PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Dinosaur and Hominin Fossils

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am currently enrolled in a Human Origins course in college, and there is a question that has been bugging me lately.

We have been watching a lot of videos about various hominin forms such as the Australopithecus and the Homo habilis. According to these videos, not a single complete skeleton from any of these genus species has been found to date. The most that has been found of any skeleton is 40%, and that is from Lucy.

However, and correct me if I am wrong, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of dinosaur skeletons are displayed all over the world in museums and other places. Why then, if dinosaurs are thought to have lived anywhere from 130 million to 65 million years ago, and the first human-like form was thought to show up only 6 million years ago, aren't we able to find just one single complete human-like skeleton?

Do most evolutionists just say that it is because dinosaurs were killed in one complete catastrophic wipe-out, which would have caused their skeletons to be fossilized more thoroughly (like by a volcano, flood, or comet), while humans died one at a time (by natural causes), leaving their skeletons to turn to dust?


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 7:12 PM on April 3, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fossilization is an extremely rare process; the conditions under which it occurs are not usually available.

With that in mind, take a look at your own numbers:

1.) Dinosaurs were around for 75 million years.

2.) Hominids have been around for less than 10 million years.

Also consider the environments that are conducive for fossilization. Dinosaurs lived in time when the climate was much warmer. Instead of freezing, water mixed with dirt in bogs to form mud, which provides the best natural preservative for fossilized evidence. Meanwhile, hominids thrived mainly in the jungle, where corpses quickly decompose, and on the steppe, where there are few swamps and even fewer floods.


And it actually surprises you that there are more complete skeletons of dinosaurs?

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 4/3/2008 at 11:05 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:59 PM on April 3, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The chances for any animal remains to become fossilized is an extreme rarity.  Dead animals get eaten and decayed by various environmental elements - preditors, scavengers, microbial decay, weathering, chemical erosion in the soil, crushed over the eons by the rock over it (if they make it this far), etc, etc.  How many bones do you find laying around today?  Not many.  And most of those you do find won't survive to the fossilization stage.  

Plus what fossils there are have to be found!  And yes, new fossils are being found all the time.  But these still represent only a tiny, tiny fraction of all the animals and plants that ever lived.

It's a numbers game, and a lot depends on the environment the animal lived in.  Dinosaurs lived on earth for about 160 million years (225 mya - 65 mya).  They were widespread - existing over most continents.  We have found some fossils, but even so, these fossils represent only a small percentage of the species that existed during this time.  Many, many dinosaur species we'll probably never know about for the simple reason that they left very few, if any, fossil remains - for various reasons - some given above, their environment or their physical characteristics were not favorable to fossilization.  Even those fossils we find are oftentimes incomplete specimens.  Again, for the reasons disucssed above.

An example of an animal living today that has left no history of fossils behind is the bat - simply because of it's delicate skeletal structure is not conducive to surviving the harsh elements.  

Early hominids were small in population.  They lived in areas where bones simply did not stand a good chance of surviving the elements.  Plus, as pointed out, hominids species have been around for a much shorter period.

So the decrepancy between the quantity of  dinosaur fossils and early hominid fossils is not surprising at all.      


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:06 PM on April 4, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Both of your replies make sense. I was thinking more along the lines of the fact though that dinosaurs are supposedly much older than hominids so the chance of their fossils surviving should be much less likely. But the way that both of you explained it makes more sense.
I however, do not believe in evolution, so I do not believe that the earth is billions of years old, or that dinosaurs roamed the earth for millions of years. Nor do I believe in hominids at all. Actually, I believe that humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time at one point.
But from an evolutionist's point of view, your arguments make sense. Thank you! You answered my question.

(Edited by allisong 4/4/2008 at 3:32 PM).


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 3:31 PM on April 4, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do you explain the fact that the fossil record, and geological data, do not support your claim that the earth is only a few thousand years old?  

