution! (The Evolutionist just won't answer them.) The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is just one. It has been mentioned on here previously (multiple times), but has yet to be discussed.

"So let us drop this thread... PLEASE!"

"THAT, sir, is NOT my responsibility. That is YOUR responsibility. You do not need me as your personal life science teacher, and I will not stoop to trying with my time...."

This thread was created to legitimately discuss Evolutionist's points against Creationist's points. If you don't want to play nice, then please don't play at all.

I would LOVE to see you factually disprove any one of the scientific findings contained within:

http://www.contour.org/forums/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=38;t=005291;p=4

Please, be my guest. I HAVE been patient, as have others. I'm tired of the nonsensical arguments, circular reasoning, etc, that I have seen in these and other threads regarding this subject.

BUT UNTIL YOU DO come up with a VALID scientific rebuttal to the points raised there and, to a lesser degree, here, I do not consider this an intelligent discussion.

I fail to see how the theory of evolution has changed since its inception.

Quote:

What is the definition of Evolution?!?!?!

(1) "A continuous naturalistic, mechanistic process by which all living things have arisen from a single living source which itself arose by a similar process from a non-living, inanimate world."

Has this been proven or observed? NO!! Then why is is considered fact?!?

OR this definition?

(2) "Evolution is simply the character of the population changing through successive generations."

Um, look at those two definitions carefully. They seem very close to identical...

Quote:

A lot of people on here want to use these definitions interchangeably, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Definition (2) was taken out of a biology book. Now, I don't think it could be stated any more simplistic/generalized than that. This definition actually fits "microevolution" or "Adaptation" very well. Creationist have no problems with it, as long it is changes within a species!

Im confused. That leads to speciation, which is what you are arguing against, isn't it?

Quote:

[b]"Check out the underpinnings of all modern science, aka the "scientific method". Repeatability, Repeatability, Repeatability."

Ok, I apologize for misreading your statement. I took this as you saying that evolution passes the scientific method. If this is not the case, then forgive me.
[/b]

Forgiven, but not for taking my statement out of context.

Quote:

[b]"The fact that evolution is supported by all the evidence, fossil or otherwise, and has continued to be supported by new finds without modification of the theory..."

Depends on your definition! Fossils or otherwise does not support definition (1). It does support def. (2), in the sense of "microevolution" or "adaptation".[/b]

I keep trying to tell you, its one and the same! What, do you think baldness is just something that has always been there? Its a GENETIC DIFFERENTIATION!!! Yet do you think people with a genetic trait for baldness are a different species? NO! Its inter species genetic drift!! If a bunch of people with that genetic trait were isolated and put on a island, allowed to interbreed for, say, 1000 years or so, YOU WOULD HAVE NOTHING BUT BALD FOLKS... you may not even have young adults with ANY HAIR AT ALL! Long enough, say, 100,000 years, and you might not be able to breed with these folks at all... which would mean they are a new species... Do you see what I am saying? The "two definitions" are the same thing! Just a varying degree!

Quote:

This thread was created to legitimately discuss Evolutionist's points against Creationist's points.

There is no "legitimate" discussion of creationism versus evolution. That has been hashed out over the last 150 years, and evolution is the winner.

Having satisfied honor, thats all that I'm going to say...

Anyone, that can still say the things that sampson, and edwardc are repeating, obviously have it out from creationists, and are not willing to look at the evidience objectivly. You have, as was previously said, evolution glasses, through which you interpret the evidence. The circular reasoning rests squarely on your shoulders. You say that the fossils give us a good idea of the age of the rocks, and the rocks give us a good idea of the age of the fossils.
Once again, as for your HUGE VAST body of evidence, (supposedly for evolution) name just two or three, that are not heavily in dispute among evolutionists... As for your comments, if you do not like the thread of this discussion, unless you started the discussion, then you are more than free to choose to leave. Nobody is forcing you to stay. You have made up your mind, concerning the evidence, and have chosen one way or another... so why continue here if it is so frustrating to you! Nothing against you personally, I dont even know you, but if it raises your blood pressure so, then discontinue..

unless these bald people you are referring to, continue to have their genes mutated, and or continue to LOSE information from their genetic structure, then even in a thousand years, they could still breed with everyone else. The point here is the net LOSS of the information. They would still be able to breed with everyone else, unless they LOST to much of our genetics. The problem I continually run into with you is that you see a direct correlation between micro evolution (improperly named, should be adaptation, and natural selection) and macro evolution (again improperly named, because it implies some connection to the above mentioned improperly named micro-e....)
I don't know how many times someone has to point this out to the evolutionists, but a species will never, ever mutate to a higher form, and develop extra lungs, or eyes, or anything else. It is biologically impossible...
read the book Darwin's black box... irreducible complexity...it will clearly show in the most plainly scientific terms.. that systems such as eyes, and blood clot, and others simply do not evolve. Now, I understand that with your faith in evolution, you could probably see it coming about somehow, but the rest of us, that would like to see some proof of evolution, have yet to have these tough questions answered. Reading this, you are going to say that I just don't get it, but I think the problem is that you don't understand the difficulty of what you are trying to prove happening.... If there was a God to begin things, his words should explain things the way they are. (I know you have a problem beleiving that).If there was no god then how could things happen by chance. That is patently absurd. Chance... i mean really...
have you not read any of the previous posts...
if a person draws letters randomly out of a hat, even in millions of years, do you think that they could in sequence, draw out the exact expression of your dna..
Furthermore, even if they were the luckiest, and managed to pull it out of this hat... would that sequence mean anything. I mean, what language is it in. What could read the sequence, what could act on that sequence. Chance alone, even given millions/billions of years, simply does not cut it. EVER.
I understand we all have to have faith in something. You have faith in something that is counterintuitive. I have faith in something that seems superficially unacceptable to you, but its acceptance/unacceptance by you doesn't prove or dissprove it. as does my belief yours. The things we see around us, simply do not point to evolution. I mean, all these formulas and "proofs" you always talk about (these mountains of evidence) they are not Fact. They are purely speculation, based on assumptions... When it boils down to it, everyone has a bias. Some are biased towards God. Some are biased against him. If you beleive that there is no God, then you can't explain the world around you with him in your explanation, so you invent theories. Some testable, others not to explain things. The point is, do your theories have the right starting assumptions. You say there is no God, and natural processes can explain the world as it is today. The problem is, all the laws in the natural world, go against what you are trying to prove, and, there is no real explanation for how these laws got there. All your facts in your dumptruckloads of evidence, are contrived through formulas, and measuring and science you say. Well, do you allow for error. Do you allow for catastrophism. Do you allow for things not yet discovered. I mean, if we were to discover a dinosaur existing today, evolution would have to be rewritten. The bible wouldn't. If we observed the work of a catastrophy in progress, such as mount snt hellens, does the bible need to be rewritten. No, but current evolutionary theory needs to be modified to allow for catastrophism. Again and again, evolution is modified, pruned, and new and wilder theories come about, to the rescue of the evolution idea. When will the layperson get involved with the discussion, and realize that everyone is biased. It boils down to which bias, is the better bias to be biased with. Indeed, do we see macroevolution happening, anywhere??
peppered moths, nebraska man, finches, piltdown man, archeopteryx, haeckels drawings... we never actually see evolution.. we only see frauds.. and natural selection...

Again, a new approach.. biases against microsoft set aside for a moment, do you think that the program windows 98 could come about, by taking all the letters that comprise the original program, mixing them randomly, and then expecting them to come out properly. And, if you beleive that billions of years latter it just might happen, then once we have the proper code, what use is it. unless we first have a computer, one that can run the program, because it has machine code. (perhaps I should have left microsoft out of it GRIN)

Ohwell... If you have the idea that God does not exist, or that we can't be sure, then any evidence we point to, that either uses God, or points to him, you will discount as not scientific, because in your mind he does not exist, or can't be shown to exist, because you are not sure he exists.

I bid everyone cheers, and have a great week!

It really is funny. The creationists are willing to see acknowlege the first step of evolution. Adapation. And yet they cannot allow for the possibility of evolution.

However when Man artificially speeds up the process.. i.e. Monsantos (bio engineering company) they won't accept the fact that the same thing might occur naturally.. because "man artificially created that.. not natural"

The problem here is that creationists believe in the fundamentally simplistic story that some all-powerful being created MAN. After all we were created in GOD's image. (funny seems rather egotistical to me.. so we look, act, and reason as does GOD) And yet there is no science proving their claim beyond a document written by a more primitive culture that's text was decided on by Catholic.. yes CATHOLIC priests. Congress of Cardinals.. sometime in the 700's A.D. They basically gathered all the supposed writings up at that point and said.. yes this is in the bible.. he said this.. no.. he didn't say that.. etc etc.

Seems rather comical if you ask me. But this comes down to the fact that creationists have become very good(clever) at manipulating the words in the bible to cover every possibility. They don't understand science, it's tenents or it's methods. And lacking knowledge and skills in science the promote psuedo-science as if it were science because the average person is more likely to understand an emotional plea than hard facts. Too many hard facts are painful for people or just plainly beyond their comprehension. After all.. how many people in say.. mexico understand what a Pagefile is and how corrupt data upsets a database. Or that a link is down and you can't reach a particular site. For that matter SPAM is a meat substitute right?

If they lack even the language and the terminology, how can you expect them to understand fundamental research.

BTW I noticed that all the creationists have completely avoided explaining what a triple blind study is. (for that matter what is a double-blind study) How does statistical analyses work?, what is a weighted average?? What is a mean average?? these are all important to science and it's methods. I haven't seen anyone explain those to me, instead they have qouted psuedo-science references from the NY Times (notorious for it's bad science reporting) and other comparable sources.

At this point I really don't expect creationists to understand evolution (and the fact that the theory is in flux). Because I seriously doubt that they have the language skills to understand what a true scientific study is vs. a pseudo-science one.

