[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Creation vs. Evolution (Page 1 of 11)
Posted: 6/5/2008 11:21:33 AM EDT
|
This is an attempt to respectfully SHOW ANY EVIDENCE believed to help out either theory. I am what some call a "young-earth creationist". Let me start off by stating that neither side can be proven completely. I understand that, and hope that anyone who choses to post, does as well. here is the first evidence for my belief - The oldest tree in the world is a bristlecone pine, appropriately named "methuselah". It is 4767 years old, which puts it beginning life around the time the bible says the flood happened. it is dated by "tree ring growth" which is the most accurate way to date a tree. others have claimed older roots and trees that have "cloned" themselves. these have been dated using carbon dating which scientists agree is innacurate past about 50,000 years. The methuselah tree is the oldest VERIFIED tree on earth. if the earth is billions of years old, why is there not an older tree? This is not proof, i understand that. but it is evidence that is interesting at the least. |
|
Personally, I think it is not exactly correct to face-off Creation and evolution against each other without more of a clear description of what you want to discuss or debate. Terms must be defined, especially "evolution", because its definition has changed and expanded a great deal over the last 150 years. On a purely theoretical/academic level, it is possible to have both a divine creation and then have an evolution event follow that initial creation. Understand, I don't subscribe to this theory, but I'm just saying that I don't find this sort of broad-topic exercise that pits creation vs. evolution productive. This topic seems to go nowhere and its usually due to confused definition of words and complications in communicating more open perspectives. I think investigating specifics is more useful. |
CLARIFICATION FOR THIS THREAD (simple terms) Evolution - life evolved from non-living material. Animals/beings changed species into completely different ones. I.E. all life as we know it today "evolved from one organism". This is what most textbooks teach, and is widely accepted by MANY (not all) evolutionists Creation - Life was created as it is today. The earth is relatively young. No animal/being has ever changed into another. Humans were created as Humans, Kangaroos were created as Kangaroos, etc. This is what MANY (not all) christians believe and accept as Biblical teachings. This is just a thread to discuss both sides. It doesnt have to become disrespectful or have any negative posts. Many people enjoy a friendly debate, and that is the only goal of this thread...and of course for each side to attempt to persuade the other. We can all stand to learn a few things even if it goes against what we were taught on either side. |
|
I believe in a combination of them. Meaning, I believe that God started it all. I believe that He created it all, everything. With a set of rules that allow change and encourage it. Things change, things evolve into new things, built upon the building blocks of the things they came from. Certain things end up not fitting in and come to an end while others continue on and continue to change. |
It is fine to believe what you want, and I respect that. But as stated, this thread is about presenting evidence from either side. Not necessarily facts, but evidence to support a theory. You stated "things evolve into new things". I have given one piece of evidence to support my belief and am waiting on any evidence for the other side. |
This is not at all what the theory of evolution states. Not in the slightest of ways. The origin of living organisms on this planet and theories thereof are an entirely different topic from the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory discusses how living things evolve and change into other types of beings through a slow, gradual process of mutation and Darwinian natural selection. Biogenesis is not the same thing as evolution. They are different topics! Evolutionary theory makes no statements on how life got here, merely on how it is changing and becoming more diverse. |
Ah, perhaps not officially, but that is exactly why semperfiws6 is taking the time to define it as such. All too often in a majority of biology textbooks and classrooms throughout the country the origin of life from non-living material is completely implied through the perpetuation of the big bang theory as a fundamental pillar in evolution education. Semperfiws6 is merely making that a clear point in the debate. A step which will always have evolution-believers crying foul, because they don't want to discuss that part of their theory. The fact that this bothers any evolution-believer when it is stated openly as semperfiws6 did is almost comical, because historically this implication is always glossed over by those who teach evolution in schools.
