You guys are idiots, if you truely beleive in evolution. I bet you are the same people that beleve that we went to the moon.
<font size=“7”>I BET THE XEL’NAGA WERE ON THE MOON!!!1111</font>
This debate seems to be heading towards the end, but I’ll try to tie up some loose ends and add a few necessary comments.
There was a discussion several posts back about wether creationists claim earth to be 6000 years old. Well, the exact amount of years between creation and Moses are given in the bible through geneologies, and the events between Moses and Jesus allow for a fairly precise estimate of time. Jesus is said to be having born under the rule of emperor Augustus, which occured a bit more than 2000 years ago. Summing this up, the Earth would indeed have to be between 6000 and 10000 years old with a strictly literal interpretation of the bible. In my experience, there are mainly two kinds of people who call themselves creationists; those who believe that god steered evolution, and those who believe creation took place as described in the bible. The latter category tends to claim a 6000 year old earth.
Moving on to the book mentioned by Pappy - “Exploring Creation with General Science”. As could be read out both from the title and the part of its contents presented, this book seemed to be of extremely scientifically duboius character. A few searches confirmed this. The author is a mr. Jay Wile. Wile has (or at best presents) no formal higher education in biology, niether in geology. His competence in writing educational literature that deals with these subjects is therefore highly questionable. He titles himself dr., and does indeed list a PhD in his credentials - in nuclear physics, which of course has nothing to do with either subject. The book seems to be used mainly in homeschooling, and is published by the “Apologia Education Ministries”. It has, in short, no scientific value whatsoever.
As has been mentioned already, geological branches of interpretation has little do with evolution. It’s just a general trend among creationists to include all instances of science that produce unambigous evidence against a literal biblical creation (including, but not limited to, geology, biology, astrophysics and cosmology) into one lump and call all of it evolution, to make it seem like it’s just one theory against another (which is of course wrong not just for the reason I just mentioned but also because creationism isn’t actually even a theory).
The way that the book dealt with geology (as presented by Pappy, anyway) still caught my interest, however. It makes the impression of there being two about equal branches in geology - uniformitarianism and catastrophism. This was of course true at some point - about 100 years ago or so. However, as evidence piled up and scientists learned more about dating and whatnot, the uniformitarianism won by miles, and even with the very limited experience I have myself of geology, I can assure you that no real such ambiguity exists today. Saying there are two kinds of geologists in this respect is like saying there are two kinds of astronomers: those who believe that the earth revolves around the sun, and those that believe it’s the other way around. Sure, if you search really hard you could probably find some stubborn crackhead with a fake degree in astrophysics who claims that the sun revolves around earth, but the general consensus among astronomers (and everyone else, of course) is the other view. Likewise, uniformitarianism is the general consensus among geologists.
I tried to find some quick, reliable source dealing with the particular case you mentioned (Cumberland bone cave), but there has been nothing written about it in any of the major geological or generally scientifical magazines for the past ten years (as there most certainly would be if there actually was any controversy on the issue among real geologists). I did find this following piece at the NCSE (www.ncseweb.org) though:
"Question: Yes, but creationists note that the Cumberland Bone Cave in the limestone mountains of Western Maryland contains the bones of animals of many different climates mashed together in one pile. How do you answer that one?
Answer: The creationists do not describe the cave very accurately. Once we understand the evidence, we find that the bones accumulated in tranquil circumstances during the Ice Ages. From Franklin Folsom (1956), we learn that this cave has two openings, a horizontal shaft going into the side of the ridge, and a vertical one on the top of the ridge extending down. In the vertical shaft, pioneers hiding from Indians left their rifles, where they were found in this century. By this very same route, the animals one by one brought their bones to be fossilized. During the ice ages, an animal would every so often get killed falling down the vertical shaft, and rot away, leaving disconnected bones. After tumbling down a stepped slope one by one, the bones landed in a pile at the lowest point of the cave. As dripping water dried, it left calcite that cements the bones together. Today we can distinguish distinct layers of bones of cold-weather animals from the glaciations from layers of warm-weather animals from the interglacial periods; the alternation of these layers is hard to explain if the biblical flood story is literal history. As Mohr and Sloan (1955) point out, rats gnawed on these bones, leaving their tooth marks; this fact is rather hard to reconcile with the catastrophist theory that first a tidal wave from the tropics and then a tidal wave from the arctic smashed animal carcasses into the mouth of this cave."
