Creationism vs. Evolution

[another day]

Quote by: Winter wind I think that has something to do with the extremely vocal dissent in spite of all that evidence. What they lack in evidence, they make up for in volume.

Heh, yeah how many times have you heard a ranting creationist loudly exclaim that there is "No evidence whatsoever for evolution"... Of course there is tons of evidence, but a lie repeated often enough becomes truth I suppose.

[Century 25]

The minds that trumpet "creationism" are likely the same group that denies global warming is being accelerated by human activity. It is basically the right brain/left brain impasse.. the "conservative" mind thinks one way, and the liberal is another.

The republican/conservative mind is incapable of understanding science. The so-called "conservative" mind is more one-dimensional, whereas the liberal mind is able to think in multi-dimensional pathways.

I had a thought.. try to name some famous republican/conservative scientists, and name their discoveries

Oh yeah.. here is a good idea of what I mean: Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain - Los Angeles Times

.

[another day]

Who knows the political beliefs of prominent scientists anyways? I think that's kind of garbage to say that conservative people can't or don't understand science. Ever heard of christopher hitchens?

[leegao]

Quote by: another day Heh, yeah how many times have you heard a ranting creationist loudly exclaim that there is "No evidence whatsoever for evolution"... Of course there is tons of evidence, but a lie repeated often enough becomes truth I suppose.

And they're pretty good at it too. They appeal to ignorance, and there are a bunch of those kind of people in our world.

[oades11]

I'm sick of all these Creationists coming in here trying to justify their superstitious beliefs (for many reasons, but in particular) because they think, fallaciously I might add, that Einstein was a creationist (like Spinoza). (Also, it is a fallacy that Darwin converted to Christianity on his deathbed. Whatever source you got that information from is simply propaganda.) If you Creationists had any philosophical background whatsoever, you'd know that Spinoza was a pantheist, who thought God was the Universe itself. That's just playing semantics for being an atheist. Some may call all of existence God, the Universe, A Flying Spaghetti Monster, it doesn't matter. THey're referring to the same thing, but not in any way the same as how so many of you Creationists see God- as a supernatural being, a personal god who may directly influence actions of individuals or sit in direct judgment of objects of "His" own creation. (this is paraphrased from Einstein's famous quote).

If you really want a work that really debunks every single Creationist argument there is, you need to read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. The man is a genius, and there is nothing you can dispute about his arguments. Of course it is just as impossible to deductively disprove God as it is to prove His existence; but the greatest likelihood, as any person willing to read his book will find out, is that there is no god whatsoever. It is far more likely that life had simple beginnings and did not start with an omnicient, omnipotent being that transcends time.

[gallo]

Quote by: oades11 I'm sick of all these Creationists coming in here trying to justify their superstitious beliefs (for many reasons, but in particular) because they think, fallaciously I might add, that Einstein was a creationist (like Spinoza).

Really? I haven't heard that a lot. I have seen creationists claim that Einstein (a secular Jew) was a christian, but nothing about Spinoza.

(Also, it is a fallacy that Darwin converted to Christianity on his deathbed. Whatever source you got that information from is simply propaganda.)

That is true. It is silly propaganda. It comes from Lady Hope who lived in the U.S. at the time and made those claims to a U.S. newspaper. That was in 1915. Strange, since Darwin died in 1882. I think she was just trying to make herself look important. The story was denied by Darwin's wife, daughter Henrietta (who cared for him in his last days), and son Sir Francis, F.R.S. (one of three of Darwin's sons who was knighted and also members of the royal society), Darwin's assistant and secretary for many years. None of them knew of Lady Hope.

If you Creationists had any philosophical background whatsoever, you'd know that Spinoza was a pantheist, who thought God was the Universe itself.

That's true, but I haven't seen creationists argue about Spinoza at all. Strange too, since Spinoza was also a Jew.

That's just playing semantics for being an atheist.

I don't think so. It's closer to Deism than atheism.

Some may call all of existence God, the Universe, A Flying Spaghetti Monster, it doesn't matter. THey're referring to the same thing, but not in any way the same as how so many of you Creationists see God- as a supernatural being, a personal god who may directly influence actions of individuals or sit in direct judgment of objects of "His" own creation. (this is paraphrased from Einstein's famous quote).

Actually, they're not all the same. Perhaps you should put a bit more thought into that statement.

