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
     a mediated, clean debate.

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Now, to start, i personally am on the evolution side, but am always open to a debate.  Lets keep it to only facts, logical thinking, none of the bs i hear from my friends of "because the bible says so" or "because god is all powerful"  Just a debate.  To start off, i would like to ask any creationist if they have any facts that can support their belief (dont bother with hard evidence, let both sides face the fact that there is none, so dont suggest or ask for any "touchable" evidence) Lets start by addessing these first few questions and take it from there.
1)  The bible says that all men and animals were created seperately, and not men from apes or monkeys.
2)  If we can accept the fact (which IS proven physically) that in animals, and humans (maybe in humans, but they are very slight [skin collor, hair color, eye color, etc] small changes occur to allow the being to fit the environment, what is keeping us from saying that god is not perfecting his creations, or that they are becoming victums of natural selection.

Those are just some of my thoughts, pease respond, and DONT GIVE LINKS, nobody goes to them at all, bust state the important stuff from them.   thanx
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:41 PM on March 15, 2003 | IP
turbo3

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is evedence in creation that there is a creator. There is no evedence in creation for random chance.
God is not perfecting his creation. In fact creation is getting worse because of MAN's sin. All of God's creation are made differently, seperatly, and wonderfully!!!



-------
Body piercing saved my life
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 12:40 PM on March 19, 2003 | IP
Yves

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok, first, about you saying that there is no evidence of just random events, yet there is proof of a creator, what i ask is, where is this proof that you speak of, and it cant be the bible, becasue it is a book, and to look at it from the devils advicate's point of view (its a joke, devil god, bible... ah never mind) the bible isw nothing more than an extremly well marketed book, that had an enormous cult following (just an analogy, dont get defensive).
Now, as you say, which is that there is no evidence for evolution, well, thats another debating issue, because there is carbon and half life dating on substances and animals found that predate the humans, meaning that we werent all created a day appart.  But of course, those techniques for dating are not very accurate, so that side can be debated also.  there is the lucy ape, which shows a connection, as in a midpoint, between apes and humans.  this is based on their bone structure.  Again, this can be debated that: just because 2 seperate things had similar bone structure, than it doesnt come close to meaning that one came from the other.
That there is the earth's crust, which has many layers, and in these layers, at seperate depths, are seperate creatures, which proves that these animals existed at seperate times, thus causing the same problem as before.  In these rocks, they also find a certain species at many different depths of the rock, and they are all different in some way, though not by a lot, but at the top, the newer fossils looks a lot different than the lowest.  I am not sure on the creationists standpoint on this matter is, so i will let you explain to me.  Of course, we cant forget the theory that the earth is 6,000 years old.  I personaly do not know the reasoning for either side, but i have a strong oppinion about this theory.  Why is it based on the jewish and christian bible?   I mean, look at it, there are other religions out there that may believe in creationism also, but have calculated a different date.  The idea that a creationist is a christion thing ticks me off, because it completely ignores all of the eastern religions, north and south american religions, andcient religions (including the greeks, romans, norse, ect), african religions, and the muslim religion.  They may have another number, which might be more accurate, but it is not asked of them, or saught after by us.  I have heard that this 6,000 years came from the added life of all the important people in a timeline.  Of course, this does not include the religions mentioned above.  This is my personal oppinion, and would like to hear your perspective.
Now, i pose another random thought.  If adam and eve were "sinnless" before they ate the apple from the tree of knowledge, that why did they eat it anyway?  If u think about these creature that cant do wrong, why would they disobey their creator in the first place?  This is a clear sign of sin, which is supposedly not "in them" yet, so why are they commiting the first sin before there was such a thing? (dont spend too much on that one, just a side thought)
Thanx

p.s.  I am jewish, and i have seen the discrepencies in my/our religion, and that is why i question god and creation.

p.p.s. Sorry for the spelling errors, hope you can make do.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:56 PM on March 19, 2003 | IP
turbo3

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't mind your spelling errors if you don't mind mine.

Yes the Bible would be where I get some (but not all) of my proof for a creator. Why? Because other than being the word of God it is also: a historical document (proven), a book of science, medicine, life, and great teachings and logical ideas.

As you say there is carben dating and half life dating but most of the time that is not very accurate. Also there is the idea of the flood. A worldwide flood would have some very dramatic effects on forms of dating. Not all dating methods are always wrong but they do not know the complete accuracy of the dating methods. I for one have read about dating but I don't think that it is very accurate. If you have any information that differs I would like to know about it to look into it.

Lucy was put together by scientests. I for one do not think that lucy (one little "link" of "supposed evidence") is a very good piece of proof for evolution.

Well there again the scientest do not leave any room for catastraphies in thier logic. Exsample: When Mt. Saint Helen blew and the lava and mudslides flowed they seperated out in layers in a matter of minutes. It does not take a loonnng period of time to creat layers. a volcano, earthquake, and flood can accomplish layers in a matter of minutes.
Maybe they seperated out by wight or where they lived. I don't know what the creation standpoint might be in that that is only an idea.

Well it is not only the bible that gives the age of creation. there is a lot of proof for a flood and also in archological digs that man hs been hear for about 6000 years. evolution is realitivly new. probably only about 4000 years old. (i don't know that for sure I would have to go look it up)

If you find a different religion that believes in a different date but is also creationist I would like to know about it.

  Creationism is not just a christian thing. The major thing that seperates Christianity from other religions is that we have a God (I believe the one true God) who is just, merciful and holy. He created a way for unholy people to be holy. He sent his son. His son died, was buried and rose again.

They could do wron they had the ability to do whatever they pleased even if it was the wrong thing they were capable of sinning even though they were perfect. They were holy up until the point that they chose not to be holy.
Why they did it? I don't honestly know. But you tell me if you were perfect would you have the desire to find out what imperfect is?

Turbo



-------
Body piercing saved my life
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 12:23 PM on March 20, 2003 | IP
Yves

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, to make this more organized and easier to read, ill disguss each paragraph seperately.

1) The bible might have all of those things, but you have to remember that it wasnt its main purpose, which was to be a guide for the followers of the religion.  It is a historical document in a sense where it shows the lifestyle, science (remeber, it is science of that time period) and inginuities of the time, mediacal records, containing a few cures from the time, but it is mostly about the teachings of the religions.  There arent sections devoted to each, only references mixed in with the texts.  The trouble is, because since it DOES have true hard known facts in it, it is very hard for scientists to understand which are fact and which is a story.  

2) Carbon and halflife dating may be off, even by thousands, or even tens of thousands of years, but just because it cant pinpoint an excact date, doesnt mean that it is false, but more of an estimate untill new technology allows us to put on an excact measurement.   They may be off, but that does not discredit them.  I personaly believe that halflife dating is more accurate than adding up the age of all the men in the bible and putting them into a time line, many of these ages, in the early years of man, live to me about 500 years old, and some were not writen down until passed on by word of mouth for many generations.  If you look for the main people of the old testiment, you would see that thier lifes are enormous due to how long it has been passed on word of mouth, but thats my thought.  Ill answer the flood later on

3)  My interpretation of "put together" is parts were taken from one animal and another part from another (tell me if im wrong).  I am assuming that the location where you got this information from is a pro creationists web site.  Nothing wrong with that, but everyset of bones found has been called a scandle thanks to a couple of frauds and fakes.  Go to another web site, pro evolution, and find thier point of view of if lucy was pieced together, like some of the others.  I am not in a posiiton to tell you the true facts, so it is up to you, sorry.  Also, about the frauds, both sides have had frauds, people too convined with what they WANT to find, so it is unfair to make a generalization against other credible research.

4)  That may be true with mt saint hellens, but these fossil variations at depths, and seperation as i mentioned in my last post, could not all be affected at once, ie, the world became covered with lava, or even the ashflow (no acount of that in the bible), or a flood, which would only disturb the top layer of the ground, and not all the soil that is 1 mile down, therefore, the evedence stated in my last post would stay mostly intact.  Even is some areas ARE disrupted, findings have been supported all around the world, not just in a particular spot.  My logic.

5)  Everything you say in this paragraph i agree with: proof of a flood, archiological digs proving mans first appearence on earth.(i dont enderstand the 4000 yeras of evolution though)  The problem is that although these facts may be true, but you are looking at them from an odd angle.  First, the flood.   You are currect, there was a major flood that happened, but where it happened is the whole point.  I get my knowledge from a Nova episode (a highly respected and unbiassed science show, which looks deeper into many of the unknown, black holes, missing links, etc.) wherre reasurchers loked for proof of a catastrophic flood.  They found it, and the evidence was located near the blakc sea.  underwater in the black sea, there is evidence of human civilization, as in huts, villiges, etc, located about a mile of two from the coast under water.  the significance of this scientists BELIEVE (hypothesis) that civilization inhabetid all the land surrounding the old black sea.  The narrow strip of land that devided the mediteranian and the black sea (it is known that a narrow strip of land was deviding the two long ago) collapsed, letting in all the water from the mediteranian, whose water lever was much higher than the black sea, completely flooding an enormous area.  the locals who lived, moving to higher land, made it into a tale.  The fact that prooves this is that they have found fossils dating back to the same time as the villiges under the water that are of fresh water fish only, suggesting that the mediteranian and blakc sea were seperate.  But the flood still proves no age of the earth.  archiologists that dug up things and found that man lived 6000 years ago is accurate, becasue that is when cities first started to form, but that fact is indifferent, because it can go either way, for evolution, such as when humans finally becasue advanced enough so that they started specilizing and and farming etc, so people could live close together without disrupting hunting.  or, your point, so that goes neither way untill we finish

6) I am currently surching, and will get back to you on that in a later post.

7)  No argument, or comment, i guess its more of a statement, well said!

8)  Thats very provocative, but remember, adam and eve (that is also how you pronounce my name yves=eve (yves, though, is a masculine name)) were not able to bad in the very beginning at all, and if this is so, than even if they are tempted to know the unperfect, they would not dissobey thier all powerfull master and creator.

This is all great, looking for actual proof, but we are missing the true debate, one of logic.  

I am going to assume your responses, i am sorry if i get them wrong

Do you believe that a child is different at all with his mother?
yes (just go along with it)
do you believe that if this child, who is not a clone of his mother, has a child who might look nothing like her except for maybe one feture?
yes
Lets say that the third generation moves to to antarctica (dont ask why, its just to make a point, but the same can be said about smaller, less dramatic changes) and he has 2 children, one who is very tall and skinny, and the other is very short, stalking, and plump (this can be easily achieved through genetic variation occuring in miosis and firtilization).  they live happy, but there is a very severe snow storm, and no matter what the tall one does, he is always cold, becasue he has a much higher rate of surfice area, which heat can escape, the tall one freezes to death (evolution is very tragic, but tis not a downside or upside) and the short stalky one lives, who is better suited for colder climets (proven fact that shorter stalkier people do better in the cold) and has three more kids, do you believe the tall one could die from the cold and not the short one?
well, maybe
20 generations later, they would look nothing like there ancestors in a completely different climate.  do you believe they would look different?
yes, they are shorter to better suit the cold
So basicaly, the better suited one is to its environment, the more it will reproduce, from an elimination of competition that isnt as well suited, is that true?
i dont liek where this is going!
and of course, that is one of the main points of evolutions, that a lot of little changes can build up to what appears to look like a big change from the beggining thing to the end, such as breeds of dogs.  douchsounds (dear god, im sorry for that spelling!) are long and tubular, so that they can fit in gopher holes and chase them out.  basid hounds have great noses, for chasing and tracking prey longer than another animal might be able to.  Thats my thought.
i would like to hear your scenario.

Oh, as a small side thought, if everything was created at the same, than that means everything, even dinosaurs (i dont think you can prove that they never existed!) were on the earth in the beginning at the same time.  lets take the dinosaurs.  How come in ancient civilizations, there is no documentation of any dinosaurs?  none whatsoever, there is a pile of information recorded by the civilizations about aligators, bison, everyother animals of the time, but not a single documentation!  you would think that they would record at least one thing about these giant beasts, which must have been devistating to their struggling ancient world.  not a single shred of their existence in thier time.  odd, please explain!
I am all ears!
Thanx
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:05 PM on March 20, 2003 | IP
turbo3

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i will respond with coordinating numbers.