On a slightly more general note, it is absurd to use the geological column (or lack of) as evidence against uniformitarianism. Even if this one example should speak in disfavour of uniformitarianism, which is dubious, the uniformitarian model is still the better one of the two when it comes to explaining the geological column and the way it adds up with radioactive dating everywhere else.
-Radar
Now, Sinistral, I must say this. Creation science is not bogus. I fing it easier to believe that a higher being created the universe rather than life simply forming out of nothing.
First off, everything in this world can not have been created out of nothing. Someone had to have created everything that is the universe.
Secondly, God created every creature on the earth individually. There isn’t any mutation or evolution involved. And if there is show me the middle forms or “missing links”.
Thirdly, there must be different ancestors for man and apes, and if not show me the fossil record of several individual middle forms between man and ape. And if man did evovle from ape, why aren’t apes still evolving into humans and why are there still apes around?
From what I have heard, evolutionists believe that there is a “common ancestor” that all things originate from. My question is, who is this common ancestor and where did IT come from? Water? Space? where did those things come from? Can you prove there was one? Is there any proof? I would really like to see an answer on that, because I am very curious as to how everything on the earth originated from one single celled organism.
For my fourth point, it is possible that the Earth’s geology was made by some major catastrophe (i.e., the Flood). Just look at the eruption of Mount St. Helens. That eruption alone was able to lay down many layers of rock over the course of a few days.
My final point is this “Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and exinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide than they otherwise would’ve been, yet has done scarecly anything in breaking the destinction 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.-Charles Darwin, the origin of species sixth edition”
From the words of Darwin himself he is saying that geological science has only come so far (at his time), he expected that the “missing links” would be found later on, and said that if they couldn’t or were’nt found his evolutionary theory is basically a bust.
Originally posted by Pappy’s daughter
Secondly, God created every creature on the earth individually. There isn’t any mutation or evolution involved. And if there is show me the middle forms or “missing links”.
I know you meant it in a different way, but there is a lot of mutations happening regarding humans. Evolution is heavily factored in a human (Im more knowledgable on emotional evolvement, so I apologize if this sounds really real elementary). There are so many things “wrong” (as according to the “perfect image” of people in bibical times, say, Adam and Eve) with people today in regards to mutation. I was told once that red hair is even a sort of “mutation” (I use the term loosely), and against the norm. Hell, I even read on www.religioustolerance.com that there are 5 types of genders stemming from male and female. Isn’t that sorta, like, weird? Blasphemic? I am quick to defend any “religious bashing” but some things just can’t always be attributed to a higher source, ie, God, or gods. If God made man in his image, why would he disrupt such a natural process that is a human being and give people red hair? Why are some homosexual? And on and on and on…things that can be considered deviations. Saying that mutation or evolution hasn’t occured amongst humans is silly- i don’t know any scientific fact other than things I’ve read for personal interest on the net and stuff (which makes my arguement extremely weak), but…that statement just doesn’t sound right to me. Of course humans evolve. Of course humans adapt. I don’t believe a God would create, live, and breathe EVERY aspect of our life like that, it’s just…ridiculous. Attributing everything and shrugging every aspect off to “Well God did this, and let us know He did it without any explanation” isn’t helpful, nor is it realistic. yes, that can be said about any aspect of religion I guess, but that sort of goes against what I know of Christianity (or think I know).
EDIT: This topic actually came up in my new Canadian History class; where does history start. If it wasn’t for this thread, I wouldn’t have looked at things so differently as I have now. Our teacher did pit Creationism (Theory) against Evolution (Theory) and from what I’ve learned from certain individuals here, then, well that’s a pretty much unbalenced (and petty) arguement to have since, well, for all the reasons explained before (it’s so much, so Im not going to try to explain something which is only starting to dawn on me). And most of the girls stated that history began with Adam and Eve, and the guys stated that man evolved out of the ocean, and turned into sloths and then monkeys and eventually humans. Someone please rip apart that statement and tell me why (or where it was explained in the thread, please) this is right/wrong.
