Creation vs evolution

[uraw911]

Nothing, I forgot to say it's to KF.

[Obi]

I'm a Christian, and belive that God created the Universe in 7 days, resting on the 7th. The Big Bang is not a correct theroy (there are many mistakes. For example, how could something explode and create a tomato?). The correct way the Universe was created was God spoke it into exstince, and that is that.

[KnightsFan]

I'm a Christian, and belive that God created the Universe in 7 days, resting on the 7th. The Big Bang is not a correct theroy (there are many mistakes. For example, how could something explode and create a tomato?). The correct way the Universe was created was God spoke it into exstince, and that is that.

If God made an explosion, anything could happen.

So you believe God is supernatural, right? We can see stars because God made them visible to earth on the day He created them. There is no science in that, but, hey, you and I believe he's supernatural.

That's what I believe.

Going by that logic in an extreme form, you could say God made the earth a few seconds ago with with memories and everything implanted. Yeah, that's even less logical, but you get my point. There's so much evidence for an old earth it just doesn't seem logical that God would make so much false evidence.

Whoever wrote Genesis was inspired by God, not dictated. They probably didn't even know what years were back then.

|< |=

[uraw911]

I see your point.

But, Moses wrote Genesis. I think he knew what years were.

[Obi]

I agree with uraw. I'm pretty sure he knew what years were.

I'm a Christian, and belive that God created the Universe in 7 days, resting on the 7th. The Big Bang is not a correct theroy (there are many mistakes. For example, how could something explode and create a tomato?). The correct way the Universe was created was God spoke it into exstince, and that is that.

If God made an explosion, anything could happen.

So you believe God is supernatural, right? We can see stars because God made them visible to earth on the day He created them. There is no science in that, but, hey, you and I believe he's supernatural.

That's what I believe.

Going by that logic in an extreme form, you could say God made the earth a few seconds ago with with memories and everything implanted. Yeah, that's even less logical, but you get my point. There's so much evidence for an old earth it just doesn't seem logical that God would make so much false evidence.

Whoever wrote Genesis was inspired by God, not dictated. They probably didn't even know what years were back then.

|< |=

Knightfan, the Earth was not made 2 seconds ago. The Bible states that it is millions of years old. And the Bible is always right.There is yet a thing to be proved wrong about the Bible.

[Dudebot5000]

And what makes the Bible always right? Give me 5 solid, concrete reasons, with evidence.

And how do you know that you didn't just enter an alternate reality that was just created moments ago? You'd never know, because you can never tell.

[KnightsFan]

But, Moses wrote Genesis. I think he knew what years were.

I forgot. Yeah, that's right.

Notice Knightfan, the Earth was not made 2 seconds ago. The Bible states that it is millions of years old. And the Bible is always right.There is yet a thing to be proved wrong about the Bible.

I said that was even less logical I'm just making a point. Where does the Bible state earth is millions of years old?

|< |=

[uraw911]

Where does the Bible state earth is millions of years old?

It doesn't.

[ab§olute_Z3R0]

I personally believe that all creatures lived together at one time. What the evolutionists think is completely otherwise.

I don't think it at all logical that we just happened to show up. We must have a purpose, and I believe it is to worship God, and live. Not to solely worship God, but live to the fullest, and have a good time. I am, however, perfectly fine with someone believing in whatever they want, I am not a preacher, but when people try to convert me, that's when I feel they cross the line.

That's the basis of my views.

[Darth Rexus]

And what makes the Bible always right? Give me 5 solid, concrete reasons, with evidence.

And how do you know that you didn't just enter an alternate reality that was just created moments ago? You'd never know, because you can never tell.

Here are the reasons.
1. God told people the wright it. God is the overseer of creation.
2. Its God's words. God knows all.
3. God is always right he made this Earth and watched it grow.
4. Its called the Good Book meaning it dose not lie. Good people do not lie and Good Books do not lie.
5. Would God allow lies? God wants his children not to lie but tell the truth.

[Obi]

But, Moses wrote Genesis. I think he knew what years were.

I forgot. Yeah, that's right.