1) The bible's main point was to teach about the love of God and His salvation and plan for our lives. It is an accurate  historical document proven by archeological digs. The science that is found in the bible is still applicable today!! not just for that time period. The advice on health and medicine of the bible has been proven accurate today (even while teachings in other countries at the same time had ideas on cures that proved to be wrong).  I believe that there are not sections on each so that some one could not just take one section and use it to prove something that it was not meant to be. It is written all throughout so that readers could understand it in its intirety.
There are no stories in the bible!!!

2)I didn't say it was false. I just said they are not accurate and have no way of telling for sure the dates. Also there is no room for changes in carbon dating. Earthquake, volcano, flood, etc. I believe that the ages in the bible are accurate (of the people who lived and how long they lived) because the invironment was different.

3) I read an evolutionist book on evolution. After reading it I don not see how they can justify that that was one creature(they found the bones quite a distance away).

4) If all the water was coming down and flooding the entire world and the fountains of the deep were breaking up that much mud a mile thik or more would be possible. by my belif and understanding.There is evidence for a worldwide flood one evidence is that clams and seashels have been found at the top of some of the tallest mountains in the world (just to name one).

5) The theory of evolution has only been around for roughly 400 years. is what i meant.
It doesn't make sence that all of the sudden (around 4500 years ago) humans with the abilty to farm and build and such would all apear without any proof of any inbetween "evolving."

6) ok


7)  I'll take that as a compliment thank you (I believe it is also true).

8)  why not?

where are we missing a true debate(one with logic)?


Ok that is fine. Now let me tell it to you my way. Lets say that there was one guy and one girl on the face of this earth. Now from thier DNA (information that was already there ... hmmm where did that come from?) you can make many variations of peoples, right? well lets say the have three sons and three daughters ok.  well lets say the sons married the daughters (remember they are created perfect so there would be no defects for so many generations). ok and lets say each one of them has a son or daughter they are going to be different right? yes they will all varry. lets say 20 generations go by. there are now quite a few different people. lets say during the tower of bable (is that how it is spelled?) when God moves the people to cover the whole earth a couple with narrow eyes got moved to china, and a couple with more pigment got moved to africa. well when they have kids thier kids will have this trait right? right. now what do you have you have lots of peoples with many different traits some for the inviroment that they are in and some just cause they had that trait passed on right? now what do you have they went through all these changes and what are they? they are still people!!! like you said with your dog thing there are now many variations but they are still all dogs!!!that is proving my point not yours.
   
you are right I can't prove that they never exsisted. I love dinos I think they are just the coolest animal that God ever created. They are mentiond all over the place and I believe that some are STILL in existance!!!  Lets start with proof recorded in the Bible.  Go to some place like www.studylight.org and type in the word dragon on the bible search. See the name dinosaur is relativly a new word up until just a couple hundred years ago they were called dragons. The bible doesn't have much to say about them exsept in Job it talks about behemoth and leviathon. Job 40:15 i think is the first mention of Behemoth. read the description and tell me what kind of animal this is.

[15] Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
[16] Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
[17] He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
[18] His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
[19] He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
[20] Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
[21] He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
[22] The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
[23] Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
[24] He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

dosn't sound like any other animal I know.

also leviathan
Job.41
[1] Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
[2] Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
[3] Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
[4] Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
[5] Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
[6] Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
[7] Canst thou fill his skin with barbed iron? or his head with fish spears?
[8] Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
[9] Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
[10] None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?
[11] Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.
[12] I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.
[13] Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?
[14] Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.
[15] His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
[16] One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
[17] They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
[18] By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
[19] Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
[20] Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
[21] His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
[22] In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.
[23] The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.
[24] His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
[25] When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.
[26] The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.
[27] He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.
[28] The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.
[29] Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.
[30] Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.
[31] He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.
[32] He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.
[33] Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.
[34] He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.

sounds like a dino to me.

many people groups of the world have tales of dragons. there have been pictures of them drawn all over the world.
St. George fought a drogon in the 15th century A.D.
in babylon there is a story of a man named gilgamesh fighting a dragon. he slew it and cut off it's head.
2nd century A.D. in  roman mosaics there are pictures of dinos.
In the grand canyon there are pictures carved of dinos , men , elephants and other such animals.
the city of Neluc in france was named after the killing of a dragon.
in europ an old science book was found sayingthat dragons were not extinct but extreemly rare. in italy a scientist named ulysses described a small dragon that was killed by a farmer after thretening his cattle.
in china there were reportings of dragons being driven from the land when people began to farm.
how about a more modern example in new zealand a body of possibly a plesiosaur whighing 4000 pounds with for fins was drug up on a fishing boat in 19777. (I think you can get pictures online but i don't really know).
There are still sightings of dinos at many lakes around the world today. many thousands of people have claimed to have seen them.



(Edited by turbo3 3/21/2003 at 3:41 PM).


-------
Body piercing saved my life
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 3:25 PM on March 21, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A lot of topics are being covered in this topic, so let me add my thoughts.
1. The Theory of Evolution is considered a fact by 99% of the scientific community.  That we evolved from older ancestrial organisms is no longer debated because the evidence is so overwhelming.  
Creationists who argue that God created everything seperately in 6 days, a few thousand years ago are the lunatic fringe, the crackpots.  They somehow believe that if the Bible isn't literally true, specifically Genesis, Christianity is no longer valid.  Never mind that the great majority of Christians are perfectly able to accept the Theory of Evolution and their faith.  Creationism was falsified over 200 years ago, by Christians, no less, so it is no longer a viable theory.
2. The Bible is not inerrant.  It is not a book of science, it is not a book of history, it is not a book of medicine.  This is proven.  Sure it's a great book, but to believe 2000 year old goat herder myths explain the nature of life on earth better than modern science is just nonsense.
3. Radiometric dating is accurate within it's limitations.  Can we get exact dates? No, but when the experts say the earth is 4.5 billion years old, they are correct within  1%.  There are about 44 different methods of radiometric dating, these and other independent dating techniques all concurr when establishing the geologic time scale.  If any of these methods or even all of them, were wrong, why do they consistantly give us the same time frames?  And just for the record Carbon dating is only good going back 50,000 years and can only be used on organic matter, so it is useless for anything older and therefore is never used for that.
4. There is no evidence of a global flood, absolutely none.  There is plenty of evidence that a global flood never happened and a lot of common sense reasons why it could never have happened.  Sure, a great local flood might appear to be the whole world flooding to primitive peoples living near a river or sea, but the Earth could never have been completely covered by water, it is impossible.
5. Yes, there are many legends of dragons through out history but there were also legends of fairies, elves, ghosts, zombies, giants, thunderbirds, gods, demons and so on.
They were just products of the imagination, exagerations of real animals.  Look at the example of behemoth:
"he eateth grass as an ox."
Dinosaurs couldn't eat grass, it hadn't evolved yet, they weren't adapted for eating it.
"and his force is in the navel of his belly"
Dinosaurs being egg layers, did not have navels.
"He moveth his tail like a cedar"
Tail in ancient Hebrew was a euphamism for the male reproductive organ, so the animal probably didn't have a dinosaur like "tail".
"He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens"
Sauropod dinosaurs didn't lay down, it would have to be a mighty tall tree to aford them shade and they didn't go in water.
No, more likely this is a description of a hippo by someone who had never seen one before.
Now, I love dinos also and if some modernized version somehow survived in an isolated niche it wouldn't falsify the Theory of Evolution, but I think the chances of that are next to impossible.  Plesiosaur carcasses have invariably turned out to be decomposing basking sharks. So no, there is no real evidence that dinosaurs survived past 65 million years ago.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:49 AM on March 22, 2003 | IP
Yves

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey, sorry i didnt write back yesterday, too tired to write and think hard, but im ready now.
First of all, demon, I know creationism sounds so fruity to you and my, but its not to them, so just respect thier ideas untill we are finished, ok?  Demon, thanx for all the technical data, i am not that kind of person, and therefore dont know how or where to find it, im more of an abstract thinker, so its always nice to find someone with facts to back me up.  Im not going to reply about your topics becasue i agree with them.

Now turbo, i think some of the way through, you couldnt understand what i was really asking, or stating, so it caused some mix ups, once again, ill adress paragraphs seperately.

1)  Ok, previously, i didnt say that there are sections of the bible devoted to science and history and medicine, i meant that the bible DOESNT have those.  These references are splashed here and there in the bible, along with all of these maricles and everything, so it is hard to depict what is actual science, medicine, history, or just a miricle (which i dont believe in).  You are right, the bible is historical, but only in the way that a historical fiction novel is.  just becasue it is true to tis time, and has cities which existed, like jerusalem, etc, does not mean that everything else in the bible is true.  I could write a story about flying pigs, which took place in huston texas.  Now just becasue huston texas DOES exist, does not mean that the pigs can fly.  If there is any proof of science and medicine in the bible which has been prooven correct, please supply some evidence.  When you say that there are no stories in the bible, can you prove that, without a reference TO the bible? (in other words, is there any proof that there arents stories in the bible?  You cant get your proof from the bible because of course its going to support itself, but get it from another sorce.)

2)  I do not see how radioactive dating etc could be disrupted by a volcano, flood, or an earthquake (which would have no affect on it but make the ground rumble, not split atoms and rearange them in a different fasion, in fact, none of these would really disrupt the dating process, because none actualy screw up the atom.)  And how you think that a time line of all the major people is more substantial than the proof which demon has given about the date of the earth?  If you look at this time line, no one person is born as the earlier dies, there are gaps, a lot of gaps, so it iswrong to say that you can get an exact date from it, or even a ballpark.  Look at one of these things, it might be in the back of your bible or something, but i saw one briefly (in my bible) and it is quite obserd.

3)  And how far away exactly, becasue i dont know the specifics on this yet, so cannot talk honestly about it, please give me a link, or the jist of the facts that you found.

4)  Just to tell you, no matter how much water comes down, it is NOT GOING TO DISRUPT A MILE OF GROUND UNDERNEITH IT!  in the ocean, only the top thin layer is desterbep by the waves, and when new sedement falls on the old sedement, it protects the layers below,as in it gets tossed around, but not the other layers.  and thats in the ocean!  in enourmous rains (like the monsoons) the entire ground is not turned inside out and shifted around by the rain, it remain unoffected except for the top layer, with turns to mud, but it wont just stir the earth like it was in the blender!  Your evidence is from the cause of something called continental drift.  If you arent familiar, it is where all the continents are broken up into huge land masses and shift around very slowly.  india, the birth place of mount everest, is on its own plate (infact, thats where mountains come from, 2 continental plates coliding, and one has to go above the other, and there you are, a mountain range, thats the cause of the himileas, andes, cascades, rockies, etc.) and used to be flat, untill it colided with southern asia, pushing up the land to make the mountain ranges.  while indea was flat, it is very obvious that there could have been shellfish scattered around the island, either from animals eating them, or just them growing on the coast line.  Continental drift is a proven fact, and it is proven that this is how mountain ranges form, so its no use saying that continental drift never happened, becasue it is happening right now as we speak.  And, as more fact, just to play off of your flood idea, even if it did rain for 40 days+nights, and covered the earth (which never haooened) how could some seashells, which do not float, and could not crawl thier way up in 40 days to the toop of the highest mountain on earth get there?  just becasue the water lever raised doesnt mean that all shellfish rove with it!  they stay on the bottom, they dont float around for fun, so there fore, it would be impossible for them to even make it up to everest, or any other mountain.  They crawl!!!  Very Very slowly, and a wave couldnt bring them up, because they would still be on the bottom where the waves wouldnt even touch them!

5)
Wrong, the theory of evolution has only been around since darwin perfected it, which was in the mid 1800, but just becasue something is new does not mean that it is wrong, i mean, look at how the catholic church treated galileo, the put him under house arrest, just because his idea was new and different from theirs.  A new theory is not a wrong one untill it is proven wrong, and age has nothing to do with it.  But humans didnt start out farming, etc.  they started out in little packs of nomadic hunters, and from there, after tuning their abilities, clumped together in cities.

6)  I have found one religiion out of my search of one (ill get some more later) which is buddhism, which believes that the universe and the earth have no beginning or end, that the earth has alwyas been here.  i dont agree with it, but its showing that all religions dont necisarily agree with the christians in their 6000 year claim.

8)  Because, since there is no bad in the world yet, or "sin" adam and eve cant do bad things, they will always choose the right thing because there are always at least 2 choices in a problem, in this case, eat the apple, which would be commiting a sin, which didnt exist, so it would be impossibal for them to chose that choice, or not eat the apple, with was the right thing to do, the good thing.

