October 28th, 2003 07:39 PM
Creation Vs Evolution
I just wanted to hear what people's point of view is on this .. Cause personally I dont believe in Evolution ...
Here are some reasons why ..
-- The once so-called Nebraska man was later re-analyzed and found to be Nebraska Pig. The piece of evidence found was lacking in integrity as only one tooth was found. Later, more of the skeleton was found and it was indeed the skeleton of a pig.
-- Does 'Lucy' prove evolution? For that to be true the truth would be stretched extremely thin. Not even a complete skeleton was found, only a few pieces. Furthermore, her bones strongly suggest that she was nothing more than a knuckle-walking tree-dweller, not an upright man-like ape.
-- Those convinced of evolution, the theory contradicts many laws of science. The second Law of Thermodynamics is clearly violated as evolution says that everything began as simple forms and gradually evolved into more complex ones. But as that law states, everything tends to disorder.
-- Some arguments for evolution is that if you give it enough time anything could happen. [ Since Evolution's best and only friend is Time.] But unbeknownst to most, evolution doesn't have enough time. Billions or trillions of years is not even close to how much time would be needed. Rick Ramashing and Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the probability for one cell to evolve by chance. The atheist/agnostic team found to their disbelief that it is 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000th power years just for one cell to evolve. They were quoted as saying "Is it likely for a tornado to sweep through a junkyard and produce a boeing 747 complete and ready to fly than to produce the cell." Does evolution have enough time? No of course evolution will never have enough time.
There is so much more that I have read about it that just makes me think. "Man are they ever wrong."
Evolution is like a vail, layed before your eyes to hide you from knowing the truth . I believe that we were created by God. And not by random chance and that we were created with a purpose. Evolution is like saying that your roller skates over time will evolve into a car. I dont think so not gonna happen.
Evolution teaches us that the Earth is billions of billions years old well read below maybe you might have a change of mind ...
Processes that Indicate a Young Earth
A significant amount of research has been accumulated which suggests that the earth and solar system are relatively young and not ancient as evolutionists have assumed. The following processes are usually selectively screened out by evolutionists because they indicate a relatively young age for the earth and solar system and thereby deprive them of their evolutionary time frame.
The Earth's Magnetic Field
The strength of the earth's magnetic field has been measured for well over a century. This provides scientists with exceptionally good records. In an important recent study, Thomas G. Barnes has shown that the strength of the earth's magnetic field is decaying exponentially at a rate corresponding to a half-life of 1,400 years. That is to say, 1,400 years ago the magnetic field of the earth was twice as strong as it is now. If we extrapolate back as far as 10,000 years, we find that the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as that of a magnetic star! This is, of course, highly improbable, if not impossible. Thus, based on the present decay rate of the earth's magnetic field, 10,000 years appears to be an upper limit for the age of the earth.
Keep in mind that any objections to this conclusion must be based on rejection of the same uniformitarian assumption that evolutionists utilize to derive a great age for the earth.
In defense of their long-age chronology, evolutionists have proposed a reversal hypothesis. They suggest that the earth's magnetic field has remained relatively stable throughout geologic time, except for certain intervals in which it went through a reversal, dying down to zero and rising up again with the reverse polarity. The last such reversal is alleged to have occurred about 700,000 years ago.
Unfortunately for evolutionary scientists, the reversal hypothesis has absolutely no valid scientific theoretical basis. Furthermore, rock magnetization cannot be used to support these so-called reversals because there is a self-reversal process known to exist in rocks, completely independent of the earth's magnetic field.
Finally, it is believed that the earth's magnetic field is due to circulating electric currents in its core. If we extrapolate backward about 20,000 years, we find that the estimated heat produced by the currents would have melted the earth. Clearly, the testimony of the earth's magnetic field is strongly in favor of a relatively young earth, not an ancient one.
The Mississippi River Delta
The Mississippi River delta offers additional evidence to support the concept of a relatively young earth. Approximately 300 million cubic yards of sediment are deposited into the Gulf of Mexico by the Mississippi River each year. By carefully studying the volume and rate of accumulation of the Mississippi River Delta and then dividing the weight of the sediments deposited annually into the total weight of the delta, it can be determined that the age of the delta is about 4,000 years old.