Notice Knightfan, the Earth was not made 2 seconds ago. The Bible states that it is millions of years old. And the Bible is always right.There is yet a thing to be proved wrong about the Bible.

I said that was even less logical I'm just making a point. Where does the Bible state earth is millions of years old?

|< |=

It doesn't state it directly... ah, nevermind...

[Jedi Man Jdg]

This is a quote from a science book. I believe in creation.

Now that I have given you the basics of both uniformitarianism and catastrophism, I now want to examine them in the light of certain data which I consider important. Now remember, as I have warned you several times, I think that catastrophism is a superior view with which to analyze the data. Thus, my examination of these two viewpoints will be biased towards catastrophism. That is unavoidable. If you pick up a uniformitarian's book on geology, catastrophism might not even be mentioned. If it is mentioned, it will probably be shown in a poor light. In the end, every book is biased because every author is biased. If you truly want to be educated in the subjects of geology and paleontology, you should probably read authors from both viewpoints and try to come to your own conclusions.

So given the fact that I am biased, how do these two theories stack up in light of the data? To begin with, catastrophism seems to do a much better job at explaining the number of fossils found in the fossil record, including fossil graveyards. As I have said before, most dead plants and animals decay. They do not fossilize. Thus, fossilization is a rare event. Usually, something special must occur in order for a dead plant or animal to fossilize. Catastrophes such as volcanic eruptions and floods, especially the worldwide flood, would provide lots of these special events. This explains well the huge number of fossils that exist. Uniformitarianism has a much harder time explaining such things. When it comes to fossil graveyards such as the Cumberland Bone Cave, this becomes very important. How did so many fossils from so many climates come to rest in a cave, especially when the other caves in the surrounding area have no fossils at all? Catastrophism offers a ready explanation – uniformitarianism does not.

Next, let's take a look at the uniformitarians' geological column. Remember, this is a construct, based on uniformitarian assumptions. The construct is assembled using index fossils. According to uniformitarians, there are certain fossils which are representative of certain times in earth's history. For example, trilobites are used as index fossils. Trilobites are assumed to have existed from Cambrian times (570 million years ago) through Permian times (240 million years ago). Thus, when a paleontologist finds a trilobite in a layer of rock, he or she assumes that the rock represents an age from Cambrian to Permian times. If the number of trilobites is particularly large, then it is usually considered Cambrian rock.

Now think about that for a moment. In order for this to really be true, trilobites must be extinct now. After all, if they represent the eras mentioned above, they could not have lived before or after those eras. The problem is that we don't really know whether or not trilobites are extinct. We assume they are because we have not found any living examples. That doesn't mean they don't exist, however. It only means that we have not found them!

You see, there are many examples of fossils which paleontologists thought were of extinct creatures but later learned that such creatures still exist. An example of that is the tuatara  (too uh tar' uh). The tuatara is a reptile which belongs to a class called the “beakheads.â€� Paleontologists long thought that all beakheads died out in the Cretaceous period. However, biologists found living tuataras in New Zealand. Not long ago, tuataras thrived in that region of the world. Nowadays, because of some effects brought about by Europeans, they are slowly dying out. However, there are still tuataras alive today.

Two questions come to mind when faced with such a fact. First, if tuatara fossils are used to identify Cretaceous rock, how accurate can such an identification be? We know that tuataras are alive today. How, then, can they be used to identify rock that is supposedly 570 to 240 million years old. Second, why can't paleontologists find fossil tuataras in other strata? After all, 240 million years is a long time. Shouldn't one or two tuatara fossils be found in strata from more “recent� times, since they have been living all along? In my opinion, this brings the whole idea of the geological column into doubt. If those strata really do represent different eras in earth's past, then you should find some fossil tuataras in rocks that are more recent than Cretaceous rock. Nevertheless, paleontologists cannot. Why? Uniformitarians do not have a satisfactory answer to that question.