Oh, come now. In virtually every public school biology classroom, the idea that life originated from non-living matter is EXACTLY what is being taught. That's what the big bang theory helps to provide. |
Er, so what if they can date it at, say, 30,000 years? That fits within the range of accuracy but is older than your young earth theory. I find this a weak argument. |
Er, why dont you give me some evidence from the other side then? If you look at Radio-carbon dating, it is flawed to say the least. Living organisms have been Carbon dated at thousands of years old. two parts of the same mammoth were dated at thousands of years different. and please dont take my word for it, the evidence for this is plentifull, all you need is the desire to learn. please dont try to shoot down the evidence i am using to support my theory UNLESS you have evidence of your own. THAT sir, is a weak argument. |
|
This may sound odd but I believe in a little of both. I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, that is it is an actual historical document inspired by God, not just a collection of fables and Allegory. I believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth in 6 days and rested on the seventh but I am willing to believe that a day in God's time is not the same as a day in our time and that this accounts for those who believe the Earth is billions of years old. I believe that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve and that Christ was descended from King David. However I also believe in natural selection and that animals, plants, and human beings may not exist in the same form in which they existed after Adam and Eve were booted from the garden. As animals and humans breed over time, certain characteristics are selected for or against. We see it in hybrid flowers and vegetables (manipulated by man, but the evidence is still there) and we see it in animals. Before the days of modern medicine we often saw it in our own race, as human beings who were too weak to survive or possessed undesirable traits making them undesirable to potential mates, so their genes were not passed on. |
it is fine to believe what you want. just dont stop searching for the truth. the 1st chapter of the book of genesis however clearly states the bibles interpretation for the word day. Genesis 1:5 "...and the EVENING and the MORNING were the first day" many people try to interpret this in their own way, but it is very clear and needs no interpretation. the evening and the morning is a day in biblical terms. |
the rate of decay is predictable in todays conditions. there is no way to tell the conditions a few thousand years ago. all other types of dating also assume that the conditions have remained constant. the scientific method is accurate, but there is no way to tell how things used to be. good system, flawed logic. |
|
There are three primary radioactive dating methods: (1) uranium-thorium-lead dating, (2) rubidium-strontium dating, and (3) potassium-argon dating. In each system, the "parent" element decays to a "daughter" element, and a certain amount of time is supposed to elapse throughout the decay process Six initial assumptions. Each of these dating methods can only be accurate if each of the following assumptions ALWAYS apply: 1 - Nothing can contaminate the parent or daughter products during the process. When something is in the ground for a long period of time, how can anyone be certain that this is true? 2 - Each system must initially contain none of the daughter products. But, of course, no one was back there then to know that. 3 - The decay rate must never change. Who was standing there all those years with a time clock in his hand? 4 - There can be no variation in decay rates. But one researcher has already demonstrated that it actually happens. 5 - If any change occurred earlier in certain atmospheric conditions, this could profoundly affect radioactivity. There are reasons to believe this has happened. 6 - Any change in the Van Allen radiation belt would greatly affect the rates, and that could also have occurred. Five radiometric dating inaccuracies. Here are several reasons why uranium and thorium dating methods cannot be relied on. Each of these five problems is very, very likely to have occurred over past time, thus devastating the value of the computed dates: (1) Lead could originally have been mixed in with the parent substance. (2) Part of the uranium and its daughter products could previously have leaked out. (3) Inaccurate lead ratio computations may have been worked out in the lab. (4) During the decay process, neutron capture (from a radiogenic lead) may have contaminated the results. (5) Clock settings would initially be greatly varied, if the substances originally were (as evolutionists claim) derived from molten materials.— I know its a lot, but you cant deny the fact that there are many variables that scientists/people "assume" to work in the favor of the tests being accurate. |