That is a good idea, but it poses the idea that after man was moved by god, he just sat in the same place forever, never migrating.  heaven forbid that he DID migrate, and the outcome happened which i described in my last post, and they evolved to fit thier environment, it supports my idea of evolution, but does not disprove yours.  And if all the people were in the same area, they would all look similar because they would have become the most adapt to thier environment, and i dont know where you get all these different races of people, all of them in conflicting climates.  the majority of them would have been one color/type.  And also, just t tell you, we havent changed from one family of species to another, we are all primates, along with the apes and monkeys, we are just another sub group, like there are orangatangs, spider munkers and humans.  there are douchsounds, bassid hounds, and chuwawa's.  though they all seem different, they are all canines.  though we all seem differnt from the monkeys, we are all in the same family.

That DOES NOT SOUND LIKE A DINOSAUR.  it doesnt even sound like it exists.  in likes 19-21 of the second example, it says that it breathes fire!  i havent heard of a creature doing that, except in fantasy books.  has it occured to you that they might be literaly talking about a dragon, with wings and scales and fire breathing?  as demon said, it is nothing more than a tale, like a pixie or fairy.  So, again, i am awaiting a response as to why there is no writen documentation of dinosaurs.  As to your beliefe that dinosaurs still live, i ask, how many other creationists believe this also?  The first proof is that there have been NO dinosaur bones found above the K-T line, and there are NO human bones found below it!  i looked on the internet for pictures of dinosaurs, and found a lot of them.  They all had many pictures of a single dinosaur that they had "found"  What was not so surprizing to me, was that all of these pictures, though shot at different angles, showed the dinosaur in a SINGLE pose.  none of them show thier stature differently, its as if the dinosaur is stiff, or plastic *chophfraudchoph*.  If you have any proof of the fact that dinosaurs still exist, please, show me, i am ready.  Also, if all of these carcasses and live dinosaurs have been found, why hasnt the scientifit community accepted them?  Maybe because they look into matters and find them to be fake.  Just to remind you, thousands of people have claimed to been picked up by aliens, but lets not go into he ufo debate please, just an example of all the things that people say that have no backing evidence.  my thoguhts.


(Edited by Yves 3/22/2003 at 2:16 PM).
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:45 PM on March 22, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thank you yves for realizing that even though we disagree that doesn't mean that someone hasn't studied or is ignorant. Thank you for being a gentleman about it!!!

1) An interesting book (although it is kinda hard to read cause it mostly just facts) is called evidence that demands a verdict. I suggust you read it if you want to understand the historical accuracy of the bible. (He also gives refrences at where to look for information)
I believe that the bible has a lot of TRUE science. I will send u some links in my next post because I don't have my notes with me.

2) Carbon dating has been proven inaccurate because:
a dead sealion with carcass still on it was dated over 100 yrs. old. Have u ever thought that scientist who want to prove thier point could come up with a dating system that always gives off an old age? some interesting information can be acuired on the net about carbon dating and also in the book Origins Answer book.

On the flood go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp and read some of the articals. Yes I know it is a creationist site but that is how to learn about the other sides argument isn't it?

On Dinosaurs you didn't comment on the fact that many old science books used the word dragon to define what we would call a dino. Also the word was changed to dinosaurs just a few hundred years agou. look it up.

I do not think that a hippo would be described that way. Espesially if like u say the tail is translated as a male reproductive organ (which it's not) I havent seen to many males with the reproductive organ being as large as a tree.

Just because there are a lot of evolution BELIEVING scientists does not mean it is true. There have been many things that have been BELIEVED  to be true but were found to be wrong.

I have some quotes from evolutionists saying there is no evidence. But they still choose to believe it.

Let me ask you a question. You said you don't belive in miricals right? well then why do u believe in evolution? it is a mirical!!

where did the ball of matter that we all came from come from (if evolution is true)?

Why did it come apart?

where did the energy come from?

has an explosian ever made anything better?

2nd law of thermodynamics says that it would never work that way.

A radioactive rock gives off hydrogen but there should be more hydrogen in our atmosphere if it were 6 billion years older.

sun shrinks at the rate of 5 feet every hour. 20 million years ago it would be toucing the earth.

we only find the extenction of animals now why not new spiecies evolving?

rocks all over the earth are in bent layers and do not have cracks in them? that means they must have been soft rocks when they were layed down. millions of years would have made them brittle and they would be cracked.

Circular reasoning is used to date fossils and rocks. (btw no where on earth have they been found with all the layers in order)  fossils by the layer they are found in and the layer by what fossil is in it.

80-85% of lands surface does not have even three geologic periods appearing in "correct" order.

these are just some of the evidences that I found concerning the matter.

BTW let me ask you a question do you believe that black men are lower than white? Darwin did and he said so in his book origen of speicies.
Do you believe that women are lower than men? Darwin did in his book.

Btw IN #5 I wasn't arguing with you about how long evolution has been around i don't care if it is new or not. I just thought you would be interested to know that it was already in circulation and Darwin popularized it. Look it up. If you dont agree that is fine i just thought it was interesting.

P.S what does Yves mean?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:53 PM on March 25, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I just had to comment on some of these points!
"There have been many things that have been BELIEVED  to be true but were found to be wrong. "
Like the Noah's flood, 6 day creation, a young Earth, just to name a few that have been desively proven wrong.

"I have some quotes from evolutionists saying there is no evidence. But they still choose to believe it."
Until you give us the quotes, this means nothing and I would expect the quotes to be from the 21st century to carry any weight what so ever.

"Let me ask you a question. You said you don't belive in miricals right? well then why do u believe in evolution? it is a mirical!!"
Why is it a miracle?  The mechanisms for evolution are known, natural selection and mutation, the supernatural is not needed...This is just your assertion, nothing to back it up except for your lack of knowledge about evolution.

You're next 5 questions deal with cosmology, not the Theory of Evolution.  The Theory of Evolution says nothing about the formation of the universe so I have no idea why you would bring it up, just shows you really have no idea about evolution whatsoever.  And judging by those statements you made, you have even less understanding about the begining of the universe than you do about evolution (if that's possible!)

"A radioactive rock gives off hydrogen but there should be more hydrogen in our atmosphere if it were 6 billion years older."
You really mangled this arguement, hydrogen easily escapes from the atmosphere, and theEarth is only 4.6 billion years old, not 6.  Anyway, many creationists used to claim that there should be more HELIUM in the atmosphere if the Earth was older, until it was conclusively shown that Helium also leaves the atmosphere, so the level of helium is not an accurate measure of the age of the Earth.

"sun shrinks at the rate of 5 feet every hour. 20 million years ago it would be toucing the earth."
This creaky old "fact" was disproven in the early part of the 20th century.  Since then, we know that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion and it's diameter will not change until it goes nova in the distant future.

"we only find the extenction of animals now why not new spiecies evolving?"
Oh but we do see new species evolving, look up the Faeroe Island house mouse.  Then there's the apple maggot fly.  And don't forget about that strain of nylon eating bacteria that evolved after man invented nylon.  Yes, we have seen many new species evolve and if we could live millions of years we would see even more dramatic changes.

Your next couple of statements are pretty incomprehensible.  Circular reasoning is not used to date fossils.  All dating methods agree with each other, that's ice core samples, river varves, tree ring counting, all 44 different radiometeric dating techniques, just to name a few.  As I said before, how could they all come up with the same dates if they were flawed?  Obviously radiometric dating is not inherently flawed, it is a reliable tool to date our past.
And this really made me laugh:
"btw no where on earth have they been found with all the layers in order"
Here is a list take n from Talk Origins of 25 spots around the world where the entire geologic column is found:
The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta
Go ahead, don't take my word for it, look any and all up, you will see that your ridiculous assertion is completely false.

I don't see what Darwin thought about black men and all women being inferior has anything to do with anything.  I would think this was the prevailing view of European society at the time, so everyone thought that.  Thank goodness we have science to show they were wrong!
I noticed that you seem to be ignoring my posts, Turbo3, but like creationists in general when faced with the evidence, the only way to preserve their archaic myths is to ignore the evidence and continue on blissfully ignorant.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:01 AM on March 27, 2003 | IP
Yves

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sry, this might not be as good as i had hoped, wrote the whole reply, left for a second, when i came back, it was gone, i hate rewriting.

For the second time, well thought out demon, once again you pose difficult arguments.

1)  I cant read boring scientific books, i tried reading the jungle and got half way through.  please post main contentions.

2)  First, this test used only one of the dating tools, and not all of them, which provides an innaccurate account.  if you use all of them, it will be much much more accurate.  And could the seal have really been 100 years old?  Whats so obserd   mummies are about 4000 years od, and they still have flesh.  the seal might not have been embalmed, but in different climates, flesh lasts longer, so the test could have been more true than you acount it for

3)  I dont have enough time in my life to lok at all these links, please post main ideas, i dont post links, and i dont think you should wither, just post it as proof of yous facts if anyone wants to check into it, but not just for someone to surf and see.  sorry, but its the truth.

4)
I know the origin of the word dinosaur (terribal lizard in latin), but your comment is off the point of mine.  You are saying that the mythical dreature used to have the same name as the dinosaurs.  That is true, but they have been distinguished from each other, one as myth, one as an extinc species.  The exerpt you provided like 3 posts up is a discription of a so callled dinosaur in the bible.  The fact that it breathes fire PROVES that it isnt a dinosaur, but a dragon.  the names do not mater, but thier different fetures do.  dragon= fire breathing/dino=no firebreathing.  Your caption is describing a dragon, NOT A DINOSAUR.

You are right, just becasue some people believe in something doesnt mean its right.  The sword bites both ways, just to remind you.
Especialy when it has NO PROOF!

As demon said, your quotes have to do with philosophy and physics, not evolution.  Those quotes have no connection to evolution.  Heres a question where did god come from?  Dont say he has always been here because if you do, i will just say that matter has always been here.  simple, you answer my question, i answer yours.  btw, i dont believe it ways anywhere in the bible that god has always been here, but thats not the main question.

You are very true, but darwin was also a christian, does that mean that all christians also believe in those things you listed?  I have learned not to make stareo types, why dont you?  And also, christians have had a MUCH MUCH longer track record with discrimination than evolutionists *coughCRUSADEScough*  (not that this is all christians, but as long as we are making generalisations)  *coughKKKcough*  *coughSLAVERYcough*  *coughIMPERIALISMcough*  I think i have made my point.

You are uncorrect there.  Before, there were ideas about random things, about sexual selection, variations, but they were all theories.  Darwin brought them all together and foudn the proof to support them.

I have realized, first, that none of my arguments have been truely anwered, but more of brought off the topic for that cause, please just be direct and answer them without leading off the topic.

Also, it has come to my attention that no proof has been suggested of creationism, instead, creationists are feebly trying to refute all of the mounting evidence against them, and they have no proof themself of thier belief.  Please, once again, anwer this question directly, and GIVE SOME PROOF FOR ONCE!!!

Yves means nothing, it is a name (no religious connection)
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:40 PM on March 27, 2003 | IP
turbo3

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I;m sorry but your comment on things BELIEVED to be wrong can be used to support iether argument. As for the flood, 6 day creation, and a young earth i believe that they have not been proven wrong.
[Did you look at the evidence for the flood on the link i gave you to Answers in Genisis? How about the book on the historical accuracy in the bible Evidence That Demands A Verdict?]

I'm sorry i was going to get them but we just moved and I havn't had time i will post them on my next post.

have any scientists today seen a new speicies formed by mutation or natural selection? No, only changes to a speicies [mutation has never givin the animal something better mutation is always bad] it is still whatever the scientist started out with.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is still relivent to evolution even if you don't agree that the questions before ore relivent.

What is your definition of evolution because evolution to me includes the big bang theory.


Im sorry on the hydrogen one that was a mistype i ment 6 million years. although i agree there could be some flaw in that statement but i find that kinda hard to grasp.

Could you please give me a book or site to look up on the sun.

The nylon eating bacteria is still a bacteria it came from another bacteria not from something else. The Faeroe Islend house mouse came from a mouse not something else.
could you please give me some links to something about apple maggot flies. Fromwhat i have read about them on the net so far i don't see how they evolved from anything other that thier speicies.

Life comes from Life. That is a proven fact.
Life produces AFTER ITS OWN KIND. that is a proven fact. Evolution says that both of those statements are incorrect.  