Now if this was the only example of such a situation, you might be able to explain it away. However, it is not. A more well-known example is the coelacanth (see' luh kanth). This was a kind of fish whose fossils are very prevalent in the geological column from Devonian (410 million years ago) times to Cretaceous times (65 million years ago). No fossils of coelacanths can be found in rock “younger� than Cretaceous rock or “older� than Devonian rock. Therefore, uniformitarian geologists just assumed that there have been no living coelacanths on earth for the last 65 million years. However, in the winter of 1939, The London Illustrated News reported on the discovery of a living coelacanth. We now know they are relatively common in a region off the coast of South Africa and in another region between Africa and Madagascar. Once again, you have to ask the question why the geological column seems to indicate that no coelacanths have existed for 65 million years when, in fact, living coelacanths exist today! Is it really possible that coelacanths avoided being fossilized for 65 million years when they were fossilized with such regularity prior to that? There are many, many examples of both plants and animals which were assumed to be extinct but have now been found alive today. This remains a difficult problem if you choose to believe the uniformitarian viewpoint.

Not only are these kinds of fossils difficult to understand in terms of uniformitarian assumptions, there is another disturbing use of index fossils which is often necessary in order to interpret the geological record in terms of uniformitarian assumptions. In Module #6, I introduced the term “unconformity.� As you should recall, an unconformity is a surface of erosion that separates one layer of rock from another. I mentioned that there were four types. The first three were easy to understand, but then I mentioned the last type of unconformity: a paraconformity.

Paraconformities are rather common in geology. In the Grand Canyon, for example, there are layers of rock that contain Cambrian index fossils in the lower parts of the layer and Mississippian index fossils in the upper parts of the same layer. According to uniformitarian assumptions, Cambrian times were supposed to have ended 500 million years ago and Mississippian times were not supposed to have begun until 360 million years ago. Thus, these time periods should be separated by a clear unconformity. After all, in other parts of the Grand Canyon, there is a clear unconformity between Devonian and Cambrian rock. Thus, the uniformitarian MUST assume that there was a break in the deposition of sediments after the Cambrian time period. Nevertheless, in many parts of the Grand Canyon, you find a single layer of rock with both Cambrian index fossils and Mississippian index fossils.

The way the uniformitarian gets around this problem is to suggest that there is a paraconformity in the rock. A paraconformity is an unconformity which has been “disguised� so that it does not look like an unconformity at all. Thus, even though the layer in question has no evidence of erosion, and even though the rock seems to be the same throughout the entire layer, the uniformitarian geologist assumes that there must be an unconformity there because there must be something separating these index fossils. As a result, the uniformitarian geologist simply assumes that a paraconformity exists there. Paraconformities are, perhaps, one of the biggest problems for uniformitarians. One reason they are such a problem is that there are so many of them. The other reason is that there is simply no evidence for them. Regardless of the lack of evidence, however, uniformitarians must believe in them, or the whole geological column is useless.

Please note that index fossils and paraconformities are of no worry to the catastrophist. The catastrophist thinks that the different fossils that are found in different strata represent different conditions and stages of the worldwide flood. Thus, it is not surprising to find fossils of tuatara and coelacanths in some geological strata but not others. After all, whether or not a creature gets fossilized depends on where it is and what the conditions of the flood are in that region. If a catastrophist finds coelacanths in deep strata but not shallow ones, that just means that coelacanths were fossilized early in the flood and not later in the flood. Nevertheless, there is no reason to assume that they do not exist any more. In the same way, there is no reason for a catastrophist to assume the presence of an unconformity that does not seem to exist. If “Cambrian� index fossils and “Mississippian� index fossils are found in the same layer, it tells the catastrophist that in that region of the world, those creatures lived near one another during the time of the flood and that they were caught by sediment deposits at roughly the same stage of the flood.

The whole concept of unconformities does bring me to a problem with the catastrophist viewpoint. Catastrophists have yet to offer a clear description of how unconformities can exist between certain layers of rock that were formed in the flood. After all, an unconformity requires erosion. There was not a lot of time during the flood for erosion to take place. Thus, the way in which some unconformities formed can be a problem in the catastrophist viewpoint.