I'm not American so I've never been in your classrooms, but the process of evolution and the biogenesis of the first living cells are really different things. The scientific community is still bouncing ideas and trying to find out how living things came to be here. There are MANY theories. Wikipedia is a good place to start. I really haven't read much about this. Evolutionary theory I like to read, but this organic chemistry stuff just doesn't grab me  . |
|
Yeah, they can't figure out how anything started but some evolutionists believe in their theories totally. Seems like alot of faith in action there. But what do I know, I'm just a dumb hayseed that needs some going to college. Ah duh. I know that you're trying to say it's two different things, but it's not really. And in our public schools, it's not taught as a "theory" any longer per se. Meaning they don't touch on any other "theories" out there. And they did this by conscious decision in the 60's. They did use to teach a more Christian based theory at one time also. That's what really bothers me. Both sides have merit. And as I said before, there are many good minds on both sides of the aisle. To discount one side as totally ignorant and completely wrong, is in my opinion, sad. |
Yes they are. Evolution and biogenesis are different topics. We know a lot about evolution and we have a lot of data and evidence. Science hasn't yet cracked the nut of abiogenesis but I'm guessing that one theory will arise as the major favourite in the next 15-20 years. Evolution is a fact, it takes place in nature. We've observed it happening in laboratory experiments. Biogenesis still has many possible explanations, but it is not a subject that needs to be extensively covered in a basic education, I think. It would take a lot of teaching hours to go over all the theories. As far as "good minds" being on either side, that does not matter. You can not vote on facts. |
Respectfully, this is a losing proposition IMHO because "creation" is a belief, not a theory... it is based upon faith and not upon evidence. But YMMV, as no doubt will many others here. Carry on. |
Maybe so, but everything touted in the "theory of evolution" is not a fact. When we are being taught that the world is 50 billion years old, that is not a fact, that is a theory. There are many claims that are lumped in with the "theory of evolution" that you seem to be dismissing. I would call what you call evolution more like adaptation. But that's not really the point. The point is the "theory of evolution" that is being taught does not always JUST discuss how plants and animals may change over time. There is much more "theory" lumped in. You have not experienced this? |
The age of planet Earth has very little to do with evolution, or biology in general. I can see how these topics might pop up in the same discussion, but one can't just lump them into one big furball and label it "theory of evolution". If you've encountered a teacher doing this, you should have a serious word with them about what they are doing. |
|
the age of the earth is an intricate part of the evolutionary process. The textbooks teach that it took millions of years for life to evolve into what it is today. So yes, they are directly related. As stated by JJrea, the problem is that the textbooks teach many of the theories related to evolution as fact. that is the only problem. Im not against the teaching of the evolution theory, I am simply against teaching lies and passing them off as truth. Only one person attempted to list evidence for the evolution theory. He listed Radio-Carbon dating, which brought in the other types of dating methods. I have addressed this above and have clearly shown, and even broken it down Barney style how this cannot possibly be relied on as accurate empiracle evidence. Any middle school kid can understand that. I will step away from my young earth idea for a moment to bring you this quote by leading Genetic Genome Researcher Dr. Barney Maddox. After the human genome was mapped, he said this about it. "Now the genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change." |
|
Now, here is another piece of evidence supporting my young earth THEORY. The Earth's magnetic field is decaying at the rate of about 5 % every 100 years. This means that about 1450 years ago it was twice as strong as it is today, and 2900 years ago it was four times as strong. This means only 10,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been 128 times as strong as it is today: so strong that the amount of heat produced would have prevented life as we know it from existing on the earth. 23,24,25,26 In other words, it seems likely that the Earth's magnetic field is, in fact, quite young, suggesting that the earth itself is young also. The fact that the earth's magnetic field is decaying is well documented. For example, a recent NOVA (se below link) Special on this subject brought this out very clearly. In fact, at present rates of decay, the earth may not even have a magnetic field 1000 years from now link to nova special on the earths magnetic field decay. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3016_magnetic.html |
That's interesting. The flipside of that argument would be that it might not have always decayed this quickly.  I'm just saying, since we use that as an argument, they could too to refute that with that logic.But I'm not saying that it isn't possible. Thank you for backing me up. |