Incidentally, the first step of evolution.. adaptation can easily be used against evolution. It's called a fallacy in Logic. The specific fallacy is termined "slippery slope". Slippery slope is a defined term in contemporary philosophy (the study of knowledge). Try reading up on Logic and Rhetoric, every study and article that you have shown has fallacious principles.(besides.. it might make you better able to comprehend the studies) And while evolution is not perfect, it's adapting and changing as new evidence is presented. Creationists just reread the bible and make highly liberal interpertations of it's writings.

And while nothing here I've said will make you believe in evolution shouldn't you have doubts about creationism?

Being open minded about this, I think evolution more fits the facts we have, but do I think it's totally correct.. nope.. it's got problems too. But it's a whole lot closer to the facts than creationism.

Given enough time.. yep I think it could happen. Would it absolutely happen for sure.. no matter what??? maybe.. but it'd be hard to say when.

Get off your soap boxes and actually contribute to this debate otherwise leave. If you have read any of the last 11 pages you would see that it is the creationists (taxed2death and cpurser mainly) who are using scientific laws and coherent reasoning to make their points. You three have instead been sitting back and making ignorant comments the whole time.

Ignorant Jerk
"The creationists dont know what they are talking about blah blah blah they pose no real threat"

Observer
"Why's that?"

Ignorant Jerk
"Because I said so, it's just so scientific to believe whats I say"

It's so frustrating to watch, I mean how can you sit there and say that the creationists are doing nothing more than preaching when with comments like these it is clearly you who are. Come on guys stop wasteing time and actually put forth something proper other wise don't debate in this room. Not one of you has made a list of five major supporting evidences for evolution yet(edward c has quoted major statistics but that dosen't count). Since there is warehouses, dumptrucks or seattle boeing assembly plants full of evidence then it shouldn't be to hard to have five measly pieces for it, that are not in dispute.

By Daveandrews:
No doubts actually...I believe it would have taken God to create you...A$$ holes don't evolve from humans.

Sorry, but your post was very out of line and quite offensive...If attacking religion is your best defense, your fight has already been lost. Seems the longer this thread goes on, the more back-handed and aggressive the evolutionists become. EdwardC, I was relieved when you were a polite heretic. Now you have become a scathing man who thinks that a bunch of letters behind a name actually impresses me. I remember when this thread had a mature nature....oh, about 8 pages ago...

By Daveandrews:
That is circular reasoning at its best! I believe in what facts we have now...but we don't have all the facts...Then how could you even be remotely sure? Let alone, how many FACTS are there about evolution? Not one thing has been scientifically proven...You may quote me a bunch of studies, but remember...they don't prove anything, because we don't have all the facts.

Again, an evolutionist looks at a statement, and sees nothing of what is really there, and only what he wants to be there, so that it will fit his preconcieved notions...
Once you have this program... as eluded to in my last post, once this program comes together over millions of years of chance... what use is the program... Remember, nature doesn't have a computer to run it on. It mearly has the required letters, to have a program.

Then, we move on to mutation. If we take a complex program, perhaps adobe is a better choice to pick than a microsoft program... and we reverse compile, then change a few letters in a random order, to simulate radiation, or other mutation, then we recompile the program, do you really expect it to run more efficiently, or better than the original.. This sounds like pseudoscience to me. A term evolutionists are well aware of, and continually claim creationists use.. We are aware of the laws of nature. Something does not come from nothing. Cause and effect. However, most ardent evolutionists have made up their minds, and are not interested in being bothered with the facts. Don't confuse me with the facts they say. I beleive that something can come from nothing. I beleive that in stark direct contrast to the second law, things are always getting better. The universe is getting better. Things are evolving "read, whatever we want into that" and only an ignorant person would beleive that evolution can't be true.

People.... if evolution is so true, then why are you scared to bring out arguements into the light of day, and have them looked at, and poured over by people of differing mind. Only something that is not verifiable need be hidden from people, and kept from oposition. Creationists have nothing to hide. We may not every scientific model of every last historical event planned yet, but a close look at cutting edge scientific research by the likes of Dr. Russel Humphreys at los alamos research facility points to an ice age happening shortly after the flood. Another shows meteorites hitting the earth and causing a "run-away plate subduction". These are models that are open to everyone to see. I dont understand why, if you are so well versed in evolution, you can't bring out the evidence. You want us to bring out the evidence... You pose questions to us, and mock our answers, but our questions go unanswered. I guess some people's faith in their beleif is so much that they have no answers. And when science, theory, measuring, testing, retesting, and subjecting to laws comes into place they are simply nowhere to be found. Claiming refuge among these "seattle boing assembly plants" full of evidence.

Well, ignorance is bliss.. I guess you have the market cornered.

What if C-A-T spelled.............DOG? :p

I'm done with this topic....but thanks for playing!!!!

Hmmm. I see things have degraded a bit.
I don't want to "fuel" the flames here, but if I'm not mistaken haven't a great many of the religious beliefs oh, "swayed" as time has gone on? I mean at what point in time did the masses for the most part stop taking ALL the Bible's stories as "absolute truths!!"? Not all, but a great many of you have no problem now saying; "Well, not EVERYTHING contained in there is to be considered as ACTUALLY happening like that. You all know, the more, shall we say "spectacular" events described in the book. Do you guys think that 500, or 1000 years ago that was the case? At what point, as the years go on is it deamed okay to kind of sweep that part [fill in blank]
under, what, jurnalistic license?

Someone stated that the evolutionists "mold things" to suit their arguments. Please, you can't be seriously saying that creationists haven't been. And for probably much longer. The thing is, it seems to me anyway, that evolutionary study is constantly advancing as more and more is discovered, and technology improves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but science changes discoveries as "new" info comes to light. How are creationists "discovering" changes to things so "painstakingly" documented over the centuries?
Bad spelling? When it was written, wasn't EVERY word .....true????

Scooby, you are actually perpetuating an old myth. In fact, the Bible is the most accurately preserved ancient writing known to man. The oldest known manuscripts of books of the bible have been translated more truly than, say, The Oddessey(sp?), which is quite a bit younger than the Bible.
I for one take every word as truth... there is no other option, for if the first verse is incorrect, what good is the rest of the book?

You have taken every word for the truth, but that does not make it true. You say the Bible is the most accurately book to man. How do you know?? [B]All[B] stories including the bible change over time. I may not have all the knowledge or know big words but I just can't accept a religion or God that would allow people to lynch, and hang and murder in his name. That is just not right. I know we all make are own path etc.. but you are telling me that God allows people to choose their path to hell?? I know I said this should not be allowed on this message board, but I find this very interesting the people would have faith in something this is so corrupted and that has caused so many deaths in the past.

-Antonio

Antonio... Hey.. haven't heard anything from you yet.. good to see another face...(proverbially i mean)

as for your beleif though...lynch murder, and steal in his name.. what do you mean... and don't say the crusades.. what the catholic church has done in the last 1500 hundred years, and pawned off as christianity makes my stomach turn.

You can't say that all people that claim to be christian, including catholics, are...
(not that you can't have a christian catholic..)

I don't say that all Americans love bombs and killing and blowing up buildings just because timothy mcveigh obviously does/did (Not debating his guilt or innocence, merely assuming the courts made the right choice.)

According to the Bible, God created us and gave us our own free will to do what we see fit. This is why we suffer pain and ultimately die. According to the Bible....

Of course, our god is a loving and benevolent god.....but he will strike you down with floods and plages if you defy him! The same god who teaches us to turn the other cheek also teaches an eye for an eye. Pointing out inconsistancies, while very amusing, is not the point of this post however...nor do I see it helping anything. I'm glad to see people debating something, keeping their minds sharp. I'm always glad to hear other people's views on how the world works. I think from this point on though i'm just going to be a fly on the wall....

All I am saying the majority of all deaths, wars etc.. Have been done in the name of God. I know this is alittle of topic, but I still don't understand how God could allow these things to continue to happen. I really believe man created the whole bible thing to give control over the masses to a certain few. The bible is a very good story( and yes I have read it) That is all it is. Now if you can't believe we evolved. How can you believe we were created from a "all knowing" being? I think they are both one in the same. Way out there for the human mind to comprehend. There are some many thoughts in my head about this subject, but I don't know how to type them out.

-Antonio

Ok guys, I hate to be the one who says this, but this isn't the thread to be talking about theology, branches of Christianity, who is God, etc. (That could be another 11 pages)

Let's try to stick to Evolution vs. Creation, because apparently some people don't even understand our arguments yet. :rolleyes:

Please pardon my english it's my third language.

Just remember the earth is the center of the Universe and is also by the way flat. People were also burned to death because they did not agree with the church.

If your going to attack the use of carbon to date object please do not use referance(s) more than 30 yeas old like the computer this tech has advanced much in the last 30 years. I would also suggest the use of information from the 1980's or better yet the 1990's. To disregard evolution and all the facts supportig it is to disregard the one thing that we all should have (or most of us) the ability to think, or did we only get that after eating the apple?

But lets be honest the real goal of this topic is not if Darwin was correct or wrong but if the bible may have a very small flaw.. and if it is flawed, then it's a work of man not God and if it's a work of man the we must start thinging for ourselves..

Lets explore that thought for a moment.. Since it's much harder to prove that Darwin was correct or not lets just prove that the world is older than 5,000 years. There is very, very stong evidance to this point. In any event who is correct there are only two ways that this conversation can go..

1. The bible is correct = all or alomost all science it discredited because it is all based on logic and deduction and to prove (or think) that the world is only 5,000 years old attacks the very foundations of this. (When was the last time you took a strong pain killer, that drug is based off of the same scientific deductions)

2. The bible is proved to be incorrect and work of man = some people who use religion as a cruch need to start thinking for them selves.

Since there has been very much useless data so I will post some also, Dougles Adams, Hichhikers Guide to tha Galaxy. vol 1.

Mr Admams make a very good point. Since God must try to keep man from proving he was real. If man were to ever proved that God was real, not real or flawed then man must be supperior to God. In all three situatios man has no need for Gods rules because he (man) was able to prove or disprove god was real or that god was flawed man can do better on his own because he has proven himself better than God. (if you remove the entire after-life thag) And this my friends is true point of the entire converstion. That some people since they can not think for them selves use religion as a cruch or a drug and since it tells them the "real truth" if there is ever any incosistancy in the story the the black and white becomes gray and they must start thinking for them selves.