There are, of course, other difficulties with catastrophism. For example, there are many limestone formations in Europe and North America that have what geologists call “ in situ growth structures.� These structures have the appearance of being formed slowly over time by creatures that were living in the sediments as the sediments were being deposited. If we assume that these sediments were laid down by the flood, it is hard to understand how these fossil structures could have formed. The problem is even more significant due to the fact that these fossils are found in what seem to be their natural growth positions. Thus, it really does look like they were formed during a “business as usual� period in earth's past. Noah's Flood would certainly not be “business as usual,� so this presents catastrophists with a problem.

Speaking of limestone brings me to another problem with catastrophism. There is an enormous amount of limestone stretching over vast regions of the earth. In the minds of many geologists, there is simply too much limestone to have been laid down at one time. Catastrophists have never provided a detailed model to account for the large amounts of limestone formed all over the world.

So, both uniformitarianism and catastrophism have difficulties. Regardless of which view you take, you will run into what seem to be unsolvable problems. Which, then, is the better framework in which to view geology? Well, that depends on how many problems you see with each assumption and how important those problems are to you. In my opinion, for example, the problems with catastrophism are small compared to the problems associated with uniformitarianism. Thus, I think that the more scientifically accurate viewpoint is the catastrophist viewpoint. Nevertheless, knowledgeable scientists can view the same data and come to the opposite conclusion. Thus, this is a decision that you must make on your own, depending on how you view the data.

[Jedi Man Jdg]

(con't from post before)

This is another quote from the book. Showing WHY eveolution is wrong.

One of the most important aspects of the uniformitarian viewpoint is the concept of evolution. If you believe that the geological column is real, then you probably believe that life on this planet started out as a simple life form and then slowly evolved into all of the creatures we see today. After all, that's what the geological column indicates happened. Of course, if you think that the construct of the geological column is not correct because of problems like the ones I pointed out in the previous section, then you have no real reason to believe in the process of evolution.

Evolution, then, becomes something that we can use to support or deny the reality of the geological column. If there is independent evidence for evolution, then that would be evidence in favor of the reality of the geological column. If there is not any independent evidence for evolution, then that is further evidence against the reality of the geological column. So, which is it? Is there independent evidence for the process of evolution or not? Well, the short answer to this question is “ no. � You will learn more about evolution when you take biology. For right now, however, let's look at what should be the main line of data that relates to evolution.

Now remember what evolution says. It says that life started out simple and through hundreds of millions (or perhaps billions) of years, the simple life forms became more complex. This happened as differences between parent and child began “piling up� in generation after generation. In this way, fish evolved into frogs, frogs evolved into reptiles, reptiles evolved into birds and mammals, and mammals evolved into humans. If this really happened, then at some time in earth's past, a creature had to exist which was part fish, part frog. This kind of creature is called an intermediate link, because it represents a “link� between one type of creature and another. If evolution really happened, then, there should be evidence of such creatures in the fossil record. The fact is, however, paleontologists can find only a few examples of such creatures, and those are highly questionable.

The scientist who first proposed a strong argument for evolution (Charles Darwin) noticed this lack of intermediate links in the fossil record. To him, it was the most difficult problem that he had with his hypothesis. In fact, in his book, he stated:

(sassafras!)  Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide than they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this not having been affected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which can be raised against my views. ( The Origin of Species, 6 th ed, 1962, Collier Books, NY, p.462.)  (sassafras!) 

Notice what he says here. Evolution says that one species eventually led to another. Thus, there should be “fine, intermediate varieties� of fossils in between species. The fact that there weren't was a problem that he called “grave.�

Although Darwin could not find any good examples of intermediate links in the fossil record, he had a hope. He wrote his book in the mid 1800's. As a result, he figured that geology was still in its infant stage as a science and that geologists just hadn't found the intermediate link fossils yet. He was convinced that as time went on, geologists would find these intermediate links. Thus, he said that the intermediate links were currently just “missing� from the fossil record, but they would be found in time. Critics of evolution quickly coined the phrase “missing link� to emphasize that the fossil record was devoid of any evidence for evolution.

Well, what of these missing links? Has geology uncovered them? The answer to that is an unequivocal NO. Read, for example, the words of Dr. David Raup, the curator of the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History and an expert on the fossil record.

(sassafras!)  Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded…ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information. ( Field Museum Bulletin January, 1979)  (sassafras!) 