Petroleum and Natural Gas
Petroleum and natural gas are contained at high pressures in underground reservoirs by relatively impermeable cap rock. In many cases, the pressures are extremely high. Calculations based on the measured permeability of the cap rock reveal that the oil and gas pressures could not be maintained for much longer than 10,000 years in many instances. Thus, the assumption that such fossil-fuel deposits have been confined for millions of years, having not leaked out through their cap rock, becomes preposterous.
Furthermore, recent experiments have demonstrated conclusively that the conversion of marine and vegetable matter into oil and gas can be achieved in a surprisingly short time. For example, plant-derived material has been converted into a good grade of petroleum in as little as twenty minutes under the proper temperature and pressure conditions. Wood and other cellulosic material have also been converted into coal or coal-like substances in just a few hours. These experiments prove that the formation of coal, oil and gas did not necessarily require millions of years to form as uniformitarian geologists have assumed and taught.
Creationists believe that the great coal deposits of the world are the transported and metamorphosed remains of the extensive vegetation of the antediluvian world. This catastrophic interpretation is further supported by the presence of polystrate fossils in coal beds which indicate rapid formation. Also, the type of plants involved and the texture of these deposits testify of turbulent waters, not a stagnant swamp.
Evolutionists propose that coal was formed millions of years before man evolved. However, human skeletons and artifacts, such as intricately structured gold chains, have been found in coal deposits. In Genesis 4 we learn that metalworking was already highly developed;
Tubal-cain was an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron. In Genesis 7 and 8, the Deluge later buried the antediluvian civilizations in sedimentary layers of the earth's crust.
The Rotation of the Earth
The rotation of the earth is gradually slowing due to the gravitational drag forces of the sun, moon and other factors. If the earth is billions of years old, as uniformitarian geologists insist, and it has been slowing down uniformly, then its present rotation should be zero! Furthermore, if we extrapolate backward for several billion years, the centrifugal force would have been so great that the continents would have been sent to the equatorial regions and the overall shape of the earth would have been more like a flat pancake. But, as is commonly known, the shape of the earth is spherical; its continents are not confined to the equatorial regions, and it continues to rotate on its axis at approximately 1,000 mph at the equator. The obvious conclusion is that the earth is not billions of years old.
October 28th, 2003 07:50 PM
My people transcended from Comet Hail Bop. We were supposed to meet a group from your planet but they never made it aboard?
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.
October 28th, 2003 08:20 PM
Hope you guys find this interesting aswell ... If you look hard enough there's plenty of info to prove why evolution is incorrect and flawed ...
The following material was developed by Dr. Kent Hovind. For more information and materials on creationism and evolution, go to www.drdino.com
Some Notable Quotes
“Evolution is a fairy tale for grown ups. This theory has helped nothing in the process of science. It is useless.”
—Professor Louis Bounoure, former President, Biological Society of Strasbourg, Director of the Strasbourg Zoological.
“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”
—Sir Arthur Keith (He wrote the forward to the 100th anniversary edition of Darwin’s book, Origin of Species in 1959)
“This notion of species as ‘natural kinds’ fits splendidly with creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian age. Louis Agassiz even argued that species are God’s individual thoughts, made incarnate so that we might perceive His majesty and His message. Species, Agassiz wrote, are ‘instituted by the Divine Intelligence as the categories of his mode of thinking’. But how could a division of the organic world into discrete entities be justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as the fundamental fact of nature?”
–Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University
“The Big Bang is presumed to have produced just hydrogen and helium, only 2 of the 92 elements of the earth’s crust.” – Dr. Robert V. Gentry, Research Physicist
“As a matter of fact, however, it may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference.”
—Nelson Blueck, Rivers in the Desert, 1959, p. 31 Palestinian archeologist.
“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”
–Malcom Muggeridge, journalist and philosopher, Pasccal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, And the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.”
–Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Comission, USA
“As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present.”
–Chester A. Arnold, Professor of Botany and Curator of Fossil Plants, University of Michigan in An introduction to Paleobotany, p. 7
The general theory of evolution is based on several faulty assumptions. (Note: It is important to understand by this statement that we are not disputing simple variations that some call “microevolution,” whose micro-changes are often observed but never lead to a fundamentally different kind of plant or animal.) The following assumptions of evolutionary theory are easy to prove false:
· the universe is billions of years old,
· life spontaneously arose from nonliving minerals,
· mutations create or improve a species,
· natural selection has creative power.