No found hominid fossil has been found that co-exists with dinosaur fossils.  That is a scientific fact, supported by the fossil record, geology, and radiometric dating.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:56 PM on April 4, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And there is absolutely NO evidence that dinosaurs and hominids walked the earth at the same time.  All evidence found to date completely contrdicts this claim.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:19 PM on April 4, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, I'm not basing my claims on "science," I'm basing my claims on the Bible. And, in the Bible it says that man and animals were created on the same day, meaning that they would have lived at the same time.
I realize that this is not sufficient evidence for someone who does not believe in the Bible, and I'm not expecting you to agree with me or anything, but that is why I believe what I do.

However, if you WANT to get scientific about it, there is a lot of evidence that points to a young earth.
1.The Sun:
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived.  And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth.

2. The moon:
When astronauts first traveled to the moon, they built their space shuttle with large pods attached to it so that it would be able to land in the deep amounts of moon dust that would have built up to form a layer many, many feet deep because of the moon's age. However, when they arrived they found that the dust build-up was less than one inch thick.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
There's some more evidence, but it is from a Christian website, so I guess it will be quite biased.

Also radiometric dating methods are frequently inaccurate...


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 01:13 AM on April 5, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You can certainly believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible if you wan to.  That's your right.  But be aware that from a standpoint of reason, a literal interpretation of the Bible is full of contradictions to current knowledge about the world.  

However, that's a different topic - I'm not a biblical scholar.

However, I do know something about science.  Please don't call the evidence you quote as 'scientific evidence'.  It was obsolete long ago.

1.The Sun:
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived.  And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth.


I have to say, my jaw dropped when I read this.  There was a time, before the discovery of nuclear energy, that scientists tried to figure out how the sun produced its energy.  One hypothesis was that solar energy came from gravitational contraction.  However, scientists at the time, during the 1800's, knew that this hypothesis presented contradictions to geological evidence that suggested that the earth was much older than a shrinking sun could allow.  The discovery of nuclear energy at the turn of the century (1900's) resolved the puzzle.

Is the sun shrinking?  A search of the scientific literature does not find any evidence supporting a long term shrinkage of the sun.  In fact, the sun appears to be the same size today as it was 200-300 years ago.  

2. The moon:
When astronauts first traveled to the moon, they built their space shuttle with large pods attached to it so that it would be able to land in the deep amounts of moon dust that would have built up to form a layer many, many feet deep because of the moon's age. However, when they arrived they found that the dust build-up was less than one inch thick.


From your description ('space shuttle with large pods'), I would guess you were not alive at the time of the Apollo landings.  The Apollo/Saturn V was not a 'Space Shuttle with large pods'.  

I remember staying up all night watching the Apollo 11 coverage back in July, 1969.  Actually, scientists were not worried about the astronauts lunar module sinking in many feet of moon dust.  For one thing, the US and the Soviet Uniion both landed unmanned spacecraft (the US Surveyor spacecraft) on the moon several years before the Apollo landings.  There was only about an inch of fine dust on the surface.  YEC use an obsolete figure for a much higher rate of cosmic dust than what is now known.  In fact, the scientist who's figure YEC use warned that his high-end estimate for cosmic dust was probably not realistic.  So I'm actually surprised that YEC are still using the moon dust arguement.

Also radiometric dating methods are frequently inaccurate...

Actually, radiometric data for an old earth is quite substantial and reliable.  The misinformation that YEC use to fool themselves is well known and explained.  

There are a umber of radiometric methods in use - Potassium-Argon; Rubidium-Strontium; Uranium-lead; Carbon-14/Carbon-12; etc.  The radiometric dating method used is determined by the type of rock being examined.  Using the incorrect radiometric method will give misleading results.  Using the correct radiometric method there can still be a sample or two that give unreliable results - perhaps due to sample contamination, or for other reasons that can be explained.  Testing labs use numerous samples for this reason.  Consistent results among various labs have lead to a high degree of confidence in radiometric dating.

There are examples that Creationists will use of 'flawed and unreliable' radiometric results.  What they don't tell you is the 'rest of the story' that explains why the results are 'flawed and unreliable'.  For an example - there is a species of clam that when you run a carbon-14 test on its shell (of a present day clam) gives a C-14/C-12 ratio leading to an age of thousands of years old!  Preposterous?  Certainly.  Flawed?  Absolutely.  Unreliable?  Yes.

So that proves that Carbon-14 radiometric dating is unreliable.  NO, not at all.