I wonder it there has ever been a study that looked to see what theory has changed the most evolution or the religion? Hmmm.. I wonder how many religions there are in the world for only one true god..? Hmmm. and why is this truth only a problem for some religions Hmmmm? Could the one true religion be incorrect?

Science = exploration for answers
Religion = removal or answers for the masses. Why do we the masses need to think?

If that offends you then just grab some rocks and stone me like they used to do in gods name.

PS> I gave up catholisim for lent

cpurser is right things are starting to get off topic, lets try and stick to the creation, evolution part of it.

Who said I was sure.. I come down on the evolution side because it does fit the facts the best.. and it is a changing belief. Creationism isn't.

Really??? Homo erectus never existed?? Homo sapiens never existed (for those ignorant of the fact.. we are considered homo sapiens sapiens) Australopithicines never existed?? And yet in the museum of natural history here in NYC they have examples of these.. hmmm no facts.. geee.. I wonder... I guess someone created these for duping all us poor fools.. Examples of early hominoids like Aegyptopithecus Zeuxis never existed either? Or how about Propliopithecus Haeckeli??? After all we don't have their fossils now do we?? Or Ramapithicines.. or Dryopithicenes.. or the Kenyapithicus doesn't exist.. or the Gigantopithecus or lets see Propliopiths never existed.. or how about the earliest definite hominoids at found at Leatolia Tanzania with date to about 3.7 million years ago. (shelton et. al 1986:21) And the man who discovered them Raymond Dart.. nooooo none of this 'evidence' evidence exists.. after all we are just fairy tale spinners.. we have no idea what we are talking about. And no one.. absolutely no one has heard of the Lucy fossil.. sure doesn't exist.. doesn't prove a thing.. After all early hominoids never existed BEFORE Homo Sapiens Sapiens.. Nothing like Homo Habilus existed.. Or how about Homo Erectus heidlebergenis????

You can fill warehouses with this stuff.. and that's only the HUMAN evidence.. what about that of horses.. or dogs or cats.. or birds???

And I've never ever seen the fossils of Australopithicus afarensis, they're complete myth never seen them in my life.. nope don't exist.

Please people.. look.. see what is there.. don't just read.. go to museums.. and honestly look at what they have there to show you. Don't ignore what is available for you to see for yourself.. you don't have to trust scientists on this.. just go look and then tell me where these things came from. And try to find out for yourselves.. maybe go to the Dakota's .. do some fossil searching on your own..

Umm... what is the definition of cirular reasoning?? I said that evolution fits the facts the best.. not that it is the only possibility where?? I wonder is the circular reasoning??
Ohh and for facts.. gee time scale.. here's a simple one the immense size of the universe and the incredible distances it takes to travel there combined with the speed of light.( proven fact if there was one.. or do you now say that we can't measure light's speed??)

I really don't quote specific studies or literature.(I did here once.. i just couldn't resist) Why?? go look for yourself.. don't read books.. don't listen to fools purpoting psuedo-science.. Go and LOOK!!!! Then come back and answer where these things came from??? And where did they go???

Uhh a general guide to behavior and how to handle relationships between people. A great guide on how to live a Moral and Just life within a lawful society.

Gee I dunno.. what good is the rest of the book???.. beats me..

No offense intended, but thats not saying much. How do you REALLY know how accurate it is now, after all these centuries/translations? Not to say that it isn't, but I wasn't there for any of the original scribblings...were you?

I have no problem with you taking every word as truth. Also first verse incorect/what good is rest, etc.. I actually prefer if you are going to tout creationism that you do feel this way. I'm sorry if you feel I "perpetuated an old myth". I'm only making observations on comments I've read as recently as this thread.

No offense meant, but I often don't know what to make of many creationists arguments. Just as one example, the dinosaur discussions. Now I really don't see anyone lining up anymore shouting "fraud!!! they never really lived!!" Which is smart, because the evidence rolls in daily. More and more varieties. More complete examples. On and on... Yet the latest explanation is that they lived at the same time as man. [cause at this point to say otherwise ruins everything, right?] So, 80ft long reptiles, flying reptiles with 35ft wing spans, all manor of spiked, horned, razor toothed, etc, etc.. and all anyone could come up with back then for some description was a FEW words like, behemoth??[sp?]

Am I the only one who thinks seeing something like what we now refer to as a Pteranodon flying through the air might just warrant a little more detailed mention?? The people of the time seem to have been capable of much greater description when necessary. Even in the most primitive of cave drawings, we're talking wooly bison and mammoths here. No charcoal sketches of 10ton reptiles...

This is why I was curious about your answers to my question on what if we found REAL PROOF of life somewhere other than earth. I'm trying to see what the thinking is BEFORE any evidence comes to light. [if any ever does.] I've heard no one say it's covered in the bible. Yet...somehow...if we do find out there is. Does anyone doubt that somebody will come up with a biblical explanation for it. All of a sudden...

ROFLMAO.. gotta love things like the inquisition and how Galileo was tortured to repent his beliefs, wouldn't you agree?

ohh good point.. I missed that one about the science from 30 years ago... science has advanced.. shouldn't your sources discounting have advanced also???

And since it is man (man being an imperfect being) who wrote the bible, then somehow the bible is flawed.. after all perfection isn't created from imperfection.

After all Catholicism and Christianity are the largest religions in the world aren't they. And because everyone believes in them.. They must be right...

Nope.. not gonna stone you.. I'm gonna cheer you on. Go ahead keep it going.

Page 12

And one last thing..

Can anyone tell me what a double-blind study is?? I'm still waiting for that one. Just a simple inquiry.

I contend that Creationists don't understand the true scientific process this is their chance to prove me wrong. Which to now none of them have done. I mean how can they understand and discount science if they don't even understand how it works? I'm really really confused on that point.

And none of you has even told me what the scientific method is.
Yeah I think at this point after looking at the "proofs" offered by the creationists.. I have serious doubts as to their ability to understand science. And I never said.. "because I said so"

If anything look up a few posts.. I name enough types of hominoids of which I have personally seen the fossil evidence (after all.. they are in museums.. that's what those school trips were for) And I've been back since then. I can't wait to hear the bible's reasoning for their existence.. That will be enormously humorous to watch.

And I never once called anyone here a jerk. I do however question their scientific understanding. While they are most likely upstanding, good quality citizens they are definitely NOT scientists. As such, I have valid doubts as to their understanding of science and how it works. I keep asking for a simple proof of this.. no references, no books.. no one but themselves..(evidence for evolution exists in every single natural museum in this country.. you want proof .. go visit one.. again no books no studies.. simple personal observation.. something called... empiric evidence) Doesn't mean that you can't get a theory wrong based on it.. but at least you've got evidence besides a single book written by a primitive culture. That the most numerous believers in (Catholics) regard as a guide written by a primitive society.

What is a double-blind study.. how does it work?

I'm waiting.. And yes I'll have a few more after this..

After all I'm scientific in nature.. I need repeatable proof... not just a one time thing.

Well let me try to begin this on the right foot, I am an anthroplogist and my wife is an evolutionary archeologist. Reading this whole forum has been at times quite impressive and other times a bit tedious. I am very impressed with how civil this has stayed. (most discussions that I have seen or gotten into abtou this topic can get quite heated). Anyway I'll cut to the chase and put my 2 cents in.

1. Radio carbon dating may be wrong sometimes. It is not as exact as other methods of dating like Potasium Argon, Thermoluminesence, electron spin resonance, and numerous others. Imagine using a really cheap scale. Usually you'll get the right weight but it's not going to be exact and sometimes the scale will be completely off. Most archeoligists will use carbon dating to get a rough first estimate because it the cheapest and fastest ways to do it. (After getting an initial date and doign further research ie getting more money a more complex and accurate test will be done.) Potasium Argon dating is extremely accurate. Potasium has a half life of 1.3 billion and slowly decays into argon. This can be calculated and calibrated to get an extremely accurate date of up to 1.3 billion years +or- a about 500 years. Now while this doesn't prove that evolution exists we can get dates from objects from the past (unless you don't believe in chemistry)

2. The footprints in the riverbed subject is true (though I haven't heard of the ones over the dinosaur footprint) They were found by the Leakeys and they are abotu 4 million years old. They weren't made by human but by an hominid called Austrolopithecus afarensis. This upright walking hominid was about the size of an 8 year old (3ft tall) it woudl have had a similar footprint match as a human because it walked quite like we do. I have held an actual afrensis skull in my hand its quite amazing (it is a fossil most "bones" found archeologists/paleontologists are fossils.)

3. DNA It has been proven that DNA evolves over time (microbiology) Actually we evolve through changes in our genetic material. African american females have the most mutation in their mitochondria, compared to all other human races (little furnaces in your cells, it is also the only structure in the human body that is passed down linearly and it happens to be through the mother only.) Scientists have been able to deduce (but not yet prove) that all human beings came from a single to a small band of women from africa about 200,000 years ago (which is about how old the modern homo sapiens line is) Now while this also doesn't "prove" evolution, it does make the earth older than 6000 years, it also kinda proves that all humans come from africa.

4. Adaptation is fundamental to evolution, sickle cell anemia is a very good example. In the area of africa that anemia comes from an area in africa that has a very high rate of malaria. Sickle Cell Anemia helps prevent malaria. Now while the disease is dibilitating and can hinder the quality of life it doesn't end life nor does it hinder reproduction (any more than malaria does) as a result sickle cell anemia makes the chances of reproduction greater in that area. Eventually the people with sickle cell anemia could develop into an entirely different species as they evolved to cope with the sickle cell anemia. Another example of evolution and adaptation would be Neanderthal Most people know what neanderthal was. Neanderthal had very stout bodies, broad noses and barrel like torsos. Inuit people (eskimos) have very similar bodies as these type of bodies are very efficient in dealing with the cold. Now for neanderthals when the main ice ages were over, their adaption was too specialized, modern human bodies (including Inuit) are much more able to throw objects, run, and produce more specialized tools that worked better in the climate, hence about 40,000 years ago modern human began to take over.