That's not evidence. |
Can you explain to me why you are assuming a constant rate of decay when the source you cite indicates that the rate of decay has accelerated significantly in the past 300 years? |
actually it was was 4,789 years old when sampled in 1957. So it would be 4839 years old now. and it wasn't the oldest ever. Its currently the oldest known living non-clonal organism. An older tree called "Prometheus" was cut down in 1964 and its age was was more than 4,844 years old. That takes us back to at least 2880 bc. The estimated dates for the flood are 2304 BC by Answers in Genesis and 2348 BC by Bishop Usher. Prometheus was between 530 and 580 years older than the date of the flood. Also, a Swedish Spruce has been found that is 8000 years old (which takes us right back to the end of the last ice age). Clonal species have been found that are much older. |
rofl talk about selective reading
the decay is part of the natural cycle of field reversals. Anyone who has any familiarity with science for the past 2 decades should know this. Even if you don't agree with the dates, the record of field reversals is there. Whether they are 200,000 years apart or 20 years apart, it still destroys your argument. every argument for a young earth relies on either a misunderstanding of science or misuse of the data (as in the example above) I find it ironic that you dislike radio dating due to your claim that the decay rates vary, but have no problem using the rate of magnetic field strength decay WHICH WE KNOW VARIES as the basis for your date. |
Bravo A truthful answer. I may not agree with your view on the age of the earth, but I respect anyone to say the simple truth of the matter. |
|
as far as evidences for evolution, there is no smoking gun. Its a combination of evidences across many fields of study and the best explanation I've seen is this one
it also has links to a response from a YEC and the rebuttal. |
|
There is no evidence proving either side with any sort of unarguable way. You cannot prove that there is a God. There is no evidence that unarguably proves evolution from non-living matter. It just isn't there. That being said, the more I learn about astronomy, and evolution (I grew up with my mom having a Ph.D. in microbiology, and my father having a bachelors in wildlife management. I have a rather lengthy history with the sciences), it is very hard to believe that there is any sort of God figure (this is just an opinion). I believe in evidence, proof, and such. There is more evidence that evolution occurred, than there is of a God. There is NO proof of a God, in the way that science would allow. There is evidence that evolution occurred, which is accepted by science. Until there is evidence that has been researched by peers, and shown to be correct in the sciences.........I will not believe in any God. Sorry for the lengthy post, and if you didn't get what I was trying to say: There is more evidence that evolution occurred (Darwin, etc), than of the existence of a God. Show me some proof that God exists, that you can put your hands on (that isn't a book written by man), that is tangible, and repeatable, and that has been accepted by the scientific community at large. There is nary a piece. That in and of itself is enough for me. After all this time, I think we would have found some evidence that God exists, and we haven't. We have things that we infer to mean that God exists, but nothing that is undeniable, or that would hold up to the sciences. |
+1 Its a belief that you cannot prove. |
|
The basic problem for me is that if you don't believe in evolution, you have to throw pretty much everything discovered through the scientific method in the past 600 years or so out the window with it, including the ones that make reading and posting on ARFCOM possible. Evolution doesn't have a lot to do with physics in general, but the scientific method is employed rigorously in both cases. The arguments and evidence for evolution are strong; not complete as far as evidence is concerned, but most of the way there; The arguments against it are very weak. Can you believe in both? If you're creative I suppose you can. You can say that evolution is the mechanism that God used to create man and so on, but you'll have to get very creative indeed at some points, all in order to simply justify your faith. |
Because the written word is not evidence. OK. |
you're mixing abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution is as proven as any other scientific theory. Like oh say, gravity. There is no evidence that unarguably proves our current theory of gravity either. We don't even know what causes the effect we call gravity. Instead, we have a body of evidence that is best explained by the current theory of gravity. Gravity is a fact, the theory we have to explain it is incomplete. Evolution is a fact, the theory we have to explain it is incomplete. |
|
neither side can be proven, i understand that. that is what i started out saying. I just dont understand why so many people discount the evidence I say, and I understand it doesnt prove anything, but do not list any of theirs. to allenNH who said something about the past 600 years of scientific evidence backs up evolution, please list some. |