What the Creationists don't tell you is that these clams live on top of bedrock of limestone that yeilds it's own source of Carbon (mostly Carbon-12) into the water.  The clams incorporate a disproportionate amount of this carbon from the limestone relative to atmospheric carbon into their shells.  This leads to erroneous test results for Carbon-14 dating in this example.

Also, scientists use multiple methods of dating to substantiate their results.  Radiometric dating is actually very reliable when used properly.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 08:26 AM on April 5, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

2. The moon:
When astronauts first traveled to the moon, they built their space shuttle with large pods attached to it so that it would be able to land in the deep amounts of moon dust that would have built up to form a layer many, many feet deep because of the moon's age. However, when they arrived they found that the dust build-up was less than one inch thick.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
There's some more evidence, but it is from a Christian website, so I guess it will be quite biased.



It's very curious that your are referencing Answers in Genesis when they say not to use this argument, and don't list it on the page you linked.

Moon-dust argument no longer useful


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:46 AM on April 5, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, I am not sure if creationists and evolutionists will ever come to any common ground, but I do know that by believing and putting my faith in a literal interpretation of the Bible, it is not possible for me to believe in evolution at the same time.
Views and evidence from both sides will always be biased. Evolutionists fit their facts and data into an billion-year old world view, and creationists fit theirs into a young-world view. So it doesn't seem like the evidence will ever co-exist.

And, you are right. I was not around during the Apollo moon landing. I'm only 18.

(Edited by allisong 4/5/2008 at 10:41 AM).


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 10:40 AM on April 5, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is your faith in Christ or in the Bible?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:32 PM on April 5, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1.The Sun:
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived.  And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth.


No it's not shrinking at a rate of 5 feet per hour.  From here:
ShrinkingSun

"The original source for all this was an abstract presented at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in 1979, "Secular Decrease in the Solar Diameter, 1836-1953" by John Eddy & Aram Boornazian. It didn't take long to hit the creationist press: Impact 82 - "The Sun is Shrinking" by Russell Akridge. Reference "a" above is an article by Gloria Lubkin in the news section of Physics Today, reporting the presentation by Eddy & Boornazian. This is repeated in the body of Impact 82. But you will note that there is no reference to Eddy & Boornazian in the list of references at the end of Impact 82. That's because they never published the paper, and later retracted their own results, a minor point that seems to have escaped the creationist gaze all these years."

So your claim comes from a unpublished 1979 paper that the authors later  admitted was wrong.  

Also from the same source:

"So, the bottom line rests on two question: (1) Is the sun systematically shrinking or not? (2) What about all those eclipse records mentioned above, don't they show the sun shrinking?

The answer to (1) is definitely not. Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard, 1998, carried out a detailed study of the solar photospheric radius over a six year time frame, from 1981-1987. Their results imply a constant solar radius, within a measurement error of +/- 37 kilometers (km) over the whole 6 years. If the solar radius were in fact shrinking by 5 feet per hour, that translates into 37 km in about 2.8 years. That would impose a greater than 2-sigma systematic trend on the six year data set, an effect the proverbial blind man could hardly miss.

And to make problems even bigger, there is some evidence that the sun actually expands periodically. E. Ribes analyzed a 53 year record of solar diameter & sunspot positions, taken during the 17th century. He shows that the sun was in all probability larger, and rotating more slowly, during the famous Maunder minimum in the sunspot cycle. More recently, observations carried out at the San Fernando Solar Observatory show the sun expanding and contracting significantly, over the roughly eleven year solar cycle. In any case, it is quite certain that today, no such systematic decrease in solar radius is happening.
[Since writing this I have been in personal communication with the director of the San Fernando Solar Observatory, who tells me that he now believes the effect to be about an order of magnitude smaller than was originally thought].

But what about the past, and question (2)? The answer there is most likely the same - no shrinking. A recent study out of the Observatoire de Paris reached back and re-analyzed 300 years of eclipse and solar diameter observations. But this time a careful study of the instruments used was carried out, in order to determine the true instrumental errors. The corrected re-analysis removes all doubt: the reported shrinking was spurious, the result of unanticipated instrumental uncertainties.