Well There's four, can't think of a 5th at the moment (it's nearly midnight) I'll try to think of a couple more tomorrow. Just a few more rants though, the thing abotu bones and fossils: all bones over a period of time and given the right circumstances will turn into stone ie fossils. a true archeologist (unless they are looking at very recent finds) will call a bone a fossil as it has become "fossilized"
The great flood: Almost all cultures have myths and legends about the great flood. Some have stories abotu saving the animals and other some don't In archeology recently a great number of settlements have been found under the black sea. Evidently thousands of years ago the balck sea was a smaller lake, or river. Either because of melting glaciers, earthquake or other event, the the mediteranean suddenly poured thorouhg and created the black sea. Now to people living 10 or 20 thousand years ago, this must have been extremely catastrophic and awe inspiring imagine suddenly the whole world has become surrounded by water. THat would make a big story in anybodies book and most likely one that would travel around the world. Even though similar events most likely happen, and they still happen today. As for the seashells on mountains, that can be proven by plate tetonics and by the fact especially with the himalays (which are really young in geologic terms) there will be more fossils because they have less of a chance of being destroyed by erosion and other environmental factors.

Now while all of these can prove that the earth is over 6,000 years old and that evolution does exist. Let's talk about the fact that science isn't getting rid of evolution. In fact it's actually embracing it more and more and developing more hypothesis and finding more facts to prove it. Evolution is slowly becoming a stayed theory much like gravity or relativity. But in remembering true science, one must not forget that it is only a theory (based on fact) but only a theory. One must always remember even in creationism (to be truly scientific) that not everything is really real. We coudl all be just a figment of someone's imagination for all we really no. That's were faith comes in. Faith in science, faith in religion etc. Neither theory can really disprove one another (one maybe right both maybe right, etc.) The only true way anyone will really know is if we can go back in time and look it all over. (time being relative also) or when one meets the maker, they can ask how the hell did this all start. Anyway that is the end of my loooonng rant.

I didn't attack religion I questioned it.. on a level that is common within the scientific and philosophical world. I pointed out basic things that are highly quiestionable in nature.. and yes.. I was sarcastic about them....maybe personal.(not my intent). but I'm human I make mistakes. (I get sarcastic when people stop making sense.. otherwise I get too frustrated)

I mean look at what your saying.. does it really make logical sense?? forget religion forget science.. just logically.. MAN is the creation of GOD in HIS image??? umm What makes us sooooo special that WE are the ONLY ones to get this privilege?? Isn't that just tad bit egotistical?(again remember forget science, forget religion.. read the statements)

And as for lay people, when they are faced with people who have to live within the scientific community and then face the same arguments and degradation that scientists live with.. You react with calling me names.. (Gee.. I'm almost hurt... there's that sarcasm again) In science.. and philosophy.. you have to live with being called an idiot and a jerk everyday, it's a fundamental part of those endeavors. No one enjoys it.. but anytime you publish someone will attack your position. Others will attack your integrity, your beliefs and your personal behavior to prove you wrong. (especially if you disagree with them) So seeing your posts is nothing new... but wow.. did I hit a nerve.. I guess your listening now?? Why react with anger.. I was only sarcastic.. Or is questioning your religion (which face it.. Creationism is based on the Christian faith.. so why shouldn't that be brought into question also.. it is a pillar of your argument) going too far?

Jlanger.. thanks for mentioning the Leakeys.. I forgot about them in my list of hominiods.. They definitely deserve credit. I don't envy the position they took early in this century. The hate they encountered must have been horrible. However I admire their courage and their scientific abilities. There have been other footprints discovered since then.. although none as nearly important/significant.

Your point about the black sea is well put, I think that something that significant would create many word of mouth stories over time and turn into early legends and myths.

As for the rest.. yep I make mistakes.. I can even get angry.. But I will never ever call someone a jerk or other words.. for being sarcastic. I can question your scientific abilities, but I do not think you are less a person for having the lack.. just less a scientist. Let's face it, we aren't all scientists, and I'm no preacher ( ). There is nothing personal in what I've said.. and there never will be. If I have something personal to say to someone it will be in private.. it's no one else's business and I expect others to do the same.

As for attacking religion being my best defense.. hardly.. my best defense is how your going to explain to me all the scientific evidence that exists in every natural museum in a complete and scientific manner. NOT using references from the bible for generic terms like Behemoth, but exacting studies that go beyond the Bible and use other methods to correlate the data contained therein.(after all science uses the bible also)

ask the Anthropologists.. They use the bible too. But only as another source to prove their points. I.E. the black sea and the stories of the Flood.

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?

Yeah...God made her. :p
Can you explain to me how she became us? Can you explain where she came from?

How do you accomplish this? How many parties are involved?

So GOD created a single being with no other members of her species.?? Now why would any sane being do something like that?

I highly doubt she was the only one of her species, if she was infact an unknown species. Who said that she was?

Since all you have is a few bones of unknown animal origin, I wouldn't exactly call that firm ground...then again, new dinosaur species have been proclaimed from a single tooth fossil...brontosaurus comes to mind...oh, wait...they were wrong about that one, weren't they?

Once again:

Creationists believe that the assumptions of radiometric dating are invalid and cannot be proven. These assumptions are:
(1) the radioactive element decays at a constant rate
(2) the rock crystal being analyzed is not contaminated by infusion of excess end product
(3) the rock crystal contained no end product when it was formed
(4) leaching of the parent element out of the rock sample did not occur.

The Potassium-Argon dating method suffers from both leaching and contamination problems. Since it is a gas, argon 40 can easily migrate in and out of potassium rocks (*J.F. Evernden, et. al., "K/A Dates and the Cenozoic Mammalian Chronology of North America," American Journal of Science, February 1964, p. 154). Not only is argon an unstable gas, but potassium itself can easily be leached out of the rock. *Rancitelli and *Fisher explain that 60 percent of the potassium can be leached out of an iron meteorite by distilled water in 4.5 hours (*Planetary Science Abstracts, 48th Annual Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, 1967, p. 167). Potassium, Rubidium and Uranium salts are highly soluble. This reduced the concentration of the potassium ions to the point that it increased the date of the rock dramatically. Rubidium-Strontium and Uranium-Lead also has problems of the same kind.

Thermoluminescence dating always relies on the assumption that the material being dated has been thoroughly bleached or "zeroed" before it was deposited in an archaeological context.

Isochron dating also has its faults. (Evidence was posted earlier.)

According to Dr. Walt Brown, one of the tests that has not been done on the methods is to subject it to a DOUBLE BLIND STUDY.
Check out
Dr. Walt Brown's book on-line at The Center for Scientific Creation. On page 67 of his book he describes the DOUBLE BLIND TEST needed to establish credibility for radiometric dating. Creationists believe that since evolutionists expect certain rocks to yield dates that agree with their theory, no laboratory will publish dates that are wildly out of whack, or they wouldn't get paid for producing a result that would be hotly contested as experimental error. Woodmorappe shows that even the published results are enough to render the method as unreliable.

And, to be fair, here is a link to a discussion between David A. Plaisted, creationist, and Kevin R. Henke, geologist and advocate of radiometric dating. Mr. Henke lists many references to support radiometric dating, and claims there has been double blind studies done.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8851/plaisted-review2.html

Oh, as for the definition of a DOUBLE BLIND TEST:

"A double-blind test is a control group test where neither the evaluator nor the subject knows which items are controls. A random test is one which randomly assigns items to the control or experimental groups."

Just for the record, the Shroud of Turin, claimed to be the burial cloth of Christ, was supposedly dated by a blind test. Actually, the control specimens were so dissimilar that the technicians at the three laboratories making the measurements could tell which specimen was from the Shroud. The test would have been blind if the specimens had been reduced to carbon powder before they were given to the testing laboratories. I wanted to say this because it would be unfair to say that the Shroud is true, but then say fossils are wrong.

TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS

Homo erectus - I think the picture below says it all. Does this look anything like a human skull? (Take off your evolutionary glasses)


Australopithecines -

For many years, creationists (e.g., Gish 1993) have referred to the studies on Australopithecus by evolutionists Charles Oxnard and Lord Sully Zuckerman. These evolutionists, having analyzed postcranial (body) material of Australopithecus, contend that Australopithecus was not bipedal and transitional to man, but walked rather like a chimp. Using a completely different approach from that of Oxnard and Zuckerman, and examining a different anatomical complex (the inner ear), anthropologist Fred Spoor (Recently, using a CT scanner) and his coworkers support Oxnard and Zuckerman's conclusions. The "semi-circular canal dimensions" of Australopithecus, they write, resemble "those of the extant [living] great apes" (Spoor et al., 1994, p. 645).

Aegyptopithecus Zeuxis - Does this look human either?!?


Propliopithecus Haeckeli - "A primate known as Propliopithecus (one lineage sometimes called Aegyptopithecus), from the Fayum fossil sites of Egypt, is an archaic-looking catarrhine, and is thought to be what the common ancestor of all later Old World monkeys and apes looked like." (Encarta)

Homo Habilis -

The discovery of a more complete fossil skeleton of Homo habilis, although still quite fragmentary, considerably strengthens the contention of creation scientists that these creatures, while not the same as any one of the modern apes, were, nevertheless, simply apes, in no way related to man. The fossil remains were discovered by Tim White of the Johanson team and are described in a recent Nature article. (D. C. Johanson (and nine co-authors), Nature, 327:205 (1987).) Several important features of this creature took evolutionists by surprise. The first shock was its tiny stature. The fossil is of an adult female that stood only about three feet tall. This is as short, or shorter, than that of "Lucy." Furthermore, the postcranial skeleton (that portion of the skeleton below the skull) was every bit as primitive, or ape-like, as that of "Lucy," who is supposedly two million years older than this allegedly 1.8-million-year-old adult female, H. habilis. Recovery of the remains of the arm of this H. habilis fossil revealed the fact that, just as is true of apes, it had very long arms, with finger tips reaching almost down to the knees.