Ice core samples can have more than one layer per season so that isn't nescisarily a good dating method, tree rings can have many rings per season [btw if tree rings are used for years why is the oldest tree under 5000 yrs old?] I havn't read much about river varves so i don't have any idea about that.
  Radiometric dating is flawed because it only dates things as old. how do scientists know if that is accurate other than the fact that they want an outcome of old?

rocks all over the earth are in bent layers and do not have cracks in them? that means they must have been soft rocks when they were layed down. millions of years would have made them brittle and they would be cracked.

80-85% of lands surface does not have even three geologic periods appearing in "correct" order. I will look up those that you mentioned. Also they could have been distributed by wiehgt, density etc. not nesisarily by the age they lived in.

I was saying that in Darwins book origin of spiecies his point was to prove that blacks and women were inferior. The reson that he wrote about evolution was to prove that blacks were animals so that it would be ok to kill them off and or use them as animals.

IM sorry if i see m to be ignoring your posts there is so much stuff in these posts i was trying to fit it all in [my last post ws a combination to you and yves at the same time]. If i missed anything i am sorry.

turbo


-------
Body piercing saved my life
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 4:11 PM on March 27, 2003 | IP
Yves

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As i said before, Cut and paste the main arguments from the book and web site.  those sites are huge, and books are ttedious.  Just make things a little easier for me and just post the facts.

This, of course, is a simple question that most of the people in my biology class ask  "is evolution happens, than why dont we see new species forming everyday?"  Of course a ape doesnt have a baby which grows up to be a human.  These genetic changes happen over a LONG period of time.  Its not just one pops out of the other.  The world is not black and white, there is gray.  There are little changes which add up to big changes from start to finish.  If one looks only at the start and the end result, of course they will say it is impossibal, but when you look at all the little changes along the way, it is a lot more practicle, and that comment is not only about apes to humans.  On a chart measuring 4.6 meters long, our human race only takes up about 2mm of the very tip.  A single life time, a persons entire view of the world in his life, would be so minute, it seems resonable as to why we dont see things popping out of other things in front of our eyes.  It takes time, which we have not been able to witness on this earth yet.  Everything is gradual.
These bad mutations you are talking about are a direct cause of our interaction with the environment.  Polutions, game hunting, shrinking habbitat, are all factors which are putting the animals of our world at hurt.

I am not familiar with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, please explain

Why would it even remotely include the big band?  What does the big bang have to do with evolution?

These new species, which are additions to thier family, are not considered a new family.  aas you said, its still a mouse, etc.  And that is correct, just as we are still primates.  WE dont like to think of ourselves as that, becuase that would bring us to the levels of the animals, heaven forbid.  Guess what, WE ARE ANIMALS!  We have just evolved faster and have been able to use our environment more effectively.  No, we arent the same as apes, but we are in the same family, and we are similar.

Which evolutionists dissagree with that, i believe it is true!  I know your going to say  "than where did the first animals come from?"  That is a mysterious question, but i said, if you use that everything comes from something, than where did god come from?
And about species producing thier own species, that is also true, but that is a very very simple black and white view.  Where is the definition of one species to another?  No, they dont reproduce within thier species, they are the same species as their mother and father, but not necissarily their great great great great great great great great great great grandmother.  little variations from parent to child, but still same species.  more little variations, but soon enough, the offspring doesnt look the same as its heritage has.  I am not talking about 200 years, or even 2000, but millions and millions of years of little variations, and after that time, the start loks a whole lot different from the finish, even though the offspring were still the same species as thier parents.

ok, so...good thing thats not our only dating device, or i would be scared of being overwhelmed by yours argument.  Ok, thats nice, its an old tree, so what?

what is the rocks and the cracks thingy mean?

where is your proof of that info, about the 80-85 percent of soil out of order (give DIRECT LINK< NOT HOME PAGE)

Im sorry, but darwin didnt go around saying  "im looking for evidence of evolution so i can proove that blakcs and women are inferrior, hey, look, an island, maybe there are black women there to prove my theory!"  Just because he thought that way, doesnt discredit his work.  He didnt go out just for an excuse to say that blakcs and women are inferrior.  He might have been racest, but so have been a lot of the popes, does that discredit the religion?  No, it doesnt.

Yeah, you havent really been replying to any of my comments, ah well....
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:23 PM on March 27, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Turbo3, sorry if I've been too abrasive, I tend to get worked up.  I'll keep that in mind and try to be more polite.
About new species, you asked why no new species are evolving, and I answered, there are.  The Faeroe Island mouse IS a new species of mouse, the nylon eating bacteria IS a new species of bacteria.  You talk about it only being variation of a species, but what caused that variation is a change in their gentic structure.  what caused the change in their genetic structure?  Mutation, gentic drift, recombination, small changes that were acted upon by the enviroment.  As time goes on these small changes accumulate, after a 100,000 years or a million years and many different enviroments, the new organism will have accumulated thousands of changes, it will be a different organism.  Individuals don't evolve, populations evolve.  The reason we don't see more dramatic evolutionary changes is because the sweep of time is too great for us to see in our short life span.  We're not going to ever see the kind of evolution you seem to be asking for, a mouse will always give birth to a mouse.  But we can see these grand evolutionary changes clearly in the fossil record.  Look at Archeopteryx, reptilian and avian characteristics, it is transitional!  Even better look at the sequence of fossils that describes the transition from synapsid reptiles to mammals, it is excellent.  Each group of fossils clearly is related to the group preceding it and following it, yet the fossils at each end are very different.  You can trace  how the 4 reptilian jaw bones and one inner ear bone evolved into one mammlian jaw bone and three inner ear bones.  If each animal was created by God whole and intact, why do we see these obvious intermediates in a correct chronological order?  We wouldn't, plain and simple, only evolution satisfactorily explains this.  
I'll address some of your other points a little later, it's getting late.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:42 PM on March 27, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"What is your definition of evolution because evolution to me includes the big bang theory."
The Theory of Evolution explains how all living things descended from a common ancestor.  Where that original ancestor came from is not relevant to the TOE.  How life originated is called Abiogenesis.  The Big Bang also has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution, this is studied by astro physicists, astronomers, theoretical physicists but definitely not biologists.  It's not fair to lump them all together just because you don't accept them, they are completely seperate.

"Life comes from Life. That is a proven fact."
Obviously, this is true, no arguement from me on this, but where does it say that life can't arise from chemical processes?  Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, he said nothing about life arising from inorganic matter on a primitive Earth and his experiments in no way show that this could not happen.  Right now there are literally hundreds of scientists, biologists, biochemists, conducting tests and experiments trying to recreate the conditions of the primordeal Earth and create "life".  If they succeed, what will you say then?  Just because science doesn't know the answer now, doesn't mean they never will.

" Life produces AFTER ITS OWN KIND. that is a proven fact"
And life changes is also a proven fact.  Over 95% of the worlds biologists aknowledge the fact that life evolves, the only serious debate is on the exact mechanisms of evolution.  And until you can give me a scientific definition of "KIND", your statement has no scientific value.

You're completely missing the point about dating methods.    The experts who study ice core samples know all about them, they can accurately use them to discern a date.  Radiometric dating is not flawed, it is based on atomic theory.  The decay of radioactive isotopes is a well understood phenomenon, they can and are accurately used to date samples.  By using different methods to date the same samples all methods give the same relative date.  If these methods were flawed, why do they give the same date?  They wouldn't.  If you claim they are flawed, explain to me why they are, don't tell me they just date things "old".  Like any tool used by man, mistakes can be made, but that's the wonderful thing about science, the results are continually checked and tested, mistakes are found and corrected.  I think it's only fair that if you make the claim that radiometric dating is inaccurate, you tell me why it's inaccurate.

"80-85% of lands surface does not have even three geologic periods appearing in "correct" order"  
I showed you in a previous post that this is simply not true.

"I was saying that in Darwins book origin of spiecies his point was to prove that blacks and women were inferior. The reson that he wrote about evolution was to prove that blacks were animals so that it would be ok to kill them off and or use them as animals."
This is absolutely a lie!  Darwin had no ulterior motive for postulating the Theory of Evolution!  Show me any evidence that this was what Darwin was trying to do.  This is nothing more than a pathetic smear attempt and has no basis in reality.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:28 AM on March 28, 2003 | IP
turbo3

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you can prove to me that non life can produce life then there might be some falsity in that saying.

kind birds produce birds,  dogs dogs, cats cats and so on and so forth. no one has ever seen something new created only variations of the old.

You proved to me in your last post that the geologic colum does appear but still 85% does not contain that. Also they could have been distributed by wiehgt, density etc. not nesisarily by the age they lived in.

Here are some of my other evidences for creation that i was too tiered to type last night.

to support life soil must contain organic material. organic matter comes from living things. how if E is true did things live without the soil being able to support life.


a cell for example is 100 times more complicated than a space shuttle and you are trying to get me to believe that a space shuttle couldn't just happen and that it needed a creator but that a cell just happened?

How about the woodpecker. Its toung wraps around its head. How long did it starve before they realized they needed a longer tounge, how many failures could there have been before they hit on to a great way to do it.

Ho about the mallee fowl in austrailia it digs a nest and then after laying eggs constantly checks it.if it is off even 1/10 a degree she changes it. How many chicks would die before the bird figured out the right temp?

how about birds that can find there way to there nest after being taken more thatn 3,000 mi. from home? they got lost so many times and thought that they would need a compass?

how about the bats sonar? how did E create such a complex thing? did the bat crash all the time before? miss its food, starve?

the african gazelle has a internal cooling system. How many died of heat stroke before one of them developed a cooling system?

How about the termight it eats wood but it cant digest the cellilos. There are little organisms that digest it inside of them. Which was created first? how did one survive without the other?

the probibility of even just one dna strand forming in the bowl of soup that sientist say coverd the eart is 10 to 230th. just one dna how did cells and everything else get formed?

What did the first animals mate with? were there two or more just happening to evolve at the same time?

The point of Darwins book was to prove blacks were uneaquil and thatis still the basis for sosialism.

The "warm soup" theory, still the most widely held theory of abiogenesis among evolutionists, was developed most extensively by Russian scientist A.I. Oparin in the 1920s. The theory held that life evolved when organic molecules rained into the primitive oceans from an atmospheric soup of chemicals interacting with solar energy. Later Haldane (1928), Bernal (1947) and Urey (1952) published their research to try to support this model, all with little success. Then came what some felt was a breakthrough by Harold Urey and his graduate student Stanley Miller in the early 1950s.

The most famous origin of life experiment was completed in 1953 by Stanley Miller at the University of Chicago. At the time Miller was a 23-year-old graduate student working under Urey who was trying to recreate in his laboratory the conditions then thought to have preceded the origin of life. The Miller/Urey experiments involved filling a sealed glass apparatus with methane, ammonia, hydrogen gases (representing what they thought composed the early atmosphere) and water vapor (to simulate the ocean). Next, they used a spark-discharge device to strike the gases in the flask with simulated lightning while a heating coil kept the water boiling. Within a few days, the water and gas mix produced a reddish stain on the sides of the flask. After analyzing the substances that had been formed, they found several types of amino acids. Eventually Miller and other scientists were able to produce 10 of the 20 amino acids required for life by techniques similar to the original Miller/ Urey experiments.

Urey and Miller assumed that the results were significant because some of the organic compounds produced were the building blocks of proteins, the basic structure of all life (Horgan, 1996, p. 130). Although widely heralded by the press as "proving" the origin of life could have occurred on the early earth under natural conditions without intelligence, the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion. For example, equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules always were produced by the Urey/Miller procedure. In real life, nearly all amino acids found in proteins are left handed, almost all polymers of carbohydrates are right handed, and the opposite type can be toxic to the cell.

Charles Darwin’s hypothesis that life first originated on earth in a warm little pond somewhere on a primitive earth has been used widely by most nontheists for over a century in attempts to explain the origin of life. Several reasons exist for favoring a warm environment for the start of life on earth. A major reason is that the putative oldest known organisms on earth are alleged to be hyperthermophiles that require temperatures between 80° and 110° C in order to thrive (Levy and Miller, 1998). In addition some atmospheric models have concluded that the surface temperature of the early earth was much higher than it is today.

A major drawback of the "warm little pond" origin-of-life theory is its apparent ability to produce sufficient concentrations of the many complex compounds required to construct the first living organisms. These compounds must be sufficiently stable to insure that the balance between synthesis and degradation favors synthesis (Levy and Miller, 1998).

The warm pond and hot vent theories also have been seriously disputed by experimental research that has found the half-lives of many critically important compounds needed for life to be far "too short to allow for the adequate accumulation of these compounds" (Levy and Miller, 1998, p. 7933).