In This section we will deal with the first of these assumptions. The others will be dealt with elsewhere. If, in fact, it could be demonstrated that the universe is not billions of years old, all other arguments about evolution become meaningless and unnecessary.
In children’s fairy tales, we are told:
frog + magic spell (usually a kiss) = prince
In modern “science” textbooks we are told:
frog + time = prince
The same basic fairy tale is being promoted in textbooks today, but the new magic potion cited is time. When the theory of evolution is discussed, time is the panacea for all the thousands of problems that arise.Just One Proof of a Young Earth Settles the Case Against EvolutionIn nearly all discussions and debates about evolution that I have held at universities and colleges, I ask the evolutionists how certain things could have evolved by chance. Their answer is nearly always “given enough time…” Time is the evolutionists’ god. Time can create matter from nothing and life from matter. According to evolutionists, time can create order from chaos. But let’s remove time from the above equations. There would be the following three results:
· Evolution becomes obviously impossible
· Evolutionists will scream like a baby whose pacifier has been pulled out because they know that if time is removed, their religion (evolution is religion, not science) will be exposed as being silly.
· Creation becomes the only reasonable alternative explanation for existence of this complex universe.
Let’s imagine we are exploring an old gold mine, and we find a Casio Databank watch half buried in the mud on the floor of the mine. Suppose also that the correct time and date are displayed on the watch and it is still running smoothly. Then imagine that I tell you the watch has been there for over one thousand years.
“That’s impossible!” you say. “The watch could not have been there for a thousand years, and I can prove it!”
“How can you prove I’m wrong?” I say.
“Well, for one thing, this mine was dug just 150 years ago,” you say.
“Okay,” I admit, “you’re right about the thousand years being too much, but the watch has been here for 150 years at least!”
“No!” you say. “Casio didn’t make the Databank watch until twelve years ago.”
“All right,” I say. “The watch was dropped here twelve years ago then.”
“Impossible!” you say. “The batteries only last five years in that watch, and it is still running. That proves it has been here less than five years.
While we still can’t prove exactly when the watch was left there, you have logically limited the date to five years at the most. You have effectively proven my initial statement 1000 years wrong. The larger numbers prove nothing in this debate. Even if I were to carbon date the mud or plastic in the watch to try to prove that it is thousands of years old, my data would be meaningless. The same logic can be applied to finding the age of the earth. If several factors limit the age of the earth to a few thousand years, the earth cannot be older than a few thousand years! Even if a few indicators seem to show a greater age for the earth, it takes only ONE fact to prove the earth is young.
The Bible teaches that God created the universe approximately 6000 years ago, ex nihilo (out of nothing) in six literal, twenty-four hour days. Then, approximately 4400 years ago, the earth was destroyed by a worldwide flood. This devastating, year long flood was responsible for the sediment layers being deposited (the water was going and returning, Gen 8:3-5). As the mountains rose and the oceans sank in after the flood (Psalm 104:5-8, Gen 8:1), the waters rushed off the rising mountains into the new ocean basins. This rapid-erosion through still-soft, unprotected sediments formed the topography we still see today in places like the Grand Canyon. The uniformitarian assumption—that today’s slow erosion rates that take place through solid rock are the same as has always been—is faulty logic, and ignores catastrophes like the Flood, (2 Pet. 3:3-8 says that the scoffers are “willingly ignorant” of the Flood.)
Listed below are some of the factors from various branches of science that limit the age of the universe or the earth to within the last few thousand years. Though it cannot be scientifically proven exactly when the universe was created, its age can be shown to NOT be billions of years old.
Evidence from Space
1. The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than “billions of years.” The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive.
2. The Ù inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years. NOTE: Insufficient evidence to be positive.
3. The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old.
4. Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks.
5. The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding the continents quickly.
6. The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billion of years old.
7. The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Poynting-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system is young.
8. At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for billions of years.
9. Saturn’s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old.
10. Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old.
11. Jupiter’s moon, Io, is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be billions of years old.
12. Jupiter’s moon, Ganymede had a strong magnetic field
Among other factors to consider is that all the ancient astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red star—today it is a white dwarf star. Obviously, this view needs to be restudied, since today’s textbooks in astronomy state that one hundred thousand years are required for a star to “evolve” from a red giant to a white dwarf.
Evidence from Earth
13. The decaying magnetic field limits earth’s age to less than billions.
14. The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while “the fountains of the deep were broken up,” most of the earth’s lava was deposited rapidly.
15. Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate indicates only a few thousand years of accumulation.
16. The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium, which would reduce the age more.
17. The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less that 14,000,000 years, destroying all old fossils.
18. Topsoil formation rates indicated only a few thousand years of formation
19. Niagara Falls’ erosion rate (four to seven feet per year) indicates an age of less than 8400 years. (Don’t forget Noah’s Flood could have eroded half of the seven and a half-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.)
20. The rock-encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years.
21. The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less that 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah’s day could have washed out 80% of the mud there in a few hours or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable age for the delta.)
22. The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the “billions of years” called for by the theory of evolution.
23. A relatively small amount of sediment is now in the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why the continental drift theory is vehemently defended by those who worship evolution.
24. The larges stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have easily formed in about 4400 years.
25. The Sahara desert is expanding. It is about 4000 years old.
26. The Oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now.
27. Ice accumulation at the poles indicates less than 5000 years.Evidence from Biology
28. The current population of earth (6 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4000 years.
29. The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old.
30. The oldest living tree in the world is 4300 years old.
Another factor to consider: The genetic load in man is increasing. Genetics have cataloged nearly 1300 genetic disorders in the human race. It is certainly reasonable to believe that the human race was created perfect from the hand of the Creator but has been going downhill as a result of our disobedience to the laws established by the Creator. The Bible teaches that we live in a sin-cursed world as a result of Adam’s sin.
Evidence form History
31. The oldest known historical records are less than 6000 years old
32. Many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation in the recent past and a worldwide flood. Nearly 300 of these flood legends are now known.
33. Biblical dates add up to about 6000 years.
Those who believe the earth is billions of years old will typically try to discredit one or two of these evidences and then mistakenly think that they have successfully proven the entire list wrong. This is not logical, of course. Each evidence stands independently: it only takes one to prove the earth is young. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists if they expect all taxpayers to fund the teaching of their religion in the school system. Many who believe in evolution are great at “straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel” (Mt.23:24).
Evolutionists love to assume uniformitarian processes. Many of the preaching evidences follow the same logic evolutionists use all the time in dealing with carbon dating, strata formation, genetic drift, etc. It is interesting to read the ramblings of nay-sayers like Scott, Matson, Babinski, etc. And see how many times they use words like: we believe, perhaps, could have, there is some reason to believe, etc. Evolutionists may need billions of years to make people believe a rock can turn into a rocket scientist, but they just aren’t available.
October 28th, 2003 08:44 PM
ok.. we've had this kind of thing before Agent_steal, it just ends up in either a flame war or a very long but involved discussion about whose right and whose wrong and exactly why they are right or wrong. Sometimes interesting points are raised and I have changed my views about some folks round here because of such conversations (normally for the better I might add). At the end of the day people will go with what they want to go with - leave them to it.
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
October 28th, 2003 08:50 PM
The earth, only 10,000 years old?
Where to start, where to start...
1. Your Nebraska-pig doesn't prove anything, nor does it disprove anything. All it proves is that scientists were wrong in their assumption that it was a human.
2. The C14-method:
Scientists use what is known as the C14- or radiocarbon-method:
C14 is an unstable/radioactive form of carbon that occurs naturally. The radiocarbon method is based on the rate of decay of the carbon isotope 14. C14 is formed in the upper atmosphere through the effect of cosmic ray neutrons upon nitrogen 14.
The 14C formed is rapidly oxidised to 14CO2 and enters the earth's plant and animal lifeways through photosynthesis and the food chain.
Plants and animals which utilise carbon take up 14C during their lifetimes. They exist in equilibrium with the C14 concentration of the atmosphere, that is, the numbers of C14 atoms and non-radioactive carbon atoms stays approximately the same over time. As soon as a plant or animal dies, they cease the metabolic function of carbon uptake; there is no replenishment of radioactive carbon, only decay.
This decay occurs at a constant rate. After 5568 years, half the C14 in the original sample will have decayed and after another 5568 years, half of that remaining material will have decayed, and so on...
The C14-method doesn't lie. If you think it does, we'll have to review everything we know about chemistry. Using this method, it must be concluded that Lucy is 3.15 million years old.
47 bones of her skeleton were found, which is 40%.
The discussion about whether she walked upright or not still remains, but the discussion of her age is closed.