So Dr. Raup says (and most experts on the fossil record agree) that the missing links are still missing! Darwin saw this fact as strong evidence against evolution, and Dr. Raup says that the situation is worse now than ever! The fossil record, then, is strong evidence against evolution.

At this point, you might be thinking, “Wait a minute, haven't I seen museum exhibits, television programs, and books with detailed, evolutionary sequences? Where have they come from if the fossil record is so devoid of evolutionary intermediate links?â€� Well, they come either from misinterpretations of the fossil records or from the imaginations of those who really want to believe in evolution. In biology, you will learn about some of these misinterpretations. In this module, I want to concentrate on the imagination part. Perhaps the most famous fossil presented as evidence for evolution is Archaeopteryx  (ark ee' op ter icks), which evolutionists want to believe is an intermediate link between reptiles and birds. The figure below shows you a photograph of an impression fossil of Archaeopteryx and a drawing of what paleontologists think that Archaeopteryx might have looked like.


 

Those who believe in evolution think that Archaeopteryx is an intermediate link between reptiles and birds. They think this because Archaeopteryx has some unique features which you don't see in any living birds today. The fossil impression clearly shows teeth in the mouth. No living bird has teeth, but reptiles have teeth. In addition, there are claws on the wings. No living bird has claws on its wings. Reptiles, however, have claws for their front feet. The tail is also longer and has more bones than that of the living birds we see today. Reptiles usually have long, bony tails. Thus, since this fossil is clearly a bird (the impression shows feathers), but it has some characteristics which we normally associate with reptiles, many think that this fossil qualifies as an intermediate link between reptiles and birds.

The problem is, that intermediate link status is mostly in the imagination of those who want to believe in evolution. Look at the sketch of what Archaeopteryx might have looked like. If you saw something like that today, what would you call it? You would call it a bird. That's what Archaeopteryx seems to be. It seems to be a bird with certain special features that no living bird today has.

Along with Archaeopteryx, there are a few other supposed intermediate links that paleontologists can find. In each case, however, the fossil looks so much like one of the two creatures it is trying to link, that it is hard to believe it is evidence for evolution. For example, paleontologists believe that a creature called Australopithecus  (aw stray' low pih thih cus) is an intermediate link between apes and humans. Since apes are similar to humans in many ways, evolutionists believe that apes evolved into humans. The problem is that Australopithecus is almost entirely ape. If you saw one, you would consider it to be an ape. Nevertheless, because of a few minor differences between the apes we see today and the fossils of Australopithecus, it is assumed to be an intermediate link. However, since it looks like an ape, it probably is nothing more than an ape with a few special characteristics.

In the end, then, there are almost no intermediate links in the fossil record, and the few that paleontologists believe are intermediate links are highly questionable. If evolution really occurred, however, there should be many intermediate links. The fact that only a few questionable ones can be found is strong evidence against evolution. The fact that the fossil record casts doubt on evolution is another reason to believe that the geological column is really just a myth.

[mwarvik3838]

What science books?

[Jedi Man Jdg]

It is called Exploring CREATION with general science. By Dr. J L. While

[Legodac]

this is the first religion debate, i figured somebody would do this, but no body did, so i did.

do you believe in adam and eve, or the evolution theory.

btw my third topic in this bord

  OK EH, here I go, I've read almost all the comments here and like what I see, Although I was totally lost on one of them.
I'll begin with the "THEORY of EVOLUTION". Theory simply put is a best guess. Although there may be evidence to extrapalate the theory it still can't be proven. Example, go to the Museum and see dino,s and neandertals, that have been carbon dated to see how old they are.
EG #2 The "BIG BANG THEORY", of that I only have this to say. We can't even cure the common cold, yet some of us believe we know how the Univese began, gimme a break. Example #3 This one came from my Christian, down to earth, no-nonsence wife (God bless her), "Hey legodac, maybe Adam and Eve were neandertals"
   So, to a point I believe in evolution, but I also believe in God. More learned people than I have offered us the chance to view our history here in so many ways and the origin of our beginnings. I only believe in evolution because that's what I've been told, so I take it on FAITH.
    Faith to me is word a lot like theory, with one difference, RELIGION, faith in something that can't be seen, I'd like to offer you some proof of my own experience. However, I need to take a break and go harvest my new found bounty and my booty, next post.....
    WHY I BELIEVE AND HAVE FAITH IN GOD

[Flipz]

It is called Exploring CREATION with general science. By Dr. J L. While

Oh, you use Apologia curriculum?  I'm currently trying to find my high school Biology curriculum book (from Apologia) so I can present an organized, logical argument with evidence directly from the text.