Originally posted by Pappy’s daughter
Now, Sinistral, I must say this. Creation science is not bogus. I fing it easier to believe that a higher being created the universe rather than life simply forming out of nothing.
What the hell? Whether something is “easy” to believe or not has nothing to do with whether it is “science” or not.
First off, everything in this world can not have been created out of nothing. Someone had to have created everything that is the universe.
Ah, but who created this someone? And before that? The big bang theories admits ambiguity as to what triggered the explosion of matter and energy in that single instant. There are as many logical deficiencies in the creationalism theory as the big bang theory, but the latter was thought up of by the calculation of movement of celetial bodies through space.
Secondly, God created every creature on the earth individually. There isn’t any mutation or evolution involved. And if there is show me the middle forms or “missing links”.
Again, there were biped ape-like cranium bones found in Australia found by the anthropologist Raymond Dart that dated to approximately 1-3 million years ago. I’d say that’s pretty old, and hints towards evolution of a knuckle walk to an upright walk.
Thirdly, there must be different ancestors for man and apes, and if not show me the fossil record of several individual middle forms between man and ape. And if man did evovle from ape, why aren’t apes still evolving into humans and why are there still apes around?
Uh, do you know how long evolution generally takes place? Generally over the course of millions of years. You’re asking why we’re not noticing an ape spontaneously turning into a man? Human civilization is what, 12,000 years? The current closest related genus claimed by anyone is the homo erectus, dating to some 2 million years ago.
From what I have heard, evolutionists believe that there is a “common ancestor” that all things originate from. My question is, who is this common ancestor and where did IT come from? Water? Space? where did those things come from? Can you prove there was one? Is there any proof? I would really like to see an answer on that, because I am very curious as to how everything on the earth originated from one single celled organism.
The earth would have cooled down from a boiling mass of lava into something that would still have extreme environmental conditions but still feasable for life to develop from. A single cell would have to spontaneously form (not entirely too difficult if you consider the simplicity of one) and develop (by means of natural selection, etc). Of course there is no hard proof in this, but it is what I consider the most likely explanation of our origins, considering similar behavior in the organisms that we have now. After all, can you “prove” that god exists?
For my fourth point, it is possible that the Earth’s geology was made by some major catastrophe (i.e., the Flood). Just look at the eruption of Mount St. Helens. That eruption alone was able to lay down many layers of rock over the course of a few days.
Now this is complete bogus. The eruption at St. Helens affected a very tiny small amount of area by very little, especially when compared to the entire planet. Hardly sufficient to change the entire earth. Hell, even if all the active volcanoes in the world blew at the same time it would cause no great geological difference. Why are we going back to geology again?
From the words of Darwin himself he is saying that geological science has only come so far (at his time), he expected that the “missing links” would be found later on, and said that if they couldn’t or were’nt found his evolutionary theory is basically a bust.
Uh, read the part you posted agian. That’s not what he’s saying <b>at all</b>. He’s saying that although there have been many species discovered that posess middle charactersistics that may provide “links” or areas of comparison to other existing species, two distinct species are still, in fact, distinct (i.e. cannot engage in sexual reproduction). I don’t see how this supports your point (what are you arguing anyway? you’ve been going off on tangeants left and right) in any way.
I mean, looking at the numerous faults in the evolutionary theory and the big bang theory and whatnot is nice, but don’t you think it’d be nicer if you provided some amount of support as to why you think creationalism is a science in any way (besides “I think it’s more believable” or “I like it better”)
I’ll respond to Pappy’s points tonight. Til then I’ll just say that its obvious we don’t have all intermediates and its obvious we currently don’t have all the answers. However, as stated in my large quote, "The basic finds of evoltion, however, have been supported time and time again. "
Why are we going back to geology again?
I think she’s trying to somehow refute the fact that there’s about 47895789 “middle species” of human from Ape to Modern Man by discrediting our argument that we can find that gradation by looking at the layers of earth to predict time periods vs stages of evolution. Damn, that was a mouthful.