If you really want a work that really debunks every single Creationist argument there is, you need to read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. The man is a genius, and there is nothing you can dispute about his arguments.

I'm sure they'll find something.

Of course it is just as impossible to deductively disprove God as it is to prove His existence; but the greatest likelihood, as any person willing to read his book will find out, is that there is no god whatsoever. It is far more likely that life had simple beginnings and did not start with an omnicient, omnipotent being that transcends time.

At least that seems to be Dawkin's view

[leegao]

On a sideline here, oades reminded me of something I wanted to ask.

Can Isaac Newton be considered a creationist?

[Thanatos]

Quote by: leegao On a sideline here, oades reminded me of something I wanted to ask. Can Isaac Newton be considered a creationist?

He was a Deist. God created the universe, then kind of left us alone. He also questioned a lot of the Catholic doctrine like the exact date of Jesus's death and the nature of the Trinity.

Not until several hundred after Newton did people really start to look at rock strata and erosion patterns and begin to ask hard questions, and then there was a whole long time period when old Earth creationism was trendy...Newton was a brilliant man and two steps ahead of all his contemporaries, but nobody working with his knowledge base could have deduced all the things we know now. He created the knowledge base and the very mode of thought that all the other major knowledge bases grew from.

[gallo]

Quote by: leegao Can Isaac Newton be considered a creationist?

As Thantos explained, Newton believed that the deity had created the universe and nature. At the time that Newton was appointed Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge he was exempted from the requirement that he be ordained an Anglican priest. Later, when he was offered the position of head master, that ordination requirement would not have been waived. As a result, Newton left Cambridge rather than be ordained. Newton was very quiet about his beliefs because if they had become widely known it would have been a problem. He denied the trinity and therefore the divine status of Jesus. People with such faiths have been variously known as deists, unitatians or Arians. Newton is considered to be one of the three greats of English Enlightenment along with Bacon and Locke. They were influential on the moderate deism of many of the founding fathers of the United States. The more radical American deists were more influenced by French authors.

[Jinei]

Am I the only one who thinks the title of the thread topic should be "Creationism vs Science" instead? Because Creationism doesn't just fly in the face of evolution. Doesn't it reject astronomical, paleontological, geological, chemical, physical and botanical (the bristlecone tree) evidence to the contrary? I may have missed a few, but you catch my point...

[Aussie]

Quote by: Jinei Am I the only one who thinks the title of the thread topic should be "Creationism vs Science" instead? Because Creationism doesn't just fly in the face of evolution. Doesn't it reject astronomical, paleontological, geological, chemical, physical and botanical (the bristlecone tree) evidence to the contrary? I may have missed a few, but you catch my point...

You forgot reality

[gallo]

Quote by: Jinei Am I the only one who thinks the title of the thread topic should be "Creationism vs Science" instead? Because Creationism doesn't just fly in the face of evolution. Doesn't it reject astronomical, paleontological, geological, chemical, physical and botanical (the bristlecone tree) evidence to the contrary? I may have missed a few, but you catch my point...

Quote by: Aussie You forgot reality

Good points. Generally, any phase of reality, no matter the science, that conflicts with a literal understanding of the mythology of ancient, bronze age nomads is lumped into that huge evil known as EVOLUTION. It doesn't matter how many times you tell creationists that the evolutionary biology does not even consider the origin of the universe, the origin of the solar system, the origin of the earth, or even the origin of life, they still insist that all of the above are evolution. Even the tectonic movement of geological plates is evolution to a creationist, along with varves and any gradual deposit of sediment in water.

But when you are trying to teach the very slow, the only recourse is constant repetition.

[southernbread]

hey let me ask u science guys a question about how yall claim you cant prove or disprove god's exsistance.
Alright you were born, does that mean that your parents had sex? well you didnt see it so did it really happen. all you have is the outcome. the samething about god. your here arent you where did everything come from? exactly my point proven. your so freaking smart but i wonder who gave you that right to be so smart or the capability to be that smart. you i think freakin not ight the south is out for now

[Jinei]

Technically speaking, we never really "prove" anything outside pure mathematics. There's evidence that my parents had sex: DNA evidence, medical records, consistent eye-witness testimony, etc. I have every reason to believe that they had sex (probably my age plus nine months ago).