Furthermore, research has documented that "unless the origin of life took place extremely rapidly (in less than 100 years), we conclude that a high temperature origin of life... cannot involve adenine, uracil, guanine or cytosine" because these compounds break down far too fast in a warm environment. In a hydrothermal environment, most of these compounds could neither form in the first place, nor exist for a significant amount of time (Levy and Miller, p. 7933).

As Levy and Miller explain, "the rapid rates of hydrolysis of the nucleotide bases A,U,G and T at temperatures much above 0° Celsius would present a major problem in the accumulation of these presumed essential components on the early earth" (p. 7933).

For this reason, Levy and Miller postulated that either a two-letter code or an alternative base pair was used instead. This requires the development of an entirely different kind of life, a conclusion that is not only highly speculative, but likely impossible because no other known compounds have the required properties for life that adenine, uracil, guanine and cytosine possess.

Furthermore, this would require life to evolve based on a hypothetical two-letter code or alternative base pair system. Then life would have to re-evolve into a radically new form based on the present code, a change that appears to be impossible according to our current understanding of molecular biology.

Furthermore, the authors found that, given the minimal time perceived to be necessary for evolution to occur, cytosine is unstable even at temperatures as cold as 0º C. Without cytosine neither DNA or RNA can exist. One of the main problems with Miller’s theory is that his experimental methodology has not been able to produce much more than a few amino acids which actually lend little or no insight into possible mechanisms of abiogenesis.

Since parasites lack many of the genes (and other biological machinery) required to survive on their own, in order to grow and reproduce they must obtain the nutrients and other services they require from the organisms that serve as their hosts. Independent free-living creatures such as people, mice and roses are far more complex than organisms like parasites and viruses that are dependent on these complex free-living organisms. Abiogenesis theory requires that the first life forms consisted of free-living autotrophs (i.e. organisms that are able to manufacture their own food) since the complex life forms needed to sustain heterotrophs (organisms that cannot manufacture their own food) did not exist until later.

Most extremely small organisms existing today are dependent on other, more complex organisms. Some organisms can overcome their lack of size and genes by borrowing genes from their hosts or by gorging on a rich broth of organic chemicals like blood. Some microbes live in colonies in which different members provide different services. Unless one postulates the unlikely scenario of the simultaneous spontaneous generation of many different organisms, one has to demonstrate the evolution of an organism that can survive on its own, or with others like itself, as a symbiont or cannibal. Consequently, the putative first life forms must have been much more complex than most examples of "simple" life known to exist today.

The simplest microorganisms, Chlamydia and Rickettsea, are the smallest living things known, but also are both parasites and thus too simple to be the first life. Only a few hundred atoms across, they are smaller than the largest virus and have about half as much DNA as do other species of bacteria. Although they are about as small as possible and still be living, these two forms of life still possess the millions of atomic parts necessary to carry out the biochemical functions required for life, yet they still are too simple to live on their own and thus must use the cellular machinery of a host in order to live (Trefil, 1992, p. 28). Many of the smaller bacteria are not free living, but are parasite like viruses that can live only with the help of more complex organisms (Galtier et al., 1999).


The gap between non-life and the simplest cell is illustrated by what is believed to be the organism with the smallest known genome of any free living organism Mycoplasma genitalium (Fraser et al., 1995). M. genitalium is 200 nanometers long and contains only 482 genes or over 0.5 million base pairs which compares to 4,253 genes for E. coli (about 4,720,000 nucleotide base pairs), with each gene producing an enormously complex protein machine (Fraser et al., 1995). M. genitalium also must live off other life because they are too simple to live on their own. They invade reproductive tract cells and live as parasites on organelles that are far larger and more complicated but which must first exist for the survival of parasitic organisms to be possible.

The first life therefore must be much more complex than M. genitalium even though it is estimated to manufacture about 600 different proteins. A typical eukaryote cell consists of an estimated 40,000 different protein molecules and is so complex that to acknowledge that the "cells exist at all is a marvel... even the simplest of the living cells is far more fascinating than any human- made object" (Alberts, 1992, pp. xii, xiv).

M. genitalium is one-fifth the size of E. coli but four times larger than the putative nanobacteria. Blood nanobacteria are only 50 nanometers long (which is smaller than some viruses), and possess a currently unknown number of genes. When Finnish biologist Olavi Kajander discovered nanobacteria in 1998, he called them a "bizarre new form of life." Nanobacteria now are speculated to resemble primitive life forms which presumably arose in the postulated chemical soup that existed when earth was young. Kajander concluded that nanobacteria may serve as a model for primordial life, and that their modern-day primordial soup is blood.

Actually, nanobacteria cannot be the smallest form of life because they evidently are parasites and primordial life must be able to live independently. Like viruses they are not considered alive but are of intense medical interest because they may be one cause of kidney stones (Kajander and Ciftcioglu, 1998). Other researchers think these bacteria are only a degenerate form of larger bacteria.

i hope that makes scence i cxopied some of different sources foryou i will try to post everything instead of giving you books to read. although a much better idea of the argument can be understood by reading.

The brain capabilities of even the smallest insects are mind-boggling. The tiny speck of a brain found in a little ant, butterfly or bee enable them not only to see, smell, taste and move, but even to fly with great precision. Butterflies routinely navigate enormous distances. Bees and ants carry on complex social organizations, building projects, and communications. These miniature brains put our computers and avionics to shame, in comparison.

It is certainly true that a machine carefully made by a craftsman reflects the existence of it's creator. It would be foolish to suggest that time and chance could make a computer or a microwave oven, or that the individual parts could form themselves into these complex mechanisms due to the physical properties of matter. Yet, life is far, far more complex than any man-made machine.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust.2 Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law. The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe.
Each year, vast sums are spent to counteract the relentless effects of this law (maintenance, painting, medical bills, etc.). Ultimately, everything in nature is obedient to its unchanging laws.


2nd law of thermodynamics: Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.3

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.

I will be gon till tuesday so sorry i won't get back to your posts till then

p.s. maybe this would be easier if we divided it and chose one of the sub catagories to talk about.



-------
Body piercing saved my life
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 4:15 PM on March 28, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"If you can prove to me that non life can produce life then there might be some falsity in that saying"
All right, we're here to debate evolution, not Abiogenesis.  Whether the first life forms spawned naturally, were magically popped into existance by God, or Zeus, or Ra, or by whatever, it has nothing to do with evolution.
Once life appeared, it evolved.

"kind birds produce birds,  dogs dogs, cats cats and so on and so forth. no one has ever seen something new created only variations of the old"
You have yet to define "kind".  I explained before that individuals don't evolve, populations do.  You apparently can't understand that it would take hundreds of your life times to see the type of evolution you are demanding.  But luckily we have the fossil record to coroborate the Theory of Evolution.  It clearly shows the path of evolution.  Did you look at any of the series of transitional fossils?
Or are you just another unthinking religious zealot?

"You proved to me in your last post that the geologic colum does appear but still 85% does not contain that"
I say that this is untrue, what geology text did you get it out of.  Most of the Earth contains many of the layers of the geologic column.  They could not have been redistributed by weight, density, ect., they could have been moved by tectonic plate movement, erosion, natural disasters, but all of these leave signs that geologists are well aware of and can compensate for.  The geologic column is accurate, is evident abundantly all over the world and can be analysed, understood and dated by geologists.

"to support life soil must contain organic material. organic matter comes from living things. how if E is true did things live without the soil being able to support life."
Except the leading theory of Abiogenesis says that the first life developed in the water, so what does soil have to do with anything?  Do you think these things through?

"a cell for example is 100 times more complicated than a space shuttle and you are trying to get me to believe that a space shuttle couldn't just happen and that it needed a creator but that a cell just happened?"
You continue to make poor analogies.  The space shuttle is a manufactoured artifact, IT DOES NOT REPRODUCE!  Anything that is living reproduces, and it reproduces with changes.  These changes, caused by a number of mechanisms, such as mutation, genetic drift, recombination, along with natural selection, ARE sufficient to explain the evolution of life on Earth.

Your next few statements about the woodpecker, mallee fowl, birds, bats, african gazelle and the termite are just arguements of ignorance.  "I don't understand how this could evolve so God must have done it!" or "I'm too lazy to do any research on the evolution of complex animal systems, so God must have done it!"  Did you do any research on the evolution of these animals?  Make any attempt  to understand how they evolved?  If the answer is no, then your arguements are worthless, and you are intellectually dishonest.
You continue to make statements that prove you don't understand the Theory of Evolution at all.  
"How long did it starve before they realized they needed a longer tounge, how many failures could there have been before they hit on to a great way to do it."
Before they realize...?!? Before who realizes, the woodpeckers?  Are you under the assumption that animals choose to evolve, that they think to themselves, "Hmmmm, I could use a longer tongue, I think I'll evolve one...."??!!  Please, if you want to argue against evolution, at least learn what you're argueing against!  You're really making yourself look silly.  You yourself said in this very post: "no one has ever seen something new created only variations of the old."  Wouldn't a longer tongue merely be a variation within the bird "kind" and well within the parameters you set?  In one sentence you are saying these variations can occur and 6 sentences later your saying they can't!  Make up your mind man!  How can you convince anyone your right if you don't know yourself.

"the probibility of even just one dna strand forming in the bowl of soup that sientist say coverd the eart is 10 to 230th. just one dna how did cells and everything else get formed?"
Just what was in that "bowl of soup"?  The leading biochemists and biologists don't know, how do you?  If you don't know what composed that "bowl of soup" then your calculation of "10 to 230th" is less than worthless, it is a made up number by creationists, a desperate attempt to discredit their erroneous concept of the Theory of Evolution.  When you can't dispute Evolution with real facts, make them up, use a lot of zeroes to fool people who don't think too much...creationist tactics are really pathetic, as a christian aren't you supposed to always tell the truth?  

"What did the first animals mate with? were there two or more just happening to evolve at the same time"
Of course you know that many animals reproduce asexually. And that many animals just exchange genetic material before asexually reproducing, so why couldn't they evolve into 2 distinct sexes?  They wouldn't have to evolve at the same time since they could reproduce successfully without the 2 sexes.  

"The point of Darwins book was to prove blacks were uneaquil and thatis still the basis for sosialism"
You continue to claim this, and I say it's a lie!  Darwin was a scientist who formulated the theory of evolution to explain the natural world, nothing more.  Show me specifically where he said his book was written to prove that blacks were unequal!  I'll bet a million dollars you haven't even read "Origin of the Species" and if you haven't, then once again you are being dishonest!
It is more honest to say Adolph Hitler was a christian (he was)  and used the Bible to justify his actions (he did), so therefore God, Jesus, Christianity and the Bible are the basis for Nazism and the atrocities done in it's name.

Most of the rest of your post deals with Abiogenesis, so it has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.  If you want to discuss it, start a new topic.

I'm getting a little busy right now so I'll deal with the Second Law of Thermodynamics a little later.




 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:58 PM on March 28, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow, how pathetic, i think that i have asked for about 3 posts for the creationists to give some proof of thier ideology, yet i have been ignored, i wonder why?  Is it the unanswerable question?  Do the creationists spend thier time trying to disproove all the proof for evolution, yet not even try to proov thier own ideas?  Or are they going to wake up and fight a real debate.  In these debates, both sides pose thier proof for THIER ideas, and THEN they try to disprove thier opponents ideas.  The creationists have posed no proof.  does that mean they HAVE none?  Maybe they are ignorant!  I am the last one who would say so, but without being able to proove thier own argument, it seems like they are fighting a battle they dont understand.  I am not going to adress any of the issues posted by turbo 3 untill i here some contentions!  I understand why they dont give any contentions!!!  ITs because they know that they have been disprooven, and dont want the evolutionists to be able to refute them and thier ideas and humiliate them.  wow, how desperate!
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:59 PM on March 28, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I dont know why its not posting my name along with my message, but that is mine above this one, adressmy ideas directly to me.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:21 PM on March 28, 2003 | IP
Yves

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is really making me mad, its not working.  the 2 posts above are from Yves, along with this one.  I dont know why its not letting me edit them, or even put it as my true name.

Yves
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:24 PM on March 28, 2003 | IP
DontMakeNoSenseFoo

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

none of that "because the bible says so" or "because god is all powerful"

That's too bad. Though those are general answers, they often relate to the truth - therefore, they're facts - general ones, but facts nonetheless.