Ramapithecus - A 1932 find in India by G. E. Lewis. On the basis of a handful of teeth and fragments of a jaw, it was claimed by Simons and Pilbeam in the 1960s that this was an evolutionary ancestor to modern man. Pilbeam admitted in 1984 that his conclusions were based more on his preconceived ideas than actual data. It should be noted that a baboon that lives in high altitudes in Ethiopia, Theropithicus galada, has teeth and jaw characteristics very much like Ramapithecus and Australopithicus. Ramapithecus is now generally classified as essentially the same animal as a fossil orangutan known by the name of Sivapithecus.

Let's talk about "Lucy".

Lucy (Australopithecus Afarensis) is a partial fossil skeleton, about the size of a chimpanzee, supposedly female, discovered by paleontologist Dr. Donald Johanson on November 30, 1974, in Hadar, Ethiopia. It is more complete than most fossil finds in that about 40 percent of the bones of the body have been recovered. The find includes a V-shaped jaw, part of hip and large bones, and other assorted bones with very little skull fragments. There were other finds at the same location, other skulls and U-shaped jawbones.

What evidence makes this creature a transitional form? According to Dr. Johanson, she walked upright! Her brain size is still small, ape-like in proportion, and most of the other features are predominantly ape-like. Some say that anatomically it is not different than a modern chimpanzee. The jaw, in particular, is distinct in that it is V-shaped, totally unlike human jaws.

And what evidence supports the idea that this creature walked upright? The angle that the upper leg bone makes with the lower leg bone at the knee. Looking head on, chimpanzee and gorilla legs have an angle of 0 degrees. Humans have an angle of about 9 degrees. If the angle is much greater it gives a "knocked kneed" condition in humans. Lucy and the australophithecines have a larger angle of about 15 degrees. (Present day orangutan and spider monkeys have the same angle as humans yet are extremely adept tree climbers.)

Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already mentioned and that Lucy's femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps and therefore, "could have" walked upright. After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; "How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?" (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, "Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?" Dr. Johanson: "Anatomical similarity." (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities)

Ok, I am stopping now. I am SERIOUSLY tired of chasing your "mountains of evidence" around.

Oh, BTW, I am still waiting on an Evolutionist's view of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Yeah...what he said.

I only read page 1 and 12 but here's my take on it. (my personal beliefs only extend to some higher power)

Humans have always attributed the unknown to GOD, whenever something couldn't be explained "GOD did it." It's always been easy to label something with God's name when we can't explain it. Many things that God did have been explained by science over time.

I remember when Mom and Dad were Gods.

Okay that's it, i don't want to put anymore thought into this, i've taken enough classes in college about both arguments and it's "one of those things" that I don't want to input any further cuz it doesn't stop (ala page 12?)

I had a rebel trojan once...I thought I was gonna be a daddy!

I wonder if it's possible to Off-topic this Off-topic..............

here's how the conversation would of started had it been ghettofied

Being uh Christian, da argument o' Creation vs. Evolution iz very intriguing. The evolutionists believe dat da Biblical account o' Creation iz wrong an' da Christians believe dat da Theory o' Evolution iz wrong. So who iz right? There iz arguments fo' each account o' how life began. The evolutionist believe da earth iz millions o' years old an' da Christians believe da earth iz only thousands o' years old. Again, who iz right?

In addition ta being uh Christian, I be also an Engineer an' I truly enjoy science an' logical thinking. However I be not uh scientist. I do not pretend ta know everything about da theory o' evolution an' physics. But I gots come across some very pimp-tight arguments against evolution (given by Dr. Kent Hovind) dat I Wants ta discuss in dis here forum, since dere iz some very pimp-tight debaters here (namely EdwardC) dat obviously know uh great deal about science.

So fo' our mutual edification, I Wants ta ax some questions (one at uh tyme o' course) so dat every one can see both sides o' da story. Again, I don' claim ta gots all o' da answers which iz why I don' wants dis here ta become uh heated debate, just uh pimp-tight discussion so dat both points o' view can be heard. With dat being said, queshun number one:

1) How do evolutionists prove da earth iz millions o' years old? ya'll is mad stupid.

tranlastion brought to you by...... EbonixTranzlator

I'm glad the Bible is VERY clear about this. Just in case there would ever be any "confusion" later on...
Also, I am genuinely interested in authentic prehistoric cave drawings depicting dinosaurs, and psoropods. Would you happen to have a reference I could look to? Thanks.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/docs/v21n1_aboriginals_dinosaurs.asp

you might find that an interesting read!!!

I can't remember where the pictures to the cave drawing are but I'll link them when I find them, in the mean time if you have any links to dino or dragon legends from around the world please post them!

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/bernifal.html

http://www.projectcreation.org/children.htm
I just did a quick search so I hope this is a little help

Cpurser, you have a very good set of arguments but let me discuss some possible counter- arguments.
You are right that K/AR dating is based on assumptions. Just like any other type of argument is usually based on an assumption. There are very few facts. (Gravity is still an assumption, though it is fairly easy to prove) There are many other types of tests out there. I listed 3 and as I read in the article K/AR is reliable and has produced results that were backed up by other tests. As for the other tests, I am not as well rehearsed on them but I will try to find out more from my wife and her colleagues
To be quite honest with you scientists probably have changed results at times and when this happens usually most scientists will go after that person and prove them wrong. One thing about the scientific community is (as seen on this forum) if someone doesn't think a theory or hypothesis is correct, then they will do many things to try to dispel or prove it false. Now there are many arguments against evolution however it has not been able to be proven completely false. Fossil records (I will explain later), DNA testing and even modern day stories of adaptation can all be used to prove evolution.

Now your argument for Homo erectus, it doesn't look human because it isn't Homo sapiens, place a Homo sapiens Neanderthal (or Homo Neanderthal) side by side and they don't look too similar either. However, you could also place two dog skulls or a female and male gorilla skull side by side and think that they are completely different species. Homo erectus had very strong jaws and teeth because of the food that they ate. Today scientists don't really know why the brow ridges existed. Some scientists today think that it was possibly for protection of the eyes as at that time no throwing weapons were around so erectus had to deal up front with it's prey or enemies. (Early home sapiens also had some form of brow ridges I even have brow ridges, small ones compared to Homo erectus or Neanderthal) But the argument also remains, that these fossils are still being found, how is that explained? They could possibly examples of mutations in the human gene pool I guess, but no modern humans have really looked like this and there are quite a few examples of erectus. I guess the main question is how do explain the ape like fossils that have many human like characteristics. As for Lucy walking like a chimp, look at the hip bones in the picture, a chimp's hips are very tall and skinny compared to Lucy's which is more similar (but not quite like Homo sapiens.) Yes I will admit that Lucy wasn't human. She was pretty much in all liklihood less intelligent than a chimp, but if you look at the skulls of other afrensus and the remains of Lucy one can see that the forum magnum (hole in the bottom of the skull)is at more towards the bottom of the skull instead of being at the back. This would suggest that Lucy walked upright as the head was not able to really handle looking straight ahead if it was walking on all fours.
As for the degree of the legs and knee bones, modern evidence is suggesting that australophithecines were more abhoreal (tree dwelling) then terrestrial. (Modern day humans can still be abhoreal if we really chose to be who hasn't climbed a tree?)
As for the mountains of evidence I already suggested the evidence found in DNA, along with modern day examples.
Now as for fossil records There are many examples of Neanderthal (I believe at least 50 to 70 complete or almost complete, there are fewer examples of the older species, i.e. afarensis, africanus, boisie, etc. Since there are fewer of these in the record, the "family tree"; is changing. Just like when you look back at your relatives and find new links and branches, your tree changes also. Now I am just mentioning the hominid fossils, not all the thousands and possibly millions of animals that have been found fossilized (my wife helped sort out a huge find in northern Africa of various hippos, asses, and other animals. Most of which existed 10 to 20 thousand years ago.)
For my final argument about evolution, (from the last post I did) I want to ask how one can explain the fact that all life on earth is similar genetically. Chimps (especially Bonobos) have approx. 96% of the same genes as humans do. (Remember that genetic material is not lost but simply varies and recombines itself.) Almost all animals on earth have similar body systems and even plants are somewhat similar in the basic building blocks. One can derive from this that over time, as changes occurred in the environment, new species developed, and as time goes on the rate went faster as the world environment began to change faster also.
I think that is all I will talk about tonight. I'm a bit tired. However cpurser, I am still impressed with the amount of work you did to set up your argument. Tonight as I go to bed I will try to set up the new scanner that I got and will attempt to show some pictures to the forum that will support my argument more fully. I want to again thank everyone in this forum for keeping things orderly and civilized and hope to discuss this issue with all of you further.
Jim

Edit:Looking at my data (finally found it) There are only about 20 - 30 complete skeltons of neanderthal and about 60 -70 partial skeletons, skull fragments, etc. Homo erectus/ergaster ther are three partial skeletons and 11 cranial and skull fragments. Today Homo habilus is being debated as being an australopithecus or homo. It woudl be considered a transitional species. As for the earlier hominid species there are no complete skeletons. Lucy is perhaps the most complete. However, the distances that are listed can be decieving as Lucy was found on a hill. Many things can explain the fact that the skeleton was scattered as well as the fact that Lucy may not be one individual. However most early hominids, afarensis, africanus, robustus, boisie, etc. have been found in various places throughout africa. One should be able to assume even though the complete skeletons haven't been found that individuals of Lucy's type existed.

Well Taxed to death you got me woken up again. I will attempt to answer your question abotu thermodynamics. First let me point out that entropy is not energy, you can create entropy (but not energy). The definition that I pull from my chemistry book is this:
(2nd law) "the total entropy of a system and its surroundings always increases for a spontaneous process."
(entropy) "is a thermodynamic quantity that is a measure of the randomness or disorder in a system."