But when it comes to God, there isn't evidence that He exists and there isn't evidence that He does not exist. Without evidence, any claim concerning God's existence is either speculative or unscientific.

exactly my point proven. your so freaking smart but i wonder who gave you that right to be so smart or the capability to be that smart. you i think freakin not ight the south is out for now

Who's doing the wondering?

[Redemption]

Quote by: gallo Good points. Generally, any phase of reality, no matter the science, that conflicts with a literal understanding of the mythology of ancient, bronze age nomads is lumped into that huge evil known as EVOLUTION. It doesn't matter how many times you tell creationists that the evolutionary biology does not even consider the origin of the universe, the origin of the solar system, the origin of the earth, or even the origin of life, they still insist that all of the above are evolution. Even the tectonic movement of geological plates is evolution to a creationist, along with varves and any gradual deposit of sediment in water.

It often confuses me that everyone is labeled, and that everyone under that label is thought to have the exact same opinion. Evolution deals with the progression of life, not any of the tectonic jibber jabber. I say that, and I'm a 'creationist'.

More importantly...

Yet again i'm going to pull out the hat some random evidence which I think supports creationism/unsupports evolution. Most of you are stubborn in your beliefs, and your minds will be unchanged. Some of you will mock this, and might dismiss this as unscientific. But in the end creationists (some of us at least) aren't ignorant or unintelligent people. (Btw some of this is copy+pasted. It's convenient, and im not an uberscientist)

The Get Answers site has a lot on there. I will try to break this down to the more vital points in the argument

Fossil Clock
Because of the intense evolutionary indoctrination we’ve all received, most people assume that it takes millions of years for sediment—like sand or mud—to harden into rock. But given the right ingredients, this can actually happen quickly. Mixing cement is an obvious example, by the way.
fossil clock in rock fossil clock in rock

Take a look at the picture of the mechanism of a clock encased in solid rock, along with sea shells. Of course, no one believes this clock was made millions of years ago. The clock was found in 1975 near a jetty at Westport, Washington. We know that there have been many shipwrecks in this area.

Obviously, the right mix of sand and other substances hardened around this clock, making it look like a clock in hard rock!

There’s really nothing spectacular about this at all—these sorts of things happen all the time in different parts of the world. But the average person doesn’t usually hear about them, and thus they go on thinking that rocks and fossils must take millions of years to form.

The Dinosaurs and the Iridium Layer
A global flood occurred about 1,656 years later, wiping out all land animals that breathe though nostrils (that weren’t on the Ark). Thus billions of animals were buried quickly and formed fossils. This is when most dinosaur fossils formed.

Problems with the ‘great impact’ theory
The extinction was not that sudden (using evolutionary/long age interpretations of the geological record). But the spread in the geological record makes sense if much of the sedimentary deposits were formed in Noah’s Flood.
Light-sensitive species survived.
Extinctions don’t correlate with crater dates.
Modern volcanic eruptions don’t cause global extinction patterns, even if they cause a temporary temperature drop.
The iridium enrichment, supposedly a key proof of meteor impact, is not nearly as clearly defined as claimed.

Iridium enrichment can be caused by massive volcanism, as many evolutionists agree. This would certainly have been a feature of the Flood year, associated with the breaking up of the ‘fountains of the great deep’ - Gen 7:11 (volcanoes and/or a subterranean water. Volcanoes emit huge amounts of steam and hot water.)

There are several things that influenced the death of the dinosaurs; Due to (1) competition for food that was no longer in abundance, (2) other catastrophes, (3) man killing for food (and perhaps for fun), and (4) the destruction of habitats, etc., many species of animals eventually died out. The group of animals we now call dinosaurs just happened to die out too.

Some people think that dinosaurs were too big, or there were too many of them, to go on this Ark. However, there were not very many different kinds of dinosaurs. There are certainly hundreds of dinosaur names, but many of these were given to just a bit of bone or skeletons of the same dinosaur found in other countries. It is also reasonable to assume that different sizes, varieties, and sexes of the same kind of dinosaur have ended up with different names. In reality, there may have been fewer than 50 kinds of dinosaurs.

Carbon Dating
The earth has a magnetic field around it which helps protect us from harmful radiation from outer space. This magnetic field is decaying. The stronger the field is around the earth, the fewer the number of cosmic rays that are able to reach the atmosphere. This would result in a smaller production of 14C in the atmosphere in earth’s past.