Oh well, I guess I'm not invited to this conversation ;).



-------
That don't make no sense foo!
 


Posts: 18 | Posted: 9:52 PM on March 29, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

none of that "because the bible says so" or "because god is all powerful"
That's too bad. Though those are general answers, they often relate to the truth - therefore, they're facts - general ones, but facts nonethess
"therefore, they're facts -  general ones, but facts nonethess"???
First of all, the Bible is not a book of science, to actually think the primitive myths of goat herders from over 2000 years ago are somehow more scientifically acurate than modern science is totally moronic!  The Bible is demonstratably wrong when it comes to many of it's scientific and historical "facts". And I'd like to see some unambiguous evidence for an all powerful god before you start labelling his existance as fact.  Because until then, all you have is faith.
Anyone can join the conversation, just don't expect us to take ridiculous statements as the truth merely on your say-so.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:14 PM on March 29, 2003 | IP
Yves

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This thread IS titled a mediated, clean debate, but it gets really hard when i get comments like THAT to stop ppl from over reacting.  I am myself, it is completely absurd!  Mostly for the reasons demon said, but also because it is a religious text which has been prooven wrong.  If it were any other book, nobody would care, but no, its the bible, so that means it cant be wrong and it is always right and can be unsed litteraly.  Yeah, sure, wake up and look around, we have gotten past the renassance where old believes were thrown out to ptoven science, and we now know that every little word in the bible is not true.  Please people, just make this easy for me not to get angry and DONT say stupid things!  After all, isnt this supposed to be intelectual?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:31 AM on March 30, 2003 | IP
DontMakeNoSenseFoo

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

until then, all you have is faith

I suppose from a wordly point of view you're right. That is all I have. That's all we all have, in that case - but you won't ever believe it because you need one thing: physical evidence. That's fine if you really think that in order for something to be a fact it has to be physical, but I don't believe that.

Thanks.


-------
That don't make no sense foo!
 


Posts: 18 | Posted: 08:58 AM on March 30, 2003 | IP
Yves

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This debate has nothing to do with faith.  What faith really is is a last attempt to justify your thoughts.  Faith is what is there when everything else is gone.  Faith may be good in some cercumstances, but faith does NOT mix with science.  Oil and water.  Science is fact, faith is beliefe.  This is a forum where it is not based on beliefe, but on science.  i could have faith in the fact that pigs flied, but that doesnt mean they did!  Having faith in something doesnt make it come true.  So, where was i, ah yes, i was waiting for some one who could give some proof.  And im still waiting.  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:10 PM on March 30, 2003 | IP
DontMakeNoSenseFoo

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Faith is what is there when everything else is gone.

My point exactly - by "everything else" I assume you mean immediate physical evidence.


-------
That don't make no sense foo!
 


Posts: 18 | Posted: 2:14 PM on March 31, 2003 | IP
DontMakeNoSenseFoo

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is a forum where it is not based on belief, but on science.

I think you're wrong by saying that - the title of this forum is Creationism Vs. Evolution - not evolution is right and creationism is wrong.

I don't mean to make things I say personal, nor do I think you mean to either, but obviously we all (especially those of us on opposite sides of the arguement) get a little tense here and there, which honestly I feel is happening to me right now.


-------
That don't make no sense foo!
 


Posts: 18 | Posted: 2:17 PM on March 31, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm sorry you are right. This post was created to debate why christians believe in creationism and for me to give the facts of how I see it and not to disprove evolution.

If we are not talking about abogenesis then we see micro evolution or variation. My definition of kind was:
   birds produce birds,  dogs dogs, cats cats and so on and so forth. no one has ever seen something new created only variations of the old.

i See many variations of speicies and such inside different catagories but I do not see changes even in geologic colums of animals changing things from fins to wings or any such drastic information.

The way I see it is that the proof for creationism is not based in blind ignorant faith in a God, but in a realization that this world is so uniquely created that there must have been a designer. Everything is so complex and beautiful and works so efficiantly together and all in perfect balance that it couldn't have been so without a designer.

I believe in variation of main groups such as birds, dogs, mice, people, monkeys, and such but not in crosses between people and monkeys, or mice and dogs.

evolution to me is a change between monkeys and man. I don't believe that that ever could have happened or that there is proof for it. I have looked at some of the fossils that evolutionist say are inbetween man and monkey. They have iether been a type of monkey, atype of man, or a fake.

I think that the main proof for creationism would hve to be
1) the Bible, which you can accept or reject and if you want to argue the validity of that I suggest you read the new evidence that demands a verdict first.
2) Things like the second law of thermodynamics, and the fact that animals cannot produce something other than what they have the information for.
3) the fact that uncivilised people groups that have not been reached yet by the civilized world have marrige, and some form of morals, highly developed language some more complicated than english or other known languages, these things if they evolved from monkeys could not be because there is no trace of these in monkeys. it is seen globally in people groups reached and unreached.

Im sorry i keep mixing up abogenesis with this but last time i studied evolution there was no seperate thing for the begining it was grouped together. I've been reading why evolutionists seperated it and it makes scence to me.

evolution is a bad term to me because it can be used in many different ways.
There can be Micro evolution which is a fact but would be better described as variation.
Macro evolution which is not a fact and describes bigger changes than just variation.
there is also cosmic "evolution" and vary many other types. which describes various different things. I for one only believe that there is only variation.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:07 PM on March 31, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are many debates on this issue that can be found online.
Scientists tend to dominate written ones while Creationists more often win oral debates.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:00 PM on April 1, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You know if you wanted this to be a fair argument you would hve to debate about the begining of the world because the argument of "evolution" and variation are very similar. even though creationists say that there are no inbetweens with which i would have to agree.
the argument should be how was this world created because from there you would get to whether there was a God or not thus laying down the basis for creationism or evolution. Creationism is about the BEGINING and evolution as you have defined it is not.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:42 PM on April 1, 2003 | IP
Yves

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is my last post, i have had enough of this.  Evolution poses argument, creationism doesnt even answer it, they just illude to something else becuase they have so answer.  Its pointless.  Debates are structured, and these are definately not.  Every point the evoltution side will make, the creationism side will wipe the drool from thier face and do one of three things (Say nothing and act like it never was mentioned, try to relate it to the bible and god, both of which have to proof supporting them [Read thier commenst to this statement very carefully evolutionists, and you will notice it has no backing proof] or that they just have faith, like flanders, who is so blind to the proof in front of him, he cant open his eyes to truth.  It is pathetic, ignorance and stupidity at its greatest.  thats what religion is, and mostly christianisty.  It started out as meaning full teachings, but than it was altered to such an extent for self gain, it has lost all meaning in so many.  the ones left are clinging onto the blissfully simple answers which please thier problems.  They are to easily controlled and brainwashed to look past this "faith" and see the truth.  Every colt has faith, and you can tell a colt from a religion when it answers modern scrutiny with "faith"  Christianity is a colt.  I am glad that its stiff conservatism will break in the wake of change.  Your colt is dying, so go, cling to your precious blissfull ignorance!  It wont be left.  But that does not mean there will be no religion.  religion has always been ehre to guide us.  It is only the fraudulent religions which die off.  why do you think so many of christians are denouncing thier religion?  Because they see thestupidity of it.  How does this tie into evolution?  The creationists whole argument is from a religious stand point.  infact, creationism does not even conflict with evolution.  evolution is about a constant changing (thats not the full definistion) while creationism is about abiogenisis!  completely different topics!  The only reason they are fighting evolution is becuase christians realize that it disprooves thier god, and they would have no proof to combat it.  they have more of a chance with a counter theory to hold them off.  Your time has come.  yes, by your standerds, i am going to burn for eternity, and so are you, so ill be laughing at you fromabove, because guess what?  Religion only has power over you if you believe in it, so you will be in eternal fire, and ill be gone, rotting in the ground.  Than who gets the alst laugh (hell was created in the mideval ages to scare people into joining the chirch.  I know all of these people will be quoting the bible, but what it doesnt say, is about the existence of hell, just an evil angel, nothing about hell).

Some last laughs by your fellow debater.

Yves
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:24 PM on April 1, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evidence
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

Past and present
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

That’s why the argument often turns into something like:

‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’

‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’

‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’

‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.

These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.

It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.

I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.

It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.

However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.

As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’

However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.

What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.

Debate terms
If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:

‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see box below.

Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).

A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).

Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history!

Ultimately, God’s Word convicts
1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: ‘For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’

Also, Isaiah 55:11: ‘So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.’

Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God’s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts.

Practical application
When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:

‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’

One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence and death.

Once I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue:

‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.’

In arguing this way, a Christian is:

Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence.

Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.1

Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these).

Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this).

Honouring the Word of God that convicts the soul.

Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about.

Naturalism, Logic and Reality
Find answers to the 20 most-asked questions about Creation, Evolution, and the book of Genesis!
The Answers Book - Revised & Expanded
Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland, Ed. Don Batten

This book addresses the most common questions that Christians and non-Christians alike ask regarding creation/evolution and Genesis. Answers twenty of the most-asked questions, such as: 'Where did Cain get his Wife?' and 'What about continental drift?'

MORE INFO / PURCHASE ONLINE

Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:

A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the “big bang”, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’

The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.

On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.

This young man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

Ed. Note: for more information on formal logic and the Christian faith, see Loving God With All Your Mind: Logic and Creation.

Notes
In fact, science could avoid becoming still-born only in a Christian framework. Even secular philosophers of science are virtually unanimous on this. It required biblical presuppositions such as a real, objective universe, created by one Divine Lawgiver, who was neither fickle nor deceptive — and who also created the mind of man in a way that was in principle capable of understanding the universe. [Ed. note: Refuting Evolution, Ch. 1, discusses this in more detail] Return to text.

This assumption is even defended, as a ‘practical necessity’ in discussing scientific things including origins, by some professing Christians who are evolutionists.




 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:50 PM on April 2, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How long does it take a well–preserved fish fossil to form? The average member of the public, including most teachers of science classes, would reply with a story involving long periods of time. In this view, a dead fish on the bottom of a lake or sea is slowly covered by particles of mud or sand settling on the bottom.

The Bible would indicate, on the other hand, that most fossils were formed rapidly, buried in mud or sand carried by large volumes of water during the great Flood or its aftermath.[1]

One fossilized fish is of the species Mioplosus labracoides, from the so–called late Early Eocene Fossil Lake sediments of the Green River Formation (Wyoming, USA). It was apparently trapped in sediment and buried while part–way through swallowing another fish. Another fossil shows a fish which has already eaten its meal, but has not yet had a chance to digest it.

Although these are spectacular examples of rapid burial, the evidence against the idea of slow burial of fossils has always been there in the many millions of well–preserved fossil fish, often showing such things as scales and fins in exquisite detail. This fits with the idea that they were buried before scavengers got to them. We do not observe carpets of dead fish, or even their skeletons, on the sea floor today waiting to become fossils. Also, if the sediment did not harden fairly soon after entombing the fish, oxygen and bacteria could still get at the specimens, causing decay and ruining the features.[2]

Some evolutionists today have conceded that fossils do not need millions of years to form, but unfortunately for most people the very word ‘fossils’ still speaks of slow processes over millions of years. God’s Word, the Bible, prophesied[3] of ‘scoffers’ who would be ‘willingly ignorant’ about the Flood, which is a testimony to God’s awesome holiness and judgment upon sin. Evidence such as this is clearly and dramatically consistent with the biblical account.


References and notes
We know today of huge underwater avalanches called ‘turbidity currents’ which happen when there are earth tremors and/or slumpings of sediments on the sea floor. They can carry millions of tonnes of mud and ooze at express train speeds. With the upheavals inevitably associated with the breaking up of the ‘fountains of the great deep’ recorded in the Bible, it is no wonder that most of the fossil record consists of buried sea creatures.


Diehard ‘gradualists’ would claim that there would occasionally be areas of the sea or lake floor with, say, very little oxygen. However, there are bacteria which thrive without oxygen. In any case, a dead fish on the bottom of a sealed, sterile container in water does not retain its features for long at all, but falls apart (try the experiment yourself).



 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:53 PM on April 2, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Bible teaches (Genesis 1) that man was here from Day Six of the creation week – created the same day as land animals (which includes dinosaurs) and one day after the sea creatures and the birds.

Evolutionists claim that the order in the fossil record (e.g. trilobites deep down and humans near the top) is due to a succession of life forms on Earth, which occurred over many hundreds of millions of years. In this view, the rock strata represent huge periods of time.