Your third law isn't the third law. The third law is that all things become a crystalline structure at absolute zero. (this really has nothing to do with evolution)

Spontaneous generation is possible. Bacteria split apart (by themselves) all the time I have actually seen this. a crab can grow a new leg, plants grow new limbs etc. Now while this isn't exactly spontaneous generation as it does require energy to happen, things can grow from things that don't appear to be. A few chemicals mixed together can create a very primitive organism. These elements and compounds were around at the right time for life to begin. Mixing corn starch with water will create something quite different form what a person might think that they will get.

Now lets discuss the "onward and upward machine" that you ask for me to describe. That machine is natural selection. Organisms that fail to adapt or more accurately reproduce die. Extinctions are the rule on earth, everything dies eventually. Darwin described the finches in the Galapagos that had many different beak styles on different islands to eat the more prodominent food source. Human beings are naturally selective, take the sickle cell anemia argument that you discuss. The people with sickle cell anemia live longer in malarial zones then do people wihtout it. They were able to survive better and hence why many people from that area have it. Arguing why it still exists is explained by that fact that wiht modern medicine people cna still survive and reproduce.
Now for the big one the net loss of genetic material. There is no net loss of material as it the DNA simply shifts and forms different combinations. Look at a slot machine. You pull a lever and different combinations come out giving you a different result. the machine doesn't lose any material, nor does it gain any. (we can gain material and survive also Downs syndrome being an example) There are 64 combinations of the code (AGA, TGA, ATA, CTA etc) Putting all these codes together gives one a large (nearly infinite amount) of combos, than add that to the combinations of genes, chromosones, etc and it all gets really big. As for the net loss of genetic information, most lies dormant as the dominant genes take over or that the combinations change that the genes change.
Anyway I haven't done really well at explaining genetics to the forum so I'll stop now. I will try to explain things a bit better tomorrow when I'm not so tired. As for now the argument of DNA and genetics can really take the evolution idea a long way. Here are the reasons:
It can be seen physically today
One can see the similarities between all speicies
It has been proven (unless we all are a figment of someone's imagination)

Now I will give a bit mroe to teh creationists here. DNA is such a beautiful and nearly perfect mechanism for transfering data that I really think something created it (or at least the blueprint) As for the time and place that it all started I will heatedly debate that. However, my beleif is that the supreme being (whoever or whatever it is) started the process and let it go. Eventually seeing what would happen (or knowing in the plan that it would get to us) DNA maybe a bible that we all can beleive in as it does tell teh story of all that has past and what all there could be. Now I will shut up and go to bed.

Well I couldn't stay in bed cause I realized I made a few errors. One Spontaneous generation is impossible. Sponatneous processes are possible. Two: the third law that you quote may be true in different books. According to the chem book I have the third law is the law of absolute zero. (sources could have different laws)
Jim

I'm surprised this is still going with sensible reasoning and discussion. Nice job everyone. I really don't have much hard evidence to add, nor have I done any extra research, and it's almost 3am and I need to go to sleep. So..forgive the shortcomings in my comments.

I took an Anthropology class while in college. This class showed how the different types of creatures related to Homo erectus spread from the Middle East and Africa. I learned how Neanderthals suddenly disappeared at a certain point and Homo Erectus really began to take over. It setup the reasoning of how they dated the remains of the remains that they found. The Ice Age really helped the dating process.

Apparently, the Ice Age provided the "bridge" that allowed the people from Asia/Russia to cross over to North America. I remember vaguely that there have been remains found in North America that are in the 10,000-14,000 yr old time frame. I also remember being shocked by the apparent discovery of remains in South America, way south near the southern tip, where the remains were about 17,000 yrs old.

I am by no means an expert, but if man (or a derivitive) was in North America 10-20k years ago, he most certainly would have been in Africa, the apparent birthplace much sooner than 20k years ago.

I believe some of the dating done on these remains had to do with the type of tools, clothing, plant life, food, weapons and strata of rock that the remains were found in.

What I mean is.....the depth that fossils are found directly relates to their age. A lot of science is based upon this. By studying different layers and looking at the fossils, it can be determined the approxiamate age. Now, if a plant became extinct at a certain period of time, and throughout all different layers all over a specific area it is found that this plant expired at a certain time...and this human had tools, supplies of food made from that plant...it could be roughly determined what the age of that human was. This is how a lot of aging is determined....simply by relating items from different stratas.

Now, assuming the Creationists do in fact believe that there were dinosaurs, what caused their demise? Did they die, and we suddenly appear? Why is is so widely known that we did not exist at their time?

I think it's becoming generally accepted that there was a "Global Event" that caused their demise. This is know as an impact. Yes, a giant Asteroid that struck the earth somewhere near the Yucatan peninsula. The earth has been struck before and will be again. Simply look at the moon for more proof. I think some of you may recall the asteroids/commets (not sure which ones) that struck Jupiter a couple years ago. So, if it can be determined when Dinosaurs disappeared, I think it's safe to say that their environment was drastically changed by some sort of global event....aka the "impact". I believe by studying the different types of sediment and rocks it can be generall determined when this "impact" occurred. I'm not sure about the specific time period, but I believe it was at least 125 million years ago.

So...to a Creationist, 125 million years ago must be ludacris. So then, here is the question. If there was not this incredible amount of time, that is accepted by science, some 200-400 million years ago as the "dinosaur" age......and some claim the earth is only around 10,000-40,000 years old........can somebody please explain to me how there are so many different rock stratas with the simpler/smaller dinosaurs in the deeper layers....and bigger more complex animals as it gets more shallow (aka higher)....to a large layer of sediment...then another layer of small, simple organisms...which progressively get more complex as the rocks get shallower, to bigger animals and so on and so on.

My point being, the math just does not add up. Human remains have been found that are 40,000 years old...using the layer relationship that I outlined above. The dinosaurs are wayyyyyyyyy deeper in the sediment/rock than the humans. A geologist would be good at explaining the relationship of age and layers. I am not a geoologist or an Anthropologist so I cannot go into specifics.

Sorry for the rambling....

blitzkrieg53:

Thanks for the cave paintings. I had not seen some of those before.

jlanger and MystiqueSVT:

Thanks for posting very good arguements. I will get to them as soon as I can, which probably won't be until tonight since I am still fighting with these FEM models!

Maybe some other guys can tackle their points while I am unable to respond.

HA ha ha hah ha :rolleyes:
What a waste.

I have already discussed the great flood and how if Noah had actually taken all the great beasts he would have had literally thousands of species. To keep pairs of. Now I understand that man at that time could build a boat that was possibly large enough for a few hundred, but if you include dinosaurs in your theory then just the weight of the boat would be very prohibitive for even a barge with many floats, not to mention the fact that one would have to have all the food and fresh water for these animals to last for 40 days. The argument has been brought up before about feeding the predators, or did they feed on the dinosaurs? Anyway the topic of the great flood should be moved to a different forum as while it does have some relevance in this discussion (as to the age of the earth) evolution can still take a great flood into account as great floods around the world have been documented and are currently being researched also. (please refer to my example of the black sea excavation)
As for the pictures of dinosaurs on the artificats and cave walls, I woudl like to find more about them. Your sites were quite limited as to the artifact's current location and scientific analysis. ALso were are the color pictures of the cave. I understand that it is difficult to get a true color picture and that it was quite old. I will also look for a more modern picture (this was made in the early 80's. I am wondering why other creationists haven't hyped this up in the media greater? People take pictures of the Loch Ness monster saying that they actually exist, experts look at the pictures and find them true but then after a while it's proven false. (Also remember that Nessie has never been found)Anyways I would like to find out the locations of the burial stones. Now I will actually wait for someone to answer my genetics questions.

If there was a flood large enough to cover the earths surface with water...wouldn't either all saltwater or all freshwater (or most) species of fish and plants have been killed? Ever put a salt water fish in fresh water, or vice versa?? Not pretty....I doubt it rained salt water, but, if the earth was covered in water, sea/ocena water would mix with fresh water killing species in lakes and rivers..no??

A quick to answer to jim would be that the reason we see similar things in different species across the globe, and in different environments is really straighforward.

The arguement has only one of two answers...
common ancenstry, or
the biblical answer. Common designer.
It is not uncommon for a person to notice a picaso, or a da vinci... common designer.../artist
Well, that is the short answer. What you have suggested.. common ancestry posses more questions than it answers. This means, that in species that are not related... you would have (i beleive its called) convergent evolution? That is.. for example... the eye evolved in two or more completley different species, simultaniously.. as we have previously talked about, the beleif in such a chance occurance happening once, let alone twice, or mutliple times is something that strains credulity. Once is hard enough to imagine..
REcently read an article in creation mag about a family in australia that went to a natural park. There, they heard a tall tale of a shrimp, that aparently "evolved the ability NOT to see"
This is a survival advantage... These types of stories... admitadly not first hand... are something that I could beleive come from an evolutionist. It has evolved the ability NOT to see. Imagine that.. first it gets the ability against all odds, and then it looses it (as a benefit)... I just can't seem to grasp the logic in that...Another real sticky problem.. explain how animals could evolve to live in certain "un-livable" conditions. "sulfolobus solfataricus can survive to 88deg C near fuming sulfurous volcanic vents... Pyrococcus furiosus tolerates 100DegC..
Ferroplasma acidarmanus thrives in acid mine drainage pH 0, in california - a brew of sulfuric acid and high levels or arsenic, cadmium and other toxic chemicals."
These types of organisms called extremophilos have only recently "last few years" been discovered and studied... How can they evolve the ability to survive in those harsh conditions.. if they were there to begin with, they would have died without the survival ability. If they were exposed to only small amounts, reason would dictate they would die from it. How can you evolve the ability to survive and thrive in that type of environment. (Read carefully) Humans for example can take small doses of poisons and build up immunity to it, however.. that is not the same as coming into contact with acids, and bases.. You can't develop an immunity to muriatic acid. Trust me. I worked with the stuff for 3 years... 3 vats, filled with 60% (based on volume) @ 130 fahrneheit. You don't get used to it. Again, if this type of immunity is possible, then we should be starting to see our lungs getting used to all the chemicals in smokes. Instead the only thing we see is cancer, and crap in our lungs.
(This should not be taken as an anti smoking campaign. We should have the right to smoke if we want. We do still have the freedom to make wrong, and harmful choices, that may not be in our best interests)

Mystique svt.. the reason being that age is not the answer. Ability to escape flood waters is the answer. We see in the upper layers animals that would have been able to seek higher ground during the world wide flood of noah's day. They didn't escape the flood (obviously.. it was world wide) but they did get to higher ground. They still died. But not in the same valleys, and lower lying areas, that would have been filled in first and quickly, by large amounts of water, and sediments...
Basically to sum up the fossil record.. we see billions of dead things.. buried in rock layers.. laid down by water... all over the earth!