What role might the Genesis Flood have played in the amount of carbon? The Flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms (plant and animal) to form today’s fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today. This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today. This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.

In the end, Carbon Dating is inaccurate!

Apparent ‘Missing Links
These are ones that everyone agrees are not pre-human intermediates between apes and humans.
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man)—150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an ‘ape-man’. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

Ramapithecus—once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realised that it is merely an extinct type of orang-utan.

Eoanthropus (Piltdown man)—a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orang-utan’s jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.
Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man)—based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.

Pithecanthropus (Java man)—now renamed to Homo erectus. See below.
Australopithecus africanus—this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.

Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus (see below).
These are the ones that adorn the evolutionary trees of today that supposedly led to Homo sapiens from a chimpanzee-like creature.

Australopithecus—there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil ‘Lucy‘. However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that ‘Lucy’ and her like are not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.

Homo habilis—there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types—such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an ‘invalid taxon’. That is, it never existed as such.

Homo erectus—many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.


I think that is it. You can commit the patronizing comments
(I'm posting these piece by piece)

[Jack]

Quote by: southernbread hey let me ask u science guys a question about how yall claim you cant prove or disprove god's exsistance.

Why can't theologians prove their contentions? Science examines evidence. There's no evidence of gods. What are they supposed to examine? Theologians on the other hand make a living at suggesting gods. Why can't they provide evidence?

Alright you were born, does that mean that your parents had sex? well you didnt see it so did it really happen. all you have is the outcome.

And by tracing the outcome back to a probable cause we arrive at the most common cause, sexual intercourse. Other means of insemination are possible, too.

the samething about god.

Hardly.

your here arent you where did everything come from? exactly my point proven.

And your point was...? You don't understand something so you plug in god-did-it as a replacement for wonder and discovery. "God-did-it" doesn't help us understand anything. It stifles further inquiry.

your so freaking smart but i wonder who gave you that right to be so smart or the capability to be that smart. you i think freakin not ight the south is out for now

The right to be smart? Genetics made my mind able to absorb what it has. Education has provided the content, along with life experiences.

[Jinei]

A few things I want to address:

Quote by: Redemption The Dinosaurs and the Iridium Layer

That still doesn't explain why no dinosaur fossil is found above the Iridium Layer.
Extinctions DO correlate with crater dates.
There are more than 50 species of dinosaur (although I'm not sure about "kind" as you would first have to define what that means).

Quote by: Redemption Apparent Missing Links

A few differences in homo erectus:

Homo erectus would bear a striking resemblance to modern humans, but had a brain size that expanded with time (850 in the earliest to 1100 cm³ in the latest Javan examples)[7] the latter which overlaps with modern humans. These early hominines were tall, on average standing about 1.79 m (5.87 ft), and much stronger than modern humans.[8] The sexual dimorphism between males and females was slightly greater than seen in modern Homo sapiens with males being about 20-30% larger than females.

Again, not evidence for Creationism.

[Redemption]

Quote by: Jinei That still doesn't explain why no dinosaur fossil is found above the Iridium Layer.

Dinosaurs are large reptiles. Correct? This would make them...reptiles. Noah could have taken the smaller reptiles onto the Ark. As I mentioned before if the dinosaurs did go onto the Ark, only a small number would have gone on. In my other post I mentioned reasons that the dinosaurs would have died out. Fewer varients of dinosaurs existed and several environmental factors would have caused them not to survive.

Quote by: Jinei Extinctions DO correlate with crater dates.

Not completely. Some species apparenty started to go extinct before the crater impacts, even if a lot of them did correlate with the supposed date.

Quote by: Jinei There are more than 50 species of dinosaur (although I'm not sure about "kind" as you would first have to define what that means).

Dog-kind, cat-kind, horse-kind. They are all kinds. If a poodle is considered a species, and a bulldog another species, they still belong dog-kind. If they are sub-species so to speak, they still belong to dog-kind. So it may or may not mean species, depending on what you would consider a species.

Quote by: Jinei Again, not evidence for Creationism.

How can you tell how strong a long dead creature is by some fossils? How can you tell the gender? You might come up with good answers, but I want to know.