Evolution as thought by Darwin does not say that everything began as simple forms and gradually evolves into more complex ones.
Those convinced of evolution, the theory contradicts many laws of science. The second Law of Thermodynamics is clearly violated as evolution says that everything began as simple forms and gradually evolved into more complex ones. But as that law states, everything tends to disorder.
Evolution states that natural selection only preserves those 'features' that exist in function of the organism itself: organisms who are best adapted to their environment, have the best chances to procreate.
And why are you using a law of physics (second law of thermodynamics) to disproof a biological concept??
Bah, never mind... you keep on living in your 10,000 year old world...
October 28th, 2003 09:26 PM
This is all very interesting. I used comet Hail Bop and it's unfortunate influence on a few people as a rider into the universe and I wish I had more time today to comment. But let's look at comets and an article quote from above...
There are quite a few short-period comets buzzing through and around our local area they range in obit of a maximum of 200 years. Does that prove the Earth can be only 200 years old? If not then what significance does that statement make? Except to assume that the comets, the planets and the stars in our solar system where all created at the same time, because the method of thinking is this. The comets are decaying and not being replenished there for, the rate of current decay would mean that the comets would have to have been so massive a billion years ago that they would have severely altered gravitational pull in the solar system. I hope I have that right, in the correct method of pro Genesis pseudo-scientific thinking.
3. The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old.
Ok let’s say for this purpose that I totally believe that to be true…
What about long term comets? Five to 10 of the significant one's pass along the ecliptic each year and countless smaller one's could pass undetected. Unlike their local brethren of short term comets, they have an estimated journey of millions of years, possibly half way to the next star… hmm stars.
I am not up to speed on pro-genesis thinking. How do you explain the vast measured distances of interstellar objects? Look at the nearest star to our planet: Proxima Centauri, its 4.2 light years from Earth. Comets travel around an average of 30,000 miles per sec speeding up and slowing down around gravitational objects of course. That is what? About 10 thousand times slower than light (not going through conversion of MPH to meters etc.), and they get significantly slower as they leave the solar system on their exceedingly long journey.
It is a general method of mathematics to accept the speed of light as a constant, like other constants in mathematics that means it’s accepted to be never changing. This constant happens to be around 300 million meters per second. Using various experiments on local stars and celestial objects man figured out how to measure distance in space. In fact stars aren’t the only thing we can see, we can see distance galaxies just like our own and we can measure there width and depth.
So using these methods we can pick out a distant glimmer in the sky and measure it’s distance then calculate how long light takes to get to earth for us to see at night. Some of those stars are millions of light years away. Meaning it’s quite possible that light emanated from the object at one point in history and took a million years to travel to earth.
When I get more time, back to local comets...
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.
October 28th, 2003 09:40 PM
I see it like this. I don't believe in evolution. I believe that their is infact an unmove mover and that no matter what their had to be something to create the beginning. If you read up on philosophers: Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Locke they all seem to take a stab at where we all came from. I am a christian so I believe in the God created everything. That is my view I am not try to beat someone over the head with a Bible I just am stating my view. But this thread seems to be heading in a heated debate.
October 28th, 2003 10:08 PM
adiz > your view and evolutionism do not contradict, nor do they exclude eachother.
Evolutionism does not speak about the beginning of things, it only speaks about the evolution of things (doh). Evolutionary proof is too overwhelming to deny it (just think about the average length of a person nowadays compared to the average length of a person 50 years ago... that is evolution). Not to mention that all living creatures have the same building blocks (DNA).
October 28th, 2003 10:22 PM
Humm we must a beleife in od preclude a belif in science and a desier to search for knowladge and reject ignorance?
Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?
October 28th, 2003 10:25 PM
I believe in evolution, just because it makes a whole lot of sense. Here's my proof:
1. Communism made workers in Soviet Russia too incompetent, so they had no economy. They were booted out of the gene pool.
2. Pot made it's user's reflexes to slow, and so they crashed a lot of cars. They booted themselves out of the gene pool.
3. Back in the day (and possibly now, too) France had no army. So, a good deal of frenchmen were booted out of the gene pool by the likes of Rome. Then Germany. Then England. Then Germany again...
And all those poor potheads, commies, and frenchmen never lived to produce offspring and thereby serviced the human race in their own special way .
P.S. I hereby apollogize to any frenchmen, marajuana user, or bastard commie on this forum