And so another young-earth argument is laid to rest. The sun is not now shrinking, and has not done so over the last 300 years."

So no, the sun isn't shrinking at a rate that makes a 4.5 billion year old solar system impossible.  You've just used a debunked creationist claim, a claim that isn't true, I guess you'll have to stop using it now...

2. The moon:
When astronauts first traveled to the moon, they built their space shuttle with large pods attached to it so that it would be able to land in the deep amounts of moon dust that would have built up to form a layer many, many feet deep because of the moon's age. However, when they arrived they found that the dust build-up was less than one inch thick.


Another erroneous claim....From here:
MoonDust

"In the 1950's, Hans Pettersson went to the top of a tall mountain, ran some air through a filter, and then measured the dust in the filter. He concluded that at the very most, 15 million tons of dust was arriving yearly from outer space. He guessed that not all of his dust was from space, so he thought that 5 million tons was a more likely figure. He wrote an article about this for the February 1960 Scientific American.

1960 was also the year of President Kennedy's promise to put a man on the moon. NASA got a lot of money, and started up a lot of committees. One of the committees pointed out that they should make a measurement IN SPACE of space dust. This was done, and McCracken and Dublin announced (at the 1963 Lunar Surface Layer conference) that the earth gets a piddling 18,000 to 25,000 tons per year. At the 1965 conference, the photographs taken by the Ranger probe were shown, and it was agreed that the moon didn't look dusty. In May 1966, Surveyor I landed on the moon, and the issue was settled. The engineers designing the Lunar Lander were told to give it short legs. A landing spot was chosen in the rocky uplands, just in case lowlands and valleys had pools of dust."

So, after 1963, no one really thought the moon was dusty.  NASA certainly didn't think this, they gave the Apollo Moonlander short legs.  And the amount of moon dust doesn't support a young universe at all.

There you go, both your claims disproven in about 15 minutes of research.  What else do ya got?

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:48 PM on April 5, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My faith is in Christ, so I also have faith that what He has written (the Bible) is completely true.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 4:59 PM on April 5, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis--

I read your signature quote, and correct me if I am wrong, but it is saying that evolution does not necessarily say that creation is wrong, or that they can co-exist. There are actually a lot of discrepancies between the two, even if the world was billions of years old, and the word "day" in the Bible actually meant millions of years.

Biblical Order of Appearance/Evolutionary Order of Appearance
1. Matter Created by God in the beginning    1. Matter existed in the beginning
2. Earth before the sun and stars                 2. Sun and stars before the earth
3. Oceans before the land                             3. Land before the oceans
4. Light before the sun                               4. Sun, earth's first light
5. Atmosphere between two water layers         5. Atmosphere above a water layer
6. Land plants, first life forms created          6. Marine organisms, first forms of life
7. Fruit trees before fish                                 7. Fish before fruit trees
8. Fish before insects                                         8. Insects before fish
9. Land vegetation before sun                          9. Sun before land plants
10. Marine mammals before land mammals      10. Land mammals before marine mammals
11. Birds before land reptiles                            11. Reptiles before birds
12. Man, the cause of death                         12. Death, necessary antecedent of man


Statements of Evolutionary Uniformitarianism
Model of Origins
(based upon world-view of naturalism)/Statements of Catastrophism and Creation
Model of Origins
(based upon world-view of theism)
1. Matter has existed eternally (no cause)
 a. Matter continually appears (from energy?).
 b. Matter exploded and continues to expand. 1. Universe was created essentially in present state.
 (Cause: eternal Creator)
 a. Matter, planets, stars created complete.
 b. Light rays created directly.

2. A whole series of elements was generated (evolved); and stars, planets have evolved by accretion.
2. Universe was created complete and basically stable.

3. Apparent land features resulted from specific causes of volcanism, diastrophism, gradation (the present is the key to the past).
3. Causes seen in present were not causes of land features (the present is only the key to the present).

4. Forces of origination and integration exist.
4. Catastrophism, decay, and conservational activities prevail in antagonism.

5. Geologic column is evidence of vast "history" of the earth.
5. Only local sedimentary columns exist and world-wide destruction is evidenced by world-wide distribution of sedimentary rocks.