On the other hand, creationists believe that most of the fossils were formed during the year-long global Flood recorded in Genesis chapters 6—9. Thus creationists believe that the order in the fossil record is due to the order of burial during the Flood, and the local catastrophes that followed. So, skeptics ask, why are human fossils not found with dinosaur fossils, for example?

Do the rock strata represent eons of time?
There is a wealth of evidence that the rock strata do not represent vast periods of time. For example, the huge Coconino sandstone formation in the Grand Canyon is about 100 m thick and extends to some 250,000 km2 in area. The large-scale cross-bedding shows that it was all laid down in deep, fast-flowing water in a matter of days. Other rock layers in the Grand Canyon indicate that they were rapidly deposited also, and without substantial time-breaks between the laying down of each unit.1,2 Indeed, the whole Grand Canyon sequence is bent at the Kaibab Upwarp, in some spots quite radically, and without cracking. This indicates that the strata, which supposedly represent some 300 million years of evolutionary time, were all still soft when the bending occurred.1 This is consistent with the layers being deposited and bent quickly, during the Genesis Flood.

[For other evidences for the non-existence of the eons of time and for the rapid deposition of the layers, please see the Answers Book, The Young Earth, and Raging Waters, Q&A: Living Fossils and Q&A: Geology.]

Evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed
Much evidence suggests that people and dinosaurs lived together, not separated by 65 million years or more, as evolutionists believe:

Many historical accounts of living animals, which were known as ‘dragons’, are good descriptions of what we call dinosaurs – such as Triceratops, Stegosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and Ankylosaurus. The video, The Great Dinosaur Mystery documents some of these.3 The account in Job 40 of behemoth sounds like one of the big dinosaurs, such as Apatosaurus or Brachiosaurus.

Unmineralized (‘unfossilized’) dinosaur bones.4 How could these bones, some of which even have blood cells in them, be 65 million years or more old? It stretches the imagination to believe they are even many thousands of years old.

Rocks bearing dinosaur fossils often contain very little plant material – e.g., in the Morrison formation in North America. This is another indication that the strata do not represent eras of life on Earth. If the strata represent an age of dinosaurs, what did they eat? A large Apatosaurus would need over three tonnes of vegetation per day, yet there is no indication of significant vegetation in many of these dinosaur-bearing strata. In other words, we see buried dinosaurs, not buried ecosystems or an ‘Age of Dinosaurs’.

What about the general pattern?
Although the rock strata do not represent a series of epochs of Earth history, as is widely believed, they still follow a general pattern. For example, relatively immobile and bottom-dwelling sea creatures tend to be found in the lower strata that contain complex organisms, and the mobile land vertebrates tend to be found in the top layers. Consider the following factors:

Vertebrate fossils are exceedingly rare compared with invertebrate (without a backbone) sea creatures. The vast proportion of the fossil record is invertebrate sea creatures, and plant material in the form of coal and oil. Vertebrate fossils are relatively rare and human fossils are even rarer.2

If there were, say, 10 million people at the time of the Flood5 and all their bodies were preserved and uniformly distributed throughout the 700 million cubic kilometres of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers, only one would be found in every 70 cubic kilometres of rock. Thus you would be unlikely to find even one human fossil.

A global Flood beginning with the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep would tend to bury bottom-dwelling sea creatures first – many of these are immobile, or relatively so. They are also abundant and generally robust (for example, shellfish).6 As the waters rose to envelop the land, land creatures would be buried last.7 Also, water plants would tend to be buried before land-based swamp plants, which, in turn would be buried before upland plants.

On the other hand, land animals, such as mammals and birds, being mobile (especially birds), could escape to higher ground and be the last to succumb. People would cling to rafts, logs etc. until the very end and then tend to bloat and float and be scavenged by fish, with the bones breaking down rather quickly, rather than being preserved. This would make human fossils from the Flood exceedingly rare.

Further, the more mobile, intelligent animals would tend to survive the Flood longest and be buried last, so their remains would be vulnerable to erosion by the receding floodwaters at the end of the Flood and in the aftermath of the Flood. Hence their remains would tend to be destroyed. The intelligence factor could partly account for the apparent separation of dinosaurs and mammals such as cattle, for example.8

Another factor is the sorting action of water. A coal seam at Yallourn in Victoria, Australia, has a 0.5 m thick layer of 50 % pollen. The only way such a layer of pollen could be obtained is through the sorting action of water in a massive watery catastrophe that gathered the plant material from a large area and deposited it in a basin in the Yallourn area.

‘Cope’s Rule’ describes the tendency of fossils (e.g. shellfish) to get bigger as you trace them upward through the geological strata. But why should evolution make things generally bigger? Indeed, living forms of fossils tend to be smaller than their fossil ancestors. A better explanation may be the sorting action of water.9

See geologist Woodmorappe’s paper for an in-depth treatment of the fossil record of cephalopods (such as octopuses and squid) and how it concurs with Creation and the Flood.10

These are some factors that could account for the patterns seen in the fossil record, including the general absence of human fossils in Flood deposits. Most of the fossil record does not represent a history of life on Earth, but the order of burial during the Flood. We would expect a pattern with a global Flood, but not an entirely consistent pattern, and this is what we find in the geological strata.

There are problems in reconstructing any historical event, but especially one that has no modern analogue. And such is the Flood.11 So we have problems imagining the precise sequence of events by which the Flood eroded and deposited material, creating fossils. It may well be that some enterprising creationist scientists will come up with a model of the Flood that will fully account for the fossil and rock sequences.

Of interest in this regard is the TAB (Tectonically Associated Biological) provinces model of Woodmorappe.5 Dr Tasman Walker has suggested a model of the Flood that also seems to explain much of the data.12 The catastrophic plate tectonics model of Drs Austin, Baumgardner, and colleagues also looks interesting in explaining much of the fossil distribution (see Chapter 11). Other models are being developed which may also be helpful in explaining the evidence.13

One can be confident that the evolutionary view of Earth history is wrong and the record in the rocks and fossils, including the distribution of human fossils, makes much more sense in the light of the Bible’s account of Creation, the Fall and the Flood.

When God pronounced judgment on the world, He said, ‘I will destroy [blot out] man whom I have created from the face of the earth’ (Gen. 6:7). Perhaps the lack of pre-flood human fossils is part of the fulfillment of this judgment?

References
Austin, S.A., 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, CA. Return to text.

Morris, J., 1994. The Young Earth, Creation-Life Publishers Inc., Colorado Springs, CO. Return to text.

Eden Films / Films for Christ. See also Chapter 19. Return to text.

Wieland, C., 1999. Dinosaur bones: just how old are they really? Creation 21(1):54—55, and references therein. Return to text.

Woodmorappe, J., 1983. A diluviological treatise on the stratigraphic separation of fossils. Creation Research Society Quarterly 20(4):133—185. Return to text.

However, the preservation of impressions of soft creatures such as jellyfish also occurs, and this testifies to the rapidity of burial. Return to text.

The Bible suggests the Flood began in the ‘great deep’ (the sea). See p.157. Return to text.

Most creationists would regard large mammal fossil deposits, such as in the John Day County of Oregon, USA, as post-Flood. Return to text.

Although bigger rocks tend to be sorted to the bottom, larger shellfish, for example, are overall less dense than smaller ones and could be deposited after smaller ones in a sorting situation. Return to text.

Woodmorappe, J., 1978, The cephalopods in the creation and the universal Deluge. Creation Research Society Quarterly 15(2):94—112. Return to text.

Secular geologists wrongly assume that all Earth’s history was shaped by the same processes we see happening today – this is the doctrine of uniformitarianism, which has directed geology for the last 200 years. As there is no global flood happening today, such thinking prevents most of today’s geologists from seeing any evidence for the Flood – they try to explain the evidence seen in the present by the processes seen operating only in the present. The Bible has a prophecy, in 2 Peter 3:3—7, regarding this wrong approach to geology that denies miraculous creation and the Deluge. Return to text.

Walker, T., 1994. A biblical geologic model. Proc. Third ICC, pp. 581—92. Return to text.

Oard, Michael, personal communication.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:55 PM on April 2, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, and Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolution, were contemporaries. At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could change into other creatures, Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics remain constant. While Darwin’s ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance, Mendel’s conclusions were based on careful experimentation. Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the fiction of evolution.

Refute the latest arguments for evolution
Refuting Evolution 2
Dr Jonathan Sarfati, with Mike Matthews

Evolutionists are on the attack. Are you prepared to refute the best that today's evolutionists have to offer? Respected AiG scientist Dr Jonathan Sarfati, author of the best-seller Refuting Evolution, has written a sequel that refutes the latest arguments to support evolution (as presented by PBS and Scientific American). Read world-leading evolutionists in their own words, and then find straightforward answers from science and the Bible. Refuting Evolution 2 will prepare you to answer the best arguments thrown at you by peers, teachers, neighbors and skeptics.

MORE INFO / PURCHASE ONLINE

To help us develop a new biology based on creation rather than evolution, let us sample some of the evidence from genetics, arranged under the four sources of variation: environment, recombination, mutation, and creation.

Environment
This refers to all of the external factors which influence a creature during its lifetime. For example, one person may have darker skin than another simply because she is exposed to more sunshine. Or another may have larger muscles because he exercises more. Such environmentally-caused variations generally have no importance to the history of life, because they cease to exist when their owners die; they are not passed on. In the middle 1800s, some scientists believed that variations caused by the environment could be inherited. Charles Darwin accepted this fallacy, and it no doubt made it easier for him to believe that one creature could change into another. He thus explained the origin of the giraffe’s long neck in part through ‘the inherited effects of the increased use of parts’.1 In seasons of limited food supply, Darwin reasoned, giraffes would stretch their necks for the high leaves, supposedly resulting in longer necks being passed on to their offspring.

Recombination
This involves shuffling the genes and is the reason that children resemble their parents very closely but are not exactly like either one. The discovery of the principles of recombination was Gregor Mendel’s great contribution to the science of genetics. Mendel showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation they were not usually lost, and when new traits appeared it was because their genetic factors had been there all along. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.

For example, from 1800, plant breeders sought to increase the sugar content of the sugar beet. And they were very successful. Over some 75 years of selective breeding it was possible to increase the sugar content from 6% to 17%. But there the improvement stopped, and further selection did not increase the sugar content. Why? Because all of the genes for sugar production had been gathered into a single variety and no further increase was possible.

Among the creatures Darwin observed on the Galápagos islands were a group of land birds, the finches. In this single group, we can see wide variation in appearance and in life-style. Darwin provided what I believe to be an essentially correct interpretation of how the finches came to be the way they are. A few individuals were probably blown to the islands from the South American mainland, and today’s finches are descendants of those pioneers. However, while Darwin saw the finches as an example of evolution, we can now recognize them merely as the result of recombination within a single created kind. The pioneer finches brought with them enough genetic variability to be sorted out into the varieties we see today.2

Mutation
Now to consider the third source of variation, mutation. Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process. Each living cell has intricate molecular machinery designed for accurately copying DNA, the genetic molecule. But as in other copying processes mistakes do occur, although not very often. Once in every 10,000–100,000 copies, a gene will contain a mistake. The cell has machinery for correcting these mistakes, but some mutations still slip through. What kinds of changes are produced by mutations? Some have no effect at all, or produce so small a change that they have no appreciable effect on the creature. But many mutations have a significant effect on their owners.

Based on the creation model, what kind of effect would we expect from random mutations, from genetic mistakes? We would expect virtually all of those which make a difference to be harmful, to make the creatures that possess them less successful than before. And this prediction is borne out most convincingly. Some examples help to illustrate this.

Geneticists began breeding the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, soon after the turn of the century, and since 1910 when the first mutation was reported, some 3,000 mutations have been identified.3 All of the mutations are harmful or harmless; none of them produce a more successful fruit fly—exactly as predicted by the creation model.

Is there, then, no such thing as a beneficial mutation? Yes, there is. A beneficial mutation is simply one that makes it possible for its possessors to contribute more offspring to future generations than do those creatures that lack the mutation.

Darwin called attention to wingless beetles on the island of Madeira. For a beetle living on a windy island, wings can be a definite disadvantage, because creatures in flight are more likely to be blown into the sea. Mutations producing the loss of flight could be helpful.