Jim.. the problem with your idea is that your understanding of the noahican flood is not very good. (not ment to be derogitory)
I would suggest getting a copy of John Woodmorappe's book entitled noah's ark, a feasability study.
Excellent resource to answer tough questions.. and remember this tid bit.. even the largest dino's were babies... Noah did not need to take 50 ton psoropauds on the ark.. smaller "Teenage" animals would have done the trick!

Great one.. excellent question.. You know.. I have never thought about that.. and have never seen any studies or ideas solving that.. I am not saying there aren't any.. but i have never come across one. I am sure the problem is not insurmountable. I will make a point of getting some answers for you! I presume it will have something to do with certain fish types today being highly specialized, and that in the past, their dna would have been less specialized. Just taking natural selection backwards. (This is by no means a creationist scientific answer) Just an off the cuff stab at one, before going to sleep... Darn night shifts...

This is a quote from Dr. Kent Hovind:

During the flood, how did the fresh water fish survive?

Answer:

"This question assumes the oceans were salt water during the flood like they are today. I believe the entire world was largely fresh water. Today about 30% of the rain water washes into the oceans, bringing mineral salts with it. The oceans are getting saltier every day. Today's oceans are about 3.6% salt. Between the salts washing in from ground water and the salts leaching in from subterranean salt domes, the oceans could have gone from fresh water to 3.6% in the 4400 years since the flood. If the earth were billions of years old, the oceans would be much saltier – like the Dead Sea or Great Salt Lake.
Many animals have adapted to the slow increase in salinity over the last 4400 years. We now have fresh water crocodiles and salt water crocodiles that are different species but probably had a common ancestor. This is not evolution. It is only variation. Changing from a fresh water croc to a salt-water croc is not a major change compared to what the evolutionists believe. They think it changed from a rock to a croc! That would be a major change!

Several years ago, a man in Minnesota told me that he had two large aquariums in his house, one fresh water and the other salt water. He wondered if he could mix the fish together so he figured out how to slowly raise the salt content in the fresh water aquarium a little each week for 10 years until it was 1.8% salt. At the same time, he was lowering the salt content in the salt water aquarium to 1.8% salt. After 10 years he mixed all the fish together. He told me they adapted fine.

Noah had no problem with drinking water during the flood and the fresh-water/salt-water problem does not exist. Attempting to force the way the world is today onto the questions involving the pre-flood world is a common problem."

:p

cpurser

You raise good questions.. And not a fact that I'll dispute.

As was mentioned those are not Homo Sapiens.. they are a different species. In fact some of them are examples of early Hominoids.. ancestors of the orangutan and gorilla and Macaques..

Your pictures do show a fairly good cross-section of a progression thruogh time. And yep there is some question as to the validity of a few.

Now it's given that evolution is a theory.. that's why there is doubt as to it's validity. I still have seen no evidence presented other than the Bible that points to creationism.

What's fascinating about this, is that your doubts and the points you make are not dissimiliar to those of the Flat Earth Society.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flatearth.html

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

But I don't want to digress.. I just find those links humorous.

Unfortunately, I have seen doubts about evolution, but no proof for creationism. And I take the interpretation of the Catholic Church on it the most serious. Literal interpertation of the Bible (namely the old testament which covers the creation of the world) isn't enough it's only 1 peice of evidence. I'll need a lot more than that.

^
^
|
|
|

By Dave Andrews:
Hmmm.

Dave Andrews.. Your links are extremely interesting. Everyone, whether lay person or scientist in the modern creationist camp agrees that the earth is not flat. We have evidence (that is not in dispute by either creationist, or evolutionis) pointing to a round earth. thinking 2 dimensionally the arguement could be made that the earth need be flat in order for an up and down. But with the thrid dimension, up can still exist even with a round earth! This person you are linking to is one of the reasons creationists aren't taken seriously. Likewise there are people on "your" side that use silly arguements for evolution that have been discarded years ago, or never even beleived in the first place..

take vestigal organs.. over 100 at the beginning of the century.. now.. not a one...
ohwell... Both sides of this debate suffer seriously from bad publicity by folks such as this flat earther. We should all be able to agree to this!

The measure.. baseline if you will, for all of our thinking is the bible. Four corners.. ask anyone looking at a map.. NESW... four corners. not 90 degree, square, cast in stone corners. Nowhere in the test is that implied..
However, this is not to say that the text is not to be read in a straightforward manor... genesis starts with

bere'shi-th in the beginning
beginning of universe, and for humans that live inside a time frame, a general start to everything.

Another thing I wanted to add was to those that say millions of years fits with the bible, and that you can have long days... if you read an interlineary bible, it will help dispel those myths.. In hebrew, you can't have the word day, followed by a number,(and a saying) evening and morning, and have that mean an indefinate time. These ?adjectives? that modify the ?noun? time give it a specific meaning.
someone earlier said that day could mean a million things.. as in
in my fathers day, it took three days, travelling during the day, to get to florida from here.
however, when you apply the grammar laws, your idea falls apart.. you can't say that

in my father's day(vague time.. perhaps era), it took 3 days (twentyfour hour days) travelling during the day(light) portion of a day ...

If grammar rules and context applied, and the word day was to mean 24 hour literal, then the above sentence falls apart. It just doesn't make any sense.. you can't use the word day interchangably when it has a specific set of rules it needs to follow in context, and grammar. That is not to say that outside of a given context, and grammar law, you couldn't use the word differently.
Hope this is clear..

Hang on a second. First off, there was not a world wide flood. If there were, that means that the earth was very, very warm. You see, a melting of ice caps would cause a world wide flood. Think about it, how would the world flood? That would mean there would be excess water.......excess water would have to come from the polar ice caps. In order for the polar ice caps to melt to cause such a flood, temperatures around the world would have to significantly increase. This would not be rain of 40 days and 40 nights. Think about how a pump in a fountain works.......no matter how much water comes out of the fountain, the water level remains the same. So does the ocean when it rains.

So, there would have to be a "global event" for such an occurance to take place. For example, an asteroid striking the earth and causing mass exctinction and possible significant heating due to a "greenhouse" effect.

I just don't buy the "great flood" as it is completely illogical from the environmental perspective.

Well Cpursor I answered your question on thermodynamics and (I understand the tiredness) Just waiting on an answer on the genetics side of it.
Taxed to Death. The idea of deevolving is actually evolution. The shrimp that evolved to have little or no eyes has come into a different environment. (presumably dark) as a result its eyes were no longer needed so it slowly started to lose its eyes as this was no longer needed (much like humanity is losing it's hair and brow ridges) As for the creatures and abundance of life in the magma vents on the ocean floor, they can provide evidence that evolution exists also. The primitive conditions of earth a couple of billion years ago would have been similar to the conditions found there. No oxygen existed so the organims were anarobic and used chemosynthesis to supply themselves with energy. As time moved on and the planet cooled other organisms producing oxygen as a by product evovlved, eventually an orgamism took advantage of the high energy that oxygen can yeild and became aerobic.
As for Noah's ark. You still haven't answered my question of how the animals, namely predators were fed. Also if Noah just kept the juvenile or infant animals who taught them how to do things? Numerous species of animals teach their young how to survive in the world, this also included dinosaurs. And I woudl like to add, how did Noah go and collect the thousands of species that exist on this earth today? Even if he had collected all of them adn was abel to put them on a barge or other craft (this I can see as being unlikely though possible) How did the small number of humans on the boat feed all of the animals. Infant animals are extremely time consuming, a zoo needs many more people then what were on the ark to feed its relatively few species, most of which are adults and can feed themselves.
As for my knowledge of the flood story, what about the theories I presented?
In modern day history dams break and flood entire regions, couldn't the mediteranean flooding a large section of the middle east created a rather well spread and accepted legend?
Anyway I woudl still like someone to discuss the mitochondrial eve evidence that I suggested.

Ok, this will be a long post, but hang in there, cuz there will be a good point at the end!

In Classical Thermodynamics, the term “entropy” is the measure of the amount of energy unavailable for work in a physical system. Left to itself over time, any such system will end with less available energy (i.e., a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy) than when it started, according to the 2nd law. In this classic form, the 2nd law applies specifically to probability of distribution with regard to heat and energy relationships of physical systems, and as such, the entropy involved may be described specifically as thermal entropy.

Similarly, the “generalized 2nd law” applies the same entropy principle to information systems in such a way that, left to itself over time, the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete than when it began (again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy—in this case informational entropy), and likewise, applied to Statistics, left to itself over time, the order or regularity of a system will be less than when it began (and again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy—in this case statistical entropy).

The vital point to be grasped here is that the presence of a system (whether organizational or mechanical) hardly guarantees continuous enhancement, but more realistically is subject to continual degradation, if it is not kept to the pre-determined standard defined in its original design. Evolutionistic thinking often ignores this principle, despite the fact that it is a profoundly and empirically established scientific fact.

OK, now that we got all that established, we can get to the good part.

Evolutionists claim that order from disorder is common in nonliving systems. They use the examples of snowflakes and crystals.

All living things (down to even a single-celled organism) are highly complex and organized—each component in its proper place and functioning according to its instructions to keep the organism going. They don't just “happen” in nature—the notion of spontaneous generation was long ago and often disproven [Redi (1688), Spallanzani (1780), Pasteur (1860), and Virchow (1858)], establishing the Law of Biogenesis, which remains confirmed in that man has never observed life coming from anything but life itself.