6. Because of innate propensity of matter, organic matter came from inorganic matter by spontaneous generation.
6. Since spontaneous generation of life is contradictory to Second Law of Thermodynamics, only special creation of life could be cause of life.

7. Changes in evolutionary sequence of life forms are due to random mutational changes in genes.
7. Mutations are evidence of increased disorder (entropy) and only changes within limits of kinds, group, or species result from mutations/recombination of genes.

8. Changes of complex forms or kinds from less complex kinds are the result of accumulation of random variations.
8. Conservation processes are involved in operation of genetic code resulting in essential stability (fixity) of basic kinds, groups, species, with no accumulation of random variations.

9. Mankind is related to the ape through an unknown common ancestor.
9. Mankind is a special creation.

10. Fossils of genus Homo are immediate ancestors of modern man.
10. "Ape-like" features of prehistoric man may be due to disease and degeneration.

11. Races of man resulted from mutations and segregation in early man-like forms.
11. Human beings all belong to one race and languages are merely tribal differences.

12. Evolutionary humanism can be a guiding faith.
12. Alienation, identify, and relevance can be answered in context of relation to Creator God.


Evolution/Creationism
1. Local flooding occurred; no global flood 1. Global flood occurred during Noah's time
2. Man evolved from apes 2. Adam created from the dust of the earth by God
3. Humans evolved millions of years after dinosaurs 3. Dinosaurs and humans created the same day and lived at the same time.  Some may still be alive today.
4. First humans were asexual 4. Adam and Eve created as separate sexes
5. Earth started off as hot gases 5. Earth started off as water
6. Universe billions of years old 6. Universe a few thousand years old
7. Universe evolved over billions of years 7. Universe created by God in six literal 24-hour days
8. Life evolved from dead chemicals 8. God created all life
9. Based on atheistic philosophies of naturalism and materialism.  A world view and man-made false religion 9. Based on the revealed Word of  God, and supported by honest science
10. Big bang resulted in the order we see today 10. God created the ordered universe
11.  Dinosaurs evolved into birds 11. Dinosaurs and birds are unique, with no common ancestors (see Refuting Evolution, Chapter 4- Bird Evolution?)

Sorry those are so messed up. I copied them from a different site and the formatting didn't hold up.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 5:13 PM on April 5, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My faith is in Christ, so I also have faith that what He has written (the Bible) is completely true.

You mean your interpretation of the bible...
Since many Christians have no problem accepting evolution and a 14 billion year old universe.
Oh, and does this mean you admit your scientific claims are wrong for evidence of a young earth?

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:14 PM on April 5, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What are you talking about? I haven't interpretated it in any way. The Bible says the earth was created in 6 days. A day is a day. That doesn't leave room for evolution. And when the dates are added up in the Bible, it shows that the world can't be older than 10,000 years.

I'm not a scientific well of knowledge for evidence on a young earth. I don't know all the details and I haven't done an extravagant amount of research on it. I do know, however, that there is SOME evidence that points towards a young earth. I trust God and the Bible. I don't need more proof.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 9:00 PM on April 5, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My faith is in Christ, so I also have faith that what He has written (the Bible) is completely true.


Then do you have the humility to admit that your interpretation may be wrong?

Or merely the pride that says you must be right?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:07 PM on April 5, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not a prideful person at all, and I do not want to come off that way. However, by my posts it may seem that way.

Yes, I have the humility to admit that I may be wrong, but I hope with all my heart that I am right.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 10:38 PM on April 5, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, I have the humility to admit that I may be wrong, but I hope with all my heart that I am right.


If your faith is in Christ why does it matter?

There are many atheists who started where you are and then found out how much they had been misled by people they trusted.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:48 PM on April 5, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are right. Nothing matters except believing that Christ is your savior. In the end that is all that matters.

But it would still take extremely incredible evidence for me to quit believing in creation. I'm not sure that would ever happen.

I'm Baptist... we are known for believing the Bible in its literal sense to its entirety... haha


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 10:54 PM on April 5, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I also believe in creation, the world is full of incredible evidence, you need to open your eyes to it.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:58 PM on April 5, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You believe in creation??