Evolution most certainly is not a fact any more than any theory of biogenesis is a fact. Evolutionary study has not revealed the ancestry of any two distinct organisms alive today that properly identifies every individual species of their heritages tracing back to a single indentified common ancestor that lived "x" years ago. |
|
Neither evolution or any biogenesis theory can explain the existence of a single animal or plant cell, muchless account for the infinitly complex multiple cellular-based systems that compose an entire animal or plant organism. Neither evolution or any biogensis theory can explain the existence of respiration systems, vision systems, central nervous sytems, epidermal systems, skeletal systems, brain functions, circulatory systems, defense mechanisms, reflex mechanisms or muscular systems. All of these systems that compose organisms alive today can be studied, experimented with, evaluated in their function and purpose, repaired, but not one of these systems can be explained what their origin was, how they developed over time, where they came from or how they possibly came to exist and function perfectly without a designer. |
I didn't say that, I said that the scientific method has been going strong for around 600 years, and that evolution is very rigorously tested via that method -- the same method used to make ARFCOM, your car, and pop tarts possible. The only valid argument against evolution is against the scientific method that supports it, so to deny it is to deny the scientific method and everything else it has given us. |
Good grief, this is where your argument fails logic and you pass over into the realm of a religious zealot declaring the unbeliever as a heretic. You just made a very strong case for evolution being a religion more so than science because your argument doesn't hold up against logic. Evolution doesn't produce anything useful, unlike the rest of science. Your meager attempt to demagogue evolution by claiming that challenging it is that same as questioning the rest of science is absurd on its face, muchless to any degree of further evaluation. Evolution has not produced anything. Evoltuion is closer to anecdotal history than it is a valid science topic such as physics or biology or chemistry or geology. |
Wow, I had to read that twice. how can anything that is a fact, not have anything to explain it. Again - WOW. And gravity can be tested and observed, Evolution cannot. |
There are a lot of people who work in the field who disagree with that statement. Every statement against evolution I have ever seen you make is easily refutable. The only way you will accept evolution is if Jesus comes down himself and tells you "that is how I did it" People who actually care about the evidence as opposed to their preconceptions will treat evolution like any other scientific theory. Since that is exactly what it is. |
I posted a list of evidences for evolution. I can't force you to read it and I'm not going to cut and paste the many pages of evidence. I also posted why your "evidences" were no such thing. |
So basically you're saying anything that studies the past without making predictions about the future is worthless? That's about all I gathered from your interjection here, with nothing resembling a coherent refutation. If you can refute the (scientific) theory of evolution without also deriding the method that produced that theory (as it is today, not as originally published in Origin) then by all means have at it. |
abiogenesis is a fact. at some point biological life came from non-life whether God did it or it was a natural process. Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory, it is a hypothesis. It is only a theory in the colloquial sense. Like your "God did it" theory. Evolution is a scientific theory to explain the development of life on earth, however it got started. If you don't like how God did things, then quibble with him, not me. |
First, you have not listed any evidence. At all.
It is not the job of others to do your research for you. You started a topic/debate about evolution and put forth your position. I believe in evolution and I have a good understanding of the arguments used by creationists. If you want to intelligently debate a topic, you must be familiar with both sides. |
You have just betrayed your ignorance of the subject. |
That's fine. That fact is not a surprise and frankly doesn't mean anything.
No, I accept physics, biology, chemistry, geology, and the REST of science without Jesus telling me abou them himslef, so your argument on that point is not valid. I'll accept evolution when someone presents me the following evidence that I stated earlier:
You don't have any evidence and that's why I don't buy what evolutionists are selling. |
No, there you go with your demonization of my position through demagoguery again. I'm only addressig evolution (not the entire history of prediction-making) and I'm saying that it's vacant of scientific evidence. Again, show me the following:
|