Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Creationism vs Evolution

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