I guess that you never said that you didn't... wow, you are an extremely unbiased and knowledgeable debater then.

And yes, I agree. The world IS full of incredible evidence.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 11:03 PM on April 5, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creation = the universe

Creationism = snake oil


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:07 PM on April 5, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, I guess I didn't realize there was a difference between the two. Sorry.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 11:12 PM on April 5, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationism creates a mindset that cannot stand a collision with reality, which results in many losing their faith.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:20 PM on April 5, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I can see where that might be true, but I do not base my faith on creationism alone. I base my faith on the undying love and security I feel by trusting in Jesus Christ. His presence is in everything...


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 11:24 PM on April 5, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So why are you peddling snake oil?

You have nothing to fear from reality, I suggest trying to learn something.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:27 PM on April 5, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Because I believe creationism is reality.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 11:31 PM on April 5, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As real as the Kuiper belt?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:33 PM on April 5, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not really sure what you mean. I didn't really understand the use of the Kuiper belt in the first place.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 11:47 PM on April 5, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Kuiper belt was a theoretical concentration of cometary bodies long used by creationists as a proof of a young earth because it didn't exist, which is why it showed up on your list of 14 proofs for a young earth.

Then astronomical technology caught up with theory and they are now cataloging Kuiper belt objects left and right.


So, YOU are the one who brought it up, would you like to learn about it?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:55 PM on April 5, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah, I know I was the one who brought it up. I just didn't fully understand it... so I probably shouldn't have posted something I didn't understand totally. So that is my fault.

I would like to learn about anything you want to share with me. I am really interested in the debate between evolution and creationism but I suppose most of my information is very biased so I would be interested in hearing more from you.

Also, I went and checked out that YEC website, and although I do agree with the young earth theory, I would have to say that I don't really agree with the way they are going about witnessing their beliefs. It seems to be more like a bashing of evolution than an intelligent effort to understand both sides. I wasn't aware that it existed until I started reading these posts. So I didn't want anyone to think that was where I was getting all my information.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 12:06 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why do you believe in YEC?  Is it because that is what you've been taught by people you trust or is it because you've carefully looked at the evidence with an open mind?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:22 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually none of my family really knows much about evolution or creation (even though they are Christians) or care to look into it. I became interested in it after learning about evolution in school, and I picked up a book shortly after entitled Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation which sparked my interest even more. I kind of talked about it incessantly to my family for awhile, who kind of grew tired of it... haha. My decision to believe in YEC was entirely my own. Even though the beliefs of my church back my own beliefs, that is not the reason I believe in it. My church supports and believes in many other things which I don't or which I am against.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 12:29 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So do you understand that each of the 14 points you brought up has been soundly refuted over and over again for years?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:38 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe that either side can refute whatever they want depending on which pieces of evidence they choose to use. Neither side is ever going to be totally unbiased. Both want to prove what they believe so they are not going to put forth information which is going to be detrimental to their cause.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 12:43 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So would you agree that the Kuiper belt exists?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:46 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I guess? I don't know, maybe you could explain it more in-depth to me.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 12:50 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The short form answer is that it is the remains of the original solar planetary nebula that failed to coalesce into planets 4.5 billion years ago.  It was predicted by Gerald Kuiper in the early 1950s.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:59 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, then there would be little room to dispute over its existence then, wouldn't there? Wouldn't creationists argument be over what it was from rather than if it was there at all? (Is it remains from the Big Bang... or am I way off? Sorry if I seem like I am totally uninformed-I guess I am.) I mean, I could believe that it exists, but I could not believe that it was remains from something that happened 4.5 billion years ago.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 01:03 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years. Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical “Oort cloud” well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed. So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the “Kuiper Belt,” a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.


Current count is over one thousand Kuiper belt objects, and two Oort cloud objects.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 01:10 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah I read that, but I don't really understand the debate. I know that you are probably explaining it clearly, I just still don't get it... sorry. I'm not trying to be stupid.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 01:18 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, the creationist argument used to be that the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud were just theories, therefore they didn't exist, therefore the earth was young.