The sightless cave fish would be similar. Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and a creature that lives in pitch dark would benefit from mutations that would replace the eye with scar-like tissue, reducing that vulnerability. In the world of light, having no eyes would be a terrible handicap, but is no disadvantage in a dark cave. While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is important to notice that they always involve loss of information and never gain. One never observes the reverse occurring, namely wings or eyes being produced on creatures which never had the information to produce them.

Natural selection is the obvious fact that some varieties of creatures are going to be more successful than others, and so they will contribute more offspring to future generations. A favourite example of natural section is the peppered moth of England, Biston betularia. As far as anyone knows, this moth has always existed in two basic varieties, speckled and solid black. In pre-industrial England, many of the tree trunks were light in colour. This provided a camouflage for the speckled variety, and the birds tended to prey more heavily on the black variety. Moth collections showed many more speckled than black ones. When the Industrial Age came to England, pollution darkened the tree trunks, so the black variety was hidden, and the speckled variety was conspicuous. Soon there were many more black moths than speckled [Ed. note: see Goodbye, peppered moths for more information].

As populations encounter changing environments, such as that described above or as the result of migration into a new area, natural selection favours the combinations of traits which will make the creature more successful in its new environment. This might be considered as the positive role of natural selection. The negative role of natural selection is seen in eliminating or minimizing harmful mutations when they occur.

Creation
The first three sources of variation are woefully inadequate to account for the diversity of life we see on earth today. An essential feature of the creation model is the placement of considerable genetic variety in each created kind at the beginning. Only thus can we explain the possible origin of horses, donkeys, and zebras from the same kind; of lions, tigers, and leopards from the same kind; of some 118 varieties of the domestic dog, as well as jackals, wolves and coyotes from the same kind. As each kind obeyed the Creator’s command to be fruitful and multiply, the chance processes of recombination and the more purposeful process of natural selection caused each kind to subdivide into the vast array we now see.

References

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th Edition, John Murray, London 1902, p. 278. Darwin did see natural selection acting on this and other causes of variation as an important factor in giraffe neck evolution, but not many are aware of his reliance on inheritance of acquired characteristics. Return to text.

The different species of Galápagos finches have been observed interbreeding at times, clear evidence that they belong to the same created kind. Return to text.

Dan L. Lindsley and E.H. Grell, Genetic Variations of Drosophila melanogaster, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication No. 627, 1967.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:57 PM on April 2, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Radioactive dating is claimed to prove that the earth is billions of years old, but the methods are based on a number of unprovable assumptions. For example, it is assumed that radioactive decay rates have not changed in the past. Specifically, geochronologists assume that radioactive decay rates are unaffected by physical conditions like temperature and pressure. They also assume they are independent of the chemical environment.

The atomic nucleus is extremely tiny compared with the overall size of the atom — about 100,000 times smaller in diameter. Since the nucleus is located at the centre of the atom, it is well shielded by the surrounding electrons from external physical and chemical conditions. Radioactive decay, being a nuclear process, is thus considered to be independent of external conditions. The constancy of decay rate is a foundational assumption of the whole radioactive dating methodology. Faure states:

‘ … there is no reason to doubt that the decay constants of the naturally occurring long-lived radioactive isotopes used for dating are invariant and independent of the physical and chemical conditions to which they have been subjected …’1

One of the modes of radioactive decay, electron capture, occurs when a proton in the nucleus of an atom spontaneously captures an electron from one of the shells2  and becomes a neutron.3 The mass of the atom remains the same but the atomic number decreases by one. Electron capture is the only radioactive decay mode that is recognised as possibly being affected by physical conditions such as pressure, but the effect is considered insignificant and is ignored.1

However, a recent paper about the decay of beryllium-7 (7Be) has found that, contrary to previous thinking, the chemical environment noticeably affects the half-life of radioactive decay by electron capture.4 Beryllium is a rare, hard, light metallic element in the second column of the periodic table — an alkaline earth element. Its nucleus contains four protons, and the usual stable form also contains five neutrons, and thus has a mass number of nine. There is a lighter isotope of beryllium with a mass number of seven, with only three neutrons in its nucleus. The lighter isotope is unstable and decays to Lithium-7 (7Li) by electron capture (Figure 1). The energy released in this process is mostly emitted as a gamma ray. The half life of 7Be is about 53 days.



Fig 1: The radioactive isotope, 7Be, decays when a proton captures an electron from one of the shells and becomes a neutron. The new isotope, 7Li, has the same mass number but one less proton. After the electron is captured from the inner shell, one of the electrons in the outer shells will move to fill the vacancy and produce the most stable configuration. (Legend for particles: proton +, electron -, neutron blank.)



In the recent paper, geochemist Chih-An Huh reported that the decay rate of 7Be depends on its chemical form.4 The measurements were done at the unprecedented high precision of ±0.01%, some ten times better than any reported previously. An extremely sensitive and stable spectrometer was used to monitor gamma rays from the decay of 7Be. Three different chemical forms of 7Be were measured, the hydrated Be2+ ion in solution surrounded by four water molecules ([Be(H2O)4]2+), the hydroxide (Be(OH)2), and the oxide (BeO). The measured half lives were 53.69 days, 53.42 days and 54.23 days respectively — a 1.5% variation from the shortest to the longest. The variation is much greater than previously considered.

Creationists, for many years, have disputed the billions of years from radioactive dating calculations because they conflict with the 6000-year Bible time-scale. One assumption they have challenged is the constancy of decay rates. Curiously, Richard Kerr has picked up this scepticism in his report of Huh’s findings, and makes a particular point of addressing creationists:

‘Creationists hoping to trim geologic history to biblical proportions will be disappointed — the variations seen so far are much too small, just a percent or so, to affect the Earth’s overall time scale.’5

Despite these comments, the 1.5% variation in the half-life of 7Be due to chemical environment was a surprise, and shows that the previous assumption that rates are constant is not correct. One of the most widely used geological dating methods, the radioactive decay of 40K to 40Ar, nearly always occurs by electron capture.6 The effect of chemical environment on the decay rate for 40K should be less than for 7Be because potassium has extra electrons in outer shells. These electrons would shield those inner electrons that are more vulnerable to electron capture from the external chemical environment. The important question, though, is what factors may have controlled the distribution of radioactive isotopes within the rocks of the earth.

Creationists have good reason to believe there is something wrong with the explanation that isotopes are due to billions of years of radioactive decay.7 This is not a blind faith — there are scores of geological evidences indicating that the earth is young.8 Changes in decay rates are only one possible explanation and will probably not be the complete answer. Many other factors need to be investigated. For example, we need to explore how isotopes behave deep within the earth during partial melting, and also in magma-rock systems during crystallisation. Creationists are actively investigating these and other pertinent areas as time and funds allow.9

References
Faure, G., Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 41, 1986. Return to text.

Only from the s orbitals, because all others have nodes at the nucleus, i.e. regions of zero probability of finding an electron. Return to text.

An electron-neutrino is also released. Return to text.


Huh, C.-A., Dependence of the decay rate of 7Be on chemical forms, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 171:325–328, 1999. Return to text.

Kerr, R.A., Tweaking the clock of radioactive decay, Science 286(5441):882–883. Return to text.

Faure, Ref. 1, p. 30. Return to text.

Woodmora ppe, J., The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, 1999. Return to text.

See for example, Morris, J., The Young Earth, Creation-Life Publishers, Colorado Springs, 1994; Snelling, A., Radioactive dating failure: recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years, Creation 22(1):18–21, 1999; see also his technical paper, The Cause Of Anomalous Potassium-Argon ‘Ages’ for recent andesite flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon ‘Dating’. Return to text.

Vardiman, L., RATE group prepares status report; ICR Impact #314, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California, 1999. RATE is derived from Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, and is an inter-disciplinary group of six creationist scientists formed to investigate the radioisotope data from a young-earth perspective (see book, top right). Recently the group announced a five-year research programme estimated to cost some US$500,000. Return to text.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:01 PM on April 2, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Guest, you make a lot of unsubstantiated, ludicrous statements.  

"The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events."
You go on to talk about the presuppositions of Christians and Evolutionists, but you seem to forget that 200, 250 years ago the presupposition of EVERYONE, including the entire scientific community was that creation was the reality, the Earth was young, god created everything by it's kind, there was a global flood, ect.  Now why was that presupposition finally rejected?  I'll tell you why, the overwhelming evidence found by geologists was that the Earth was very old.  Astronomers also came to realize that the universe was even older.  Darwin laid down the theory that every living thing descended from a common ancestor.  Evidence, knowledge, reason all showed that the Bible could not literally be true.  Now since this was such a strong presupposition, the evidence had to be overwhelmingly against it, and it was.  In the intervening years, that evidence has only gotten stronger.   No 6000 y.o. Earth/universe, no special creation, no global flood, they have been disproven.

"However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present"
We study the evidence, devise a theory that best explains the evidence, test that theory against other similar finds, use modern analogs to compare it against...just what we do now.  You seem to be saying that if we don't directly observe it, we can never know, even vaguely, what happened.  This is rubbish, pure trash.  Of course we can piece together evidence, create theories to explain it, test those theories, modifiy them when new evidence is found, which would make the theory stronger, more reliable, more likely to be the true story that the evidence describes.  Your defeatist attitude, "we weren't there, we can never really know..." is a slap in the face to science.  If a teacher ever taught this to my daughter, I'd have them fired, period.

"Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions."
Yes, but some interpretations are going to be wrong and some are not, based on the evidence.  Creationism is based, literally, on 2000 year old goat herder myths, probably older than that.  Creationism starts out with what they believe is the truth, unlike science which lets the evidence determine what the truth is.  Any evidence that contests creationism is twisted to try and bring it in line with the tenants of creationism, if that fails, they ignore the evidence completely.  As I pointed out above, at one time the scientific community's presupposition was that of creationism.  The only reason that changed was because Creationism couldn't stand up in the face of the evidence.

"Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions —"
Yes, facts are facts, but once the Bible is eliminated, why should the facts change?  If the earth was really created 6000 years ago, the evidence should confirm that, but it does not.  If God really created life in kind as it were, we should see no evidence of evolution, but we do, incontrovertable evidence.  

"Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions."
I really got a chuckle out of this one, first off, no one with any intelligence ever said the Big Bang or evolution was random,  so I take it you don't understand the underlying principles of either.  Now why would someone doubt if they evolved the 'right' way or not.  You try to equate "random" with unable to reason correctly.  We see order arising in nature constantly, so why wouldn't we see a rational mind evolving and why would someone who doubts the existance of god be less rational then someone who doesn't.  
Maybe I'm less rational then you because all your points makes absolutely no sense to me.







 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:24 PM on April 3, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Guest, you make a lot of statements that are demonstratably false.  Let's look at just one of them.

"Do the rock strata represent eons of time?
There is a wealth of evidence that the rock strata do not represent vast periods of time. For example, the huge Coconino sandstone formation in the Grand Canyon is about 100 m thick and extends to some 250,000 km2 in area. The large-scale cross-bedding shows that it was all laid down in deep, fast-flowing water in a matter of days"
I looked this up on the Grand Canyon Explorer website, I think it puts  the lie to your statement I quoted:
"Coconino Sandstone - This layer averages about 260 million years old and is composed of pure quartz sand, which are basically petrified sand dunes. Wedge-shaped cross bedding can be seen where traverse-type dunes have been petrified. The color of this layer ranges from white to cream colored. No skeletal fossils have yet to be found but numerous invertebrate tracks and fossilized burrows do exist. "
OK, so the Coconino Sandstone does show great age and it clearly was not formed by rapidly flowing water, it was formed by petrified sand dunes.  And it's interesting to note that fossilized tracks and burrows have been found, because these tracks and burrows absolutely could NOT have formed if the Coconino Sandstone was deposited by rapidly flowing waters, they are too delicate to survive.  So no global flood.  This is clearly a lie on your part, what I want to know is, is it a lie of ignorance, did you just accept the word of some creationist website without doing any research?  Or did you know it was false and just used it anyway to promote your creationist view, is it OK to lie for God?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:37 AM on April 4, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Throughout this whole debate, the people on the evolution side have ignored one thing. Evolutionist seem to think that every Christian believes that the earth was created in the last 10,000 years.  They are right that many Christian's do, but they ignore that there are verses in the bible that say that, to God "a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day."  Many Christians believe time is irrelavent to God.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:48 PM on April 4, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're right, if I gave the impression that I thought all Christians are YECs, I apologize.  I know that the great majority of Christians are rational and believe that the Bible, while a great book, is not an accurate book of science or history and is open to interpretation.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:28 PM on April 4, 2003 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
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.