On the other hand, simple “order” such as that found in a snowflake or a crystal, for example, is exceedingly trivial, when compared to the increase in information, organization or complexity that would be required for either spontaneous generation (the beginning of biological evolution), or any form of progressive macro-evolution itself. The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibrium—a lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structural patterns with minimal complexity, and no function.

Thus, crystals are not examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex structures or systems even remotely parallel to those inherent in living organisms, even though they may certainly reflect “order” in the form of patterns (the very structure of which is both enabled and limited by the molecules which comprise them), and they certainly cannot serve realistically as “proof” that life can therefore create itself.

jlanger wrote:

"Bacteria split apart (by themselves) all the time I have actually seen this. a crab can grow a new leg, plants grow new limbs etc. Now while this isn't exactly spontaneous generation as it does require energy to happen, things can grow from things that don't appear to be. A few chemicals mixed together can create a very primitive organism."

Bacteria is already a living organism with DNA. It can split apart by itself because it has the instructions to do so. Also, a crab can grow a new leg because the required instructions are written in it's DNA.

But, how could have life formed from some chemicals mixed together? What set of instructions told it how to organize? Wouldn't this be "order from disorder"? Has this been done in a lab, without any external forces acting as "instructions"?

--------------------------------------------------

Note: Some of my information here was obtained from Timothy Wallace, and his site www.trueorigin.org

Umm Chaos Theory in regards to mathematics and fractals..

And the links were more as a joke.. if your taking flat earthers seriously.. I'm outta here.

jlanger:

How about that - both of our posts appeared at the same time.

I swear my wife is gonna divorce me if I keep spending so much time on this thread! So, on that note, an in-depth reply to you genetics questions may be a while coming - I am going out of town for Easter. But I will try to give a quick response now.

I am definitely not an expert on DNA (or anything else, for that matter), but a lot of what you talked about sounded like variation or adaptation. Please correct me if I am wrong. Will the process you described lead to new species, or show how a whale could evolve into a land animal? Please be as simple as possible so I can follow your reasoning.

Well I guess it's like when you take a picture of a person taking a camera and the flashes go off at the same time. (as for the posts going up) anyway I think we both kinda misunderstood each other on the net loss factor. I thought you were discussing the the changes in the actual genes in a species (that is the different combos of base pairs) What you really meant was the fact that humans have so many more base pairs. I will recheck my sources and get back to you on this. The article from wallace was interesting. I did find the argument between him and the ?duck guy quite interesting.
The stuff about adapting is exactly that adaptation as the mechanism for evolution. There are two boats on this one, one is the slow change boat and the other is the slow change periods followed by times of rapid fluxes. Most evolutionists agree on the rapid fluxes. In the short time (only a couple million years)after the dinosaurs became extinct there was a virtual population explosion as there were when every other predominate family lost its predominance. Humanity could take into accoutn the extinction of the megafauna (giant bison, giant wombats, giant birds, etc) as its oppurtunity to rise.
Sorry about the ramble. I do understand the argument of natural selection keeping the current population stable, however, in times of environmental crisis, ie ice ages, any small advantages can rapidly become the norm and eventually become a new species. One example of this woudl be the bacteria that are becoming resistant to antibiotics.
As for the dating issue I think that we can be civil abotu this but we are both using some assumptions to explain our argument. The bible is seen as an assumption by me and the assumption that the various radioisotopes degrade at a constant rate is seen as an assumption by you. I think that we could bang our heads together on this one for a while.
Now as I said before I think labs have been able to make a combination of compounds into a primitive organism. (or maybe I'm confused with the fact that they were able to produce the amino acids that are the building blocks) I'll look into it more as I will have a great deal of time over the holiday to research (hopefully)
As for the wife, mine's isn't really upset by the fact so many things that she is really good ar are at times going over my head my basic understanding, (remember that I am an anthropologist, not an evolutionary archeologist) these topics get quite advanced and deal with people who work entire lifetimes things like the dating techniques, the genetics, etc. The whole evolutionary idea uses numerous branches of science (my wife works with physicists, herbologists, orthonologists, ichthyologists, chemists, mathemeticians etc) I'm not an expert on any of these least of all the physics and mathematical sciences.(I did take anthro for a reason:) Now as we both try to bumble onto a reasonable conclusion I will be goign to bed. Thinking of this darn forum again!
PS sorry about doing all the editing everyone, I really need to learn how to preview my post before I post them.

jlanger wrote:

"Now as I said before I think labs have been able to make a combination of compounds into a primitive organism. (or maybe I'm confused with the fact that they were able to produce the amino acids that are the building blocks)..."

Amino Acid Synthesis (1953). Stanley Miller produced a few amino acids from chemicals, amid a continuous small sparking apparatus. But the experiment actually had disproved the possibility that evolution could occur.

The amino acids were totally dead, and the experiment only proved that a synthetic production of them would result in equal amounts of left- and right-handed amino acids. Since only left-handed ones exist in animals, accidental production could never produce a living creature (R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 274).

One more note on DNA:

At the Wistar Institute Symposium (1966),Murray Eden of MIT explained that life could not begin by "random selection." He noted that, if randomness is removed, only "design" would remain,--and that required purposive planning by an Intelligence. He showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. Coli (which has very little DNA), with 5 billion years in which to produce it. Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells). Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, Eden pointed out, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism! For more on the Wistar Institute, read the following book: Paul Moorhead and Martin Kaplan (eds.), Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Monograph No. 5.

jlanger:

You had mentioned the Neanderthal in an earlier post. Isn't the Neanderthal considered human? Also, wasn't their brain 17% larger than a current human brain is today? I read that a couple of days ago and found that interesting.

Dave Andrews and Sam Sampson:

Thank you for finally getting around to (I think) what you were hinting at with the Double Blind Study. (Reguarding Darwin and somebody coming up the same theory at the same time.)

However, it isn't much of an arguement. Statistically, there is a very good chance that 2 out of millions of people can have the same idea at the same time.

Note that I say Homo Sapiens Neanderthal(ensis) (Homo Neanderthal, since corrected by my wife as homo neanderthalensis)It is being debated about how close to homo sapiens Neanderthal really were. There physical structures were much different then sapiens. They were literally built like brick ****houses and woudl though short would probably be able to do a number on a good many NFL players. As for the brain size, homo sapiens average 1300-1500cc and neanderthal go 1300-1740cc. Fairly similar to sapiens. One could compare the similar debates between the red mained wolf and the timber wolf or the florida panther and mountain lion. How far in the species variation does one go before you call it a different species? The scientific answer woudl be unitl they cannot produce viable offspring (offspring that can produce offspring) together, however DNA testing shows no trace of Neanderthal DNA.
The thing with science is everytime one question is answered a whole bunch more arise. As for the theory of everything where everything will be explained. I don't think that is really possible. Many of the physicists looking into this theory don't call it that because its misleading. Most think that as soon as this theory is worked out more questions will pop up. Around the end of the 20th century a historian claimed that all of history was over. ha ha.
In the meantime I am very interested in the results of the study of the human genome as they could disprove/prove some theories on modern genetics, such as neutral mutation, negative mutation etc.

Let me quote
In 1953 Miller placed together in a glass aparatus methane ammonia, and hydrogen gasses. He generated an electric spark in a a large 5 liter flask, and bouled water in a smaller flask to provide vapor to the spark as well as to circulate teh gases. Compounds formed by the sparking were then condensed or recirculated if they were volitale. AFter one week of continuous electrical discharge, he chromatographed and analyzed the products accumulated in the aqueous phase. Note that a large portion of these compounds are relatively simple and include both amino acids and other substances such as urea found in living organisms. In fact the wide array of possible complex molecules that such apparrantly random chemical reactions could have produced, it is remarkable that significant amounts of such relatively simple compounds essential to life actually formed. These experiments adn others that followed therefore point to strongly to the likelihood that the chemical environment that existed before the orgin of life was probably not 'chaos.' Rather, the Earth had a significant amount of simple organic molecules that could participate in forming living organisms" (Evolution, Monroe Strickberger, 1996) Now as for the amino acids being dead well they are essentially dead, they aren't living breathing creatures yet, so a scientist could basically say that they are dead. Anyway as much as I would love to go on about proteinoids adn the labwork done with them, I need to go to work. Been spending to much time on this and I should really take a bit of a break.

Ok guys, I really hate to do this, but I am calling it quits to this thread. Please do not take this as accepting defeat; I just do not have the time it takes to properly reply to all of the remarks. Every good question deserves a well thought out answer and I just do not have the time to answer everyone properly. As several people in this thread have said, it is a never-ending argument.

I have been posting on it since the beginning (March 19th), and it has taken up a huge amount of my time. (I am even dreaming about this stuff now!) However, I thank everyone for posting their points - I have truely learned a TON of stuff! (And I hope people have learned some stuff from my posts.) I have been very impressed with some of poster's knowledge on the subject.

See ya around...

Wow, what a thread

(Post whore)

Well this topic is while certainly not finished, pretty well discussed (both sides) I'm kinda sorry to see cpursor go, as I was just getting warmed up. Anyway I do really see his point this thread has taken a lot of time out of the past few days. Way too much (according to the wife). So I think that I will go the way of cpursor, I may be back so feel free to answer my counter arguments just don't be surprised if it takes a few days or weeks for me to answer back.
As I have said before I do thank all who participated in keeping this an orderly discussion and do thank the moderators for letting the thread stay.
See ya'll later.
Jim

One last thing.. since I think everyone has agreed to let this rest.

Anyone ever read the quote in my signature?? If you read it.. you'll see why I asked.

"It was when I realised how little I knew that I began on the path to wisdom..."

Well, I am glad that I was able to help you find your path to wisdom. My job is done here.

:rolleyes:

Man, I thought you guys were talking about cars...I knew about the Evolution, but I had no idea who made the Creationism. I was looking to see which one was faster!