But they do exist.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 01:21 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, I can accept that they exist.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 01:27 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So argument 3 has been refuted.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 01:32 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I guess. I never really had any strong feelings towards it in the first place though. I'm not sure that I agree with EVERYTHING that creationists do because I don't know every single one of their beliefs. (I know though that I did post that one.)


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 01:37 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So what do you think IS a good argument?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 01:38 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what do you mean?


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 01:40 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, you've indicated that YEC isn't important to your faith and that you came to it by studying creationist literature.

So what convinced you?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 01:48 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, most of my reason for believing in YEC come from the Bible, but my reason for believing in creationism altogether comes from other sources as well.

The Bible says the earth was created in 6 days, and on 6th day man was created. This does not allow room for the millions of years needed for evolution, obviously. In that book that I read there was a lot of convincing evidence too, but I don't remember all of it and I don't have it with me in order to tell it to you correctly. I realize that the Bible is not going to be sufficient proof for someone who is not a Christian in the first place.

This is a speech I wrote for school. Yes, I realize it is cheesy and overdone, but it was supposed to be persuasive... so, I don't know. I'm not saying it's the best.

Creationism in Public Schools
By Allison Green
I.Introduction
A.Attention Getter: Let’s see what Ms. Garrison from South Park has to say about the theory of evolution. (Show video).
B.Credibility: All my life, in every science class since first grade, I have had to hear about the theory of evolution. Most times, it isn’t even referred to as a theory. How could it be when it is the only option presented? Most kids grow up thinking there is no other way.
C.Significance: I believe this should be changed. Kids should be aware that evolution is not the only theory. They should also be aware of the gaps and incongruities within it. Christian students should not be forced to accept that evolution is the only way, and that creation is not possible.
D.Thesis: Public schools should be ordered to teach both evolution and creationism, in order to be fair to both sides of the argument, and to let kids decide what they believe.
E.Preview: Today we are going to look at the fallacies within evolution, the problem with the Geologic Chart, and the missing evidence within the evolution of man.