I believe that God created the earth in a literal week, and that no macroevolution is involved.  I can't give you my full argument right now, but let me make a big distinction between the two types of evolution:

Microevolution: Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.  This is the evolutionary theory that has convincing, reliable evidence to back it up (thus providing the argument that "there is tons of evidence for evolution").  It is exhibited in such situations as the crossbreeding of horses resulting in a new type of horse, etc.  The principles of macroevolution are used extensively by humans in the domestication of animals and in selectively breeding livestock.

Macroevolution: Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.  This is what most people refer to when talking about "the evolutionary theory".  In a nutshell, macroevolution refers to the evolution of one species into another.  This "theory" (actually, in scientific terms it should be called an "unconfirmed hypothesis") has enormous problems, and suffers from a severe lack of hard evidence.  I will go into more detail on this later, but I want to make the distinction now between a well-established, demonstrably valid thoery (microevolution) and a discredited, flimsy hypothesis (macroevolution).

Flipz

[Legodac]

WHY I BELIEVE AND HAVE FAITH IN GOD
I must say first, I write this to share my version of truth, not to gain sympathy, tragedy befalls us all and no ones pain is worse than the other.
   Thanks Flipz, I look forward to your conclusions
  "unconfirmed hypothesis") a term that best descibes what this topic is all about, I borrowed it from Flipz
  Back in 1993, I lost my only son, he was 6 and died because he hit his head on a school sidewalk when he fell. The details I may share another day.
   One year after he died I was still questioning my faith in GOD, many would I think.( BTW, reading what's been said prior to this post is pretty much mandatory).
    At the time, I was working on my high voltage licence while working for a high voltage construction company. I was at the shop late one night fabricating a new roof for my 78 Ford Bronco. I welded the new roof frame to the cab and was almost finished. The only thing missing was a piece of clear fiberglass for the sunroof. I locked the shop and started for home, reached the main gate and and locked it too.
    We'd been recently robbed of all our copper bare copper wire, so I was on my guard, BTW, it's 2:am.
    After locking the gate I noticed a small pick up heading north, and then pulled over, turned around and headed south passing me, turned around again and drove north again, pulls over and then stays.
    I hopped in my 4 by 4 and drove to him thinking the worst, maybe this was the thief.
    I pulled up behind him and got out the same time he did. We walked towards each other, grinning, I asked,"What's up buddy?", he told me he was running out of gas and didn't know the area or where the next gas station was.
    "NP", I replied, "I have 20 litres in the back"
     I emptied the can into his truck and he wanted to give me all he had, and offered me 50 bucks, I refused and then a conversation ensued. He asked what I did, I told him I was a licenced electrician going for my HV licence.
     "COOL", he said, I then asked what he did. "I install the score bourds in hockey rinks", was his reply.
    I had already noticed while gasing his PU that there was a red tool box and something else wrapped in paper in his pu box.
    I said that was cool, interesting living and asked what was the item in the back wrapped in paper.
"Clear plexiglass" was his reply, "Would you like it?"

As it turned out, it was the one thing I needed to finish my truck and hold on, I didn't have to cut it, it was the exact size, and I installed the next day.
    Coincidence, you decide, However my mind is made up, when my faith was in question, my faith was restored by a seemingly random act of kindness on 2 peoples parts.

[Dudebot5000]

@flipz: Then I would suppose that all my debating has been for microevolution, then. =P

[MsRowdyRedhead]

I keep going back to the concept of time. The idea that people bore children at age 150 boggles my mind.
I believe that God made the heavens and the earth and everything within them. I also believe there is enough evidence to say that what appears to be evolution is actually God's creation unfolding in HIS time.