I fing it easier to believe that a higher being created the universe rather than life simply forming out of nothing.
Yeah, completely absurd that it can just pop into existance. So let’s all agree that God just popped it into existance
I find it easier to believe what Cless said, however:
A single cell would have to spontaneously form (not entirely too difficult if you consider the simplicity of one)
Life was probably created by a very simple chemical reaction, physically.
Yea, the single cell did spontaneously appear, but due to a chemical reaction.
From what I’ve read, Pappy’s daughter hasn’t offered up one shred of evidence on anything at all, other than just her talking. Something about limestone, but she didn’t really describe it very well or explain it, so she lost me pretty quick.
First off, everything in this world can not have been created out of nothing. Someone had to have created everything that is the universe.
Scientists may actually be very close to finding out what did happen at the moment of creation. They have reproduced conditions identical to mere milliseconds after the Big Bang in particle accelerators, so there is a basis for the theory commonly accepted in the scientific community. For example, it would be almost impossible to say that God created the Earth and the universe just as it is today. There is proof that the universe originated from one point in space, as the universe is expanding (evidence of this comes from Doppler shift).
Secondly, God created every creature on the earth individually. There isn’t any mutation or evolution involved. And if there is show me the middle forms or “missing links”.
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for mutation. Certain illnesses result from a mutation in the genetic code of humans (I can’t think of any examples right now), and the amount of evolution and mutation in bacteria over the last 30 years has been staggering. Bacteria are evolving all the time to combat new antibiotics, how else can you explain the fact that penicillin is now virtually ineffective against the majority if bacterial infections. I’ve studied ESBLs, which is another form of resistance mechanism that it is thought no bacteria had 50 years ago, when antibiotics were only just coming into use. Bacteria can quickly adapt to new situations, and those with resistance mechanisms are going to survive and pass on their genotype to the next generation, which is basically natural selection or evolution.
And if man did evovle from ape, why aren’t apes still evolving into humans and why are there still apes around?
Apes are still around today because not all of them evolved into humans. If the genotype of a certain species is altered enough through natural selection (this is often due to geographical isolation, meaning that genotypes cannot be exchanged by communities), they are unable to breed with members of the original species, as their chromosomes are incompatible. Hence, there are both humans and apes around today.
I think Cless summed up the last two points very well, so I won’t add to them.
Pappy’s, those arguments are feeble at best.
Creation science is not bogus. I fing it easier to believe that a higher being created the universe rather than life simply forming out of nothing.
Just because you believe in something does not mean it is true. A lot of people believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and bogie Man. That does not bring any of these to the real world.
First off, everything in this world can not have been created out of nothing. Someone had to have created everything that is the universe.
If so, someone must have created God. We can discuss this point again when you can name God’s father, or mother, of both.
[b]
Secondly, God created every creature on the earth individually. There isn’t any mutation or evolution involved. And if there is show me the middle forms or “missing links”.
[/b]
sigh there we go… I’m choosing among my favorite animals. Homo erectus is such a ‘middle form’ between Homo habilis and Homo sapiens.
[b]
Thirdly, there must be different ancestors for man and apes, and if not show me the fossil record of several individual middle forms between man and ape.
[/b]
I named two above. Just pick any hominid that came before neanderthalensis sapiens and sapiens sapiens. They all have characteristics of both humans and apes. If you can’t see them, you are blind. here, take a look at this one and show me it does not have characteristics of neither man nor ape.
[b]
And if man did evovle from ape, why aren’t apes still evolving into humans and why are there still apes around?
[/b]
As much as I respect creationists, I have to say that this argument comes from people who have failed Biology to the most humilliating level you can put into “failed”. You simply have never studied how speciation works.