II.Body
A.First, let me show you some of the fallacies associated with evolution.
1.Supposedly, the world began with the Big Bang around 12 to 15 billion years ago. It was created from a lone cosmic egg which had been sitting around for eons in an empty universe. After it happened to blow up, the universe became increasingly complex. But wait. Does order ever come out of an explosion? If you throw a stick of dynamite at a pile of wood, is it going to look more like a house? Some materialists protest that given enough energy, order will come about. But how many lightning bolts does it take to bring a dead man to life? An astronomer commented about the puzzling precision of the universe in National Geographic: “To get a universe that has expanded as long as ours supposedly has without collapsing or having its matter coast away would have required extraordinary fine tuning. A Chicago physicist calculated that the odds of achieving that kind of precise expansion… would be the same as throwing an imaginary dart across the most distant quasar and hitting a bull’s eye one millimeter in diameter.”
2.According to “The Origin of Life,” evolution regards time as the magic factor. It would be ridiculous to think that man could evolve in two seconds, but give it two billion years, and the impossible becomes possible. But what really happens as time marches on? Orderly things become disordered, new things get old and break down, and living things age and wear out. This is known as the law of entropy, one of the most constant laws of nature. However, evolution insists the exact opposite of this law. How can this be?
3.Another common belief that evolution holds is that random chance produces all the complexity of living things. According to Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation, the chance of randomly arranging the bones of the human skeleton in the right order on the first try is one in 200!, which is 10 with 375 zeros after it. The number of electrons that could be packed into the universe is only 10 with 130 zeros after it. Do you see how ridiculously large that number is? Now even if it occurs once, what are the odds of it happening again? Yet, this kind of “trick” supposedly happened trillions of times in order to produce everything on this earth.
4.Biogenesis is the most universal law in science, and it means that life comes from life. Yet, evolution says that non-living matter produced life. The theory of spontaneous generation was discarded as obsolete and scientifically unacceptable. However, it appears to only be unacceptable until you reach the topic of evolution.
5.The final fallacy that evolution asserts is that simple forms develop into complex forms over time. But, is life simpler just because it is smaller? Are larger forms more complex than smaller forms? Mutation is the supposed miracle-worker of this evolutionary event.  However, a mutation is a mistaken change in the genetic code, a loss of information. Beneficial mutations do not exist. Respected evolutionist Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse said that “Trying to improve an organism by mutation is trying to improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels. Improving life by random mutation has a probability of zero.”
Transition: Evolution seems to have absolutely no credibility. Why should it be the only thing we are learning? This isn’t the only area in which evolution is lacking…
B.The Geologic Chart was developed in the late 1700s to chart relationships of rock strata formed before, during, and after the flood.
1.Fossils are dated by using this chart. It doesn’t matter what kind of animal it is; the age is always determined by using this chart. If you were to find a fossil and you took it to a paleontologist at a local university, he would date it by the layer of rock it came from. If you were to bring in a picture of the rock layer that you found your fossil in, the paleontologist would date it by the type of fossil that you found there. There is no radiometric method for the direct absolute dating of fossils. It is just a continuous circle of dating rocks by fossils, and dating fossils by rocks.
2.For decades, a fish called the coelacanth was considered a link between fish and amphibian. If a fossil of this fish was found, the rock in which it was found was dated 70 million years old. The fossil was also considered to be this old. Then, in 1938, fishermen brought in a live coelacanth! So this fish is obviously not an evolutionary link at all. It was not extinct 70 million years ago, so it would tell you nothing about the age of rock in which you found it.
3.We are also missing all the transitional links that should exist between the different periods of time. In his book, The Origin of Species, Darwin himself admits, “As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crusts of the earth? The number of immediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great! Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”
Transition: So, Darwin himself does not even have faith in the Geologic Chart. It has been proven to be ineffective and wrong on many accounts. Why is it still included in every high school science text book across the nation?
C.The widest-known “fact”, and perhaps the biggest lie, within evolution is the evolution of modern-day man.
1.Supposedly, modern man gradually evolved from cave men. However, the search for fossil evidence to prove this theory has only proven to be a miserable failure! The most that has been found of any of the stages of the development of man is a few pieces of bone here and there. An entire skeleton, or anything even remotely close to one, has never been found, even though man has supposedly been inhabiting earth for millions of years. You would think there would be countless numbers of human skeletons.
2.In fact, it seems as though the stupid, brutish “cave men” really never existed at all, at least not anymore than they exist today. Ancient man was just as smart as the modern man. According to the March 1973 issue of Reader’s Digest, evidence revealed that the American continent drew many early visitors. Some came more than 2,000 years before Columbus did. The Mayan calendar is the most accurate of its kind. Ancient human skulls reveal that the Inca people performed cranial surgery with some success. An ancient group of people called the Parthians created an electrical storage battery, a Greek technician from 65 B.C. created a computer to measure the motions of the sun, moon, and planets, and Egyptians made model airplanes with proportions so exact that modern aviation engineers have taken decades to replicate them.
Transition: It turns out that man hasn’t “evolved” as much as everyone thought. We are no more intelligent than we were thousands of years ago.
III.Conclusion:
A.Brake Light: Teaching creationism in public schools will make students stop and realize all the problems with evolution and understand that it just doesn’t add up.
B.Review: We have seen that the theory of evolution only survives on fallacies, the Geologic Chart is corrupt, and the evolution of man is falling apart at the hinges.
C.Motivate: Creationism needs to be integrated into the curriculum at public schools, so that the minds of the current generation, and the future generation, our own children, are not going to be filled with a bunch of baloney.
D.Clincher: Do we really want our children to learn lies that have been rejected even by Darwin himself?

Works Cited
Grasse, Pierre-Paul. (1977). Evolution of Living Organisms. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Ham, Ken. (2002, December  14). Creation in public schools [Electronic version]. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved November 30, 2007, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/1102lead.asp
Petersen, Dennis R. (2002). Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation. El Dorado, CA: Creation Resource Publications.
Stanley, Steven M. (1979). Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman and Co.
Wald, George.  (1954). The Origin of Life [Electronic version]. Scientific American, 191(2), 48.
(1973). Who Really Discovered the New World? [Electronic version]. Reader’s Digest.
(1983). National Geographic, 741.


(Edited by allisong 4/6/2008 at 02:14 AM).


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 02:01 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.