[gallo]

Quote by: Redemption It often confuses me that everyone is labeled, and that everyone under that label is thought to have the exact same opinion. Evolution deals with the progression of life, not any of the tectonic jibber jabber. I say that, and I'm a 'creationist'.

And yet, below, you refer us to a site that argues against all of the things I mentioned as if they were part of the theories of evolution. Make up your mind. Either cosmology, geology, physics is or it is not part of evolutionary theory. Argue one way or the other. But to say that you don't think nuclear physics is evolutionary theory and then to present arguments against nuclear physics and claim that they disprove evolution is a bit odd.

More importantly... Yet again i'm going to pull out the hat some random evidence which I think supports creationism/unsupports evolution.

But most of it isn't evolution. So even though you claim to know about evolution, you offer extraneous bits of bad science as if it were meaningful. But those bits are good enough to convince you, aren't they?

Most of you are stubborn in your beliefs, and your minds will be unchanged.

And of course, you look at all this with an open mind after spending years studying biology at the university level. You will, of course, change your opinion if offered evidence that your faith in mythology is wrong.

Some of you will mock this, and might dismiss this as unscientific.

Right. So you realize that it is unscientific. So you realize that AIG is lying to you. They try to dupe the uneducated.

But in the end creationists (some of us at least) aren't ignorant or unintelligent people.

Perhaps they are not unintelligent and I have never claimed that all creationist were. But I have sure met a lot that seemed extremely unintelligent. On the other hand, I have never met a creationist who wasn't ignorant of science in general and evolutionary biology in particular.

(Btw some of this is copy+pasted. It's convenient, and im not an uberscientist)

Why not just post the link and be done with it. We have all seen this nonsense before and it has all been answered before. It doesn't reflect well on you that you would fall for AIG. Wouldn't it be better to actually learn about science rather than reading Bible quotes as evidence?

While the first two points that have nothing to do with evolutionary theory are quite funny, lets just take the carbon dating item to show how you have allowed the good folks at AIG to dupe you.

Carbon Dating The earth has a magnetic field around it which helps protect us from harmful radiation from outer space. This magnetic field is decaying. The stronger the field is around the earth, the fewer the number of cosmic rays that are able to reach the atmosphere. This would result in a smaller production of 14C in the atmosphere in earth’s past.

And I suppose you think that scientists believe that the levels of C-14 have never changed? Scientists are perfectly aware that it is not constant. Accounting for the variations over time is called calibration

What role might the Genesis Flood have played in the amount of carbon?

Duped again. What evidence is there that any such flood ever happened? Spend just a little time learning about reality and you will see that it didn't. Where did the water come from and where did it go? Please don't give us some silly babble about mountains not being as high back then, especially after telling us that plate tectonics is jibber jabber.

The Flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms (plant and animal) to form today’s fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.).

It would have. But explain how the flood buried more organic matter than could have possibly been in living organisms at the time of the flood. Where did all of this extra carbon from living organisms come from?

The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today.

But it could not have all been living. Too much of it.

This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today.

Doesn't it seem a bit bizarre to you to just pull answers like this out of thin air? The answer for creationists is to assume mythology and then babble about reality as if it made sense.
[quote]

This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.

Why would the ratio be different? Why doesn't radiocarbon dating find dates ranging from the present to 4500 years ago, and then a huge layer of things that date to 4500 years old without any older dates? That isn't what we find. Radio carbon dates from old things range from the present clear back to the limits of C-14 dating.

In the end, Carbon Dating is inaccurate!

Do you understand how carbon dating works? Why don't you explain it to all of us and then explain how the AIG explanation can be correct.

Please explain the varves in several lakes around the world that go back undisturbed for more than 45,000 years. Why do the deeper varves date to ages older than the more shallow without exception. Please explain why such lakes have been used to calibrate C-14 dating for variations of the C-14 to C-12 ratio through time. Please explain why these varves do not indicate that there was any flood about 4500 years ago.

And what about other radiometric dating methods. Please explain all of these to us, how they work, and the limits on their accuracy.

K-40/Ar-40
Rb-87/Sr-87
Sm-147/Nd-143
Lu-176/Hf-176
Re-187/Os-187
Th-232/Pb-208
U-235/Pb-207
U-238/Pb-206

More importantly, please explain why all of these methods agree in cases where the dating ranges overlap. Also, please explain how isochron dating works and which of the above are suitable for such use.