Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Creationism vs Evolution

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........