The picture that creationists draw from evolution is a wicked one, in which all the individuals of a given species magically become individuals of another species. What happened to humanity, just as happened the same way to all other animals, is this:
A small group of individuals (emphasis on small, and not “all the individuals on Earth” as creationists want it to be) was isolated from other groups and put under selective pressures that were different from the ones put to the others. With time, mutations built up to such an extent that the genetic differences between individuals from the isolated group and the other groups impede the crossing among them. That means: even if whatever barrier that isolated the speciating group is put down and individuals from this group meet individuals from the “orignal species”, they cannot succesfully cross. Either mating will fail, or the gestation will end up in an abort, or the offspring (in some cases, the offspring’s offspring) will be sterile (as happens when horses and donkeys mate).
When all these things have happened, we say that a new species has appeared.
From what I have heard, evolutionists believe that there is a “common ancestor” that all things originate from. My question is, who is this common ancestor and where did IT come from? Water? Space? where did those things come from? Can you prove there was one? Is there any proof? I would really like to see an answer on that, because I am very curious as to how everything on the earth originated from one single celled organism.
A single cell organism evolved from coacervates. The oldest, simplest ones I can name can be found in Yellowstone Park. There are others too. Coacervates started forming because Earth’s primitive atmosphere was full of atoms that were bound into organic molecules under the action of lightnings. This condition has already been reproduced in laboratories thousands of times. From the first cell came every single thing that lives nowadays (as for viruses, if they’re alive or not, we can discuss on another thread).
Now it’s my turn. Can you show me a fossil of a serpent with legs? Can you show point out the coordinates for Eden? If the first humans lived there and went out simply walking, where is it? Where is the fire sword that blocks its entrance? Can you show me Adham and Eve’s remains to prove they really existed?
[b]
For my fourth point, it is possible that the Earth’s geology was made by some major catastrophe (i.e., the Flood). Just look at the eruption of Mount St. Helens. That eruption alone was able to lay down many layers of rock over the course of a few days.
[/b]
Catastrophes can’t cheat with Carbon-14. And Carbon-14 datings date way further back than 10k years.
[b]
My final point is this “Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and exinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide than they otherwise would’ve been, yet has done scarecly anything in breaking the destinction 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.-Charles Darwin, the origin of species sixth edition”
From the words of Darwin himself he is saying that geological science has only come so far (at his time), he expected that the “missing links” would be found later on, and said that if they couldn’t or were’nt found his evolutionary theory is basically a bust.
[/b]
He didn’t recognize the missing links when he saw then.
Charles gave only the start for evolution research. He himself did not know about genes, for instance. Most of what we know has been found way after he died. We are still evolving on this field, you see.
illnesses result from a mutation in the genetic code of humans
Isn’t cancer one of those?
As do certain immunities. I think Sin already mentioned immunity to the deadly malaria.
I’ll just add the Bubonic plague to the list of mutation-induced immunities. And that mutation happened over an extremely short period of time. Hell Pappy, you’re living proof that mutation exists and is incredibly powerful.
Isn’t cancer one of those?
Yes. The mutation causes a gene within the cell to trigger the cell to reproduce continually, I think. That’s why tumours form. Correct me if I’m wrong.
The flu virus is another example. The strains often mutate, which is why you can have flu more than once.
Originally posted by Pappy’s daughter
Now, Sinistral, I must say this. Creation science is not bogus. I fing it easier to believe that a higher being created the universe rather than life simply forming out of nothing.
Sure it’s easier to believe that something created the universe, but most people find it easier to believe facts than disbelieve them.
[b]
First off, everything in this world can not have been created out of nothing. Someone had to have created everything that is the universe.[/b]
This doesn’t affect the argument for evolution either way.
[b]
Secondly, God created every creature on the earth individually. There isn’t any mutation or evolution involved. And if there is show me the middle forms or “missing links”.[/b]
Where does this information come from? The Bible certainly doesn’t specify HOW God created all life on earth, it simply says that He does.
Edit: I take that back, the Bible does explain specifically the creation of man, but since no man was around to see this, we must take the writer’s word for it. More importantly, and I don’t know how many times I’ve said this but, the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. Too many people forget that it is in vast portion symbolically written.
