Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Creationism vs Evolution

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.