[b]
Thirdly, there must be different ancestors for man and apes, and if not show me the fossil record of several individual middle forms between man and ape. And if man did evovle from ape, why aren’t apes still evolving into humans and why are there still apes around?[/b]
Animals adapt to their surroundings, apes are still around because they can live as they are without having to change; evolution doesn’t mean all the animals of a species change at the exact same time and rate.
[b]
From what I have heard, evolutionists believe that there is a “common ancestor” that all things originate from. My question is, who is this common ancestor and where did IT come from? Water? Space? where did those things come from? Can you prove there was one? Is there any proof? I would really like to see an answer on that, because I am very curious as to how everything on the earth originated from one single celled organism. [/b]
“IT” came from God.
[b]
For my fourth point, it is possible that the Earth’s geology was made by some major catastrophe (i.e., the Flood). Just look at the eruption of Mount St. Helens. That eruption alone was able to lay down many layers of rock over the course of a few days.[/b]
And the eruption of Krakatoa, a much larger catastrophe, encircled the earth with a cloud of dust, lower global temperatures making conditions (slightly) less favorable for the creation of life.
[b]
My final point is this “Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and exinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide than they otherwise would’ve been, yet has done scarecly anything in breaking the destinction 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.-Charles Darwin, the origin of species sixth edition”
From the words of Darwin himself he is saying that geological science has only come so far (at his time), he expected that the “missing links” would be found later on, and said that if they couldn’t or were’nt found his evolutionary theory is basically a bust. [/b]
Evolution isn’t a geological science, it is a biological one. Also, way to twist someone else’s words. “Gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which can be raised against my views.” does not mean “evolutionary theory is basically a bust.”
My take on the origins of the universe and life: God created the laws governing the universe and caused the Big Bang. God later created the first forms of life on earth and allowed them to evolve into humans. Since God is omniscient, he knew that life would eventually develop into humans, and if He had to at certain points, He altered events subtly so that this would happen. Of course, this is idea is just my opinion and belief, so no one has to believe any of this if they don’t want.
I take that back, the Bible does explain specifically the creation of man, but since no man was around to see this, we must take the writer’s word for it.
No we must not. As I stated before, Genesis is Jewish Mythology. I forget what the literary term for it is, but it’s a story written in a religious context to give meaning to something that, at the time, was unexplainable.
And now that it is, people who lack the insight not to take everything at face value cling hopelessly to their religious lore because humanity is stubborn.
I wouldn’t say they lack the insight. Sometimes it’s hard for people to change exactly what they believe in when they have been taught it all their life. It’s hard to change the way they think when they’ve always been lead to believe what they are thinking, is correct. This can be said for anyone, in any situation.
True, some people are just outright stubburn and unaccepting because they refuse to acknowledge anything else other than their version of what happened (in this case, how the world was created, and how it went from there). It’s frustrating, when trying to explain to someone, and to meet them halfway, in a discussion, but it’s always quite sad (maybe empowering?) at the same time, that no matter what, their beliefs or theories wont faulter, and they will take whatever they think, to the grave. I admire people like that, even if they’re the most pigheaded people about it, because so many people lose faith in whatever religion they believe in these days, for whatever reason. Even if they’re “wrong”, it’s still nice to see. Though this has nothing to do with religious fanatics who directly and intentionally cause others harm because of the same reason.
Guy1: Hello. I’m an evolutionary biology teacher.
Guy2: Hello. I’m a devout Christian.
Guy1: Blahdiddy blah.
Guy2: Blahblahblahblahblahdiddyblahblahblah.
Guy1: BlahBLAHblahdiddyblahblAAAAAAAAAAah!
Guy2: Blah…BITCH!
fight ensues
Originally posted by Cybercompost
Guy1: Hello. I’m an evolutionary biology teacher.
Guy2: Hello. I’m a devout Christian.
Guy1: Blahdiddy blah.
Guy2: Blahblahblahblahblahdiddyblahblahblah.
Guy1: BlahBLAHblahdiddyblahblAAAAAAAAAAah!
Guy2: Blah…BITCH!
fight ensues
And who would you say is more likely to be correct? Science or Blind Faith?
I don’t see why it’s hard to incorporate both…:\
A devout Christian would NEVER call someone a bitch…
Heehee ok I just had to say that