Creationism vs. Evolution

[Mr. Big]

There is no way that I'm reading through all those pages, but with regards to the first post, I think you may be missing the issue:

"My position, as an acolyte of the science of biology, is that the best explanation for the origin of species lies within the vast pools of evidence that have been accumulated over hundreds of years in support of evolution. On the other hand, Biblical Creationism is but a fiction conceived in the minds of the disillusioned. Proponents of Creationism carefully beguile their victims with equivocal language, pseudoscientific sophism, and occassionally outright lies, in order to "prove" a "theory" which makes no testable predictions and lacks any sufficent mechanism by which it operates."

By origin, you could mean three things: 1. the place life started, 2. the time life started (either date or sequence), 3. the "how" life started (i.e. what caused life? what gave birth to life?)

1. I don't have a clue where life started...

2. I don't have a clue when life started... though I bet scientists have their predictions...

3. If we ignore your insults of the religious, the rest of your post does not get at the heart of how life started, if this was indeed the stance you meant to take. Evolution just explores a process by which life is thought to have developed. If life form X came from conditions Y, and conditions Y came from conditions Z, you have to acknowledge the fact that X came from conditions Z.... and of course whatever caused conditions Z. Picking Y as a starting point, or the point that caused life, is completely arbitrary... Evolutionary science does not speak to this infinite regress.

Of course it is correct to say that X came from Y, but by that logic it is also correct that all human life came from their parents and nothing more (that is to say that I came from my mom and dad, and anything before them is irrelevant to where I came from). it all depends on what arbitrary point you want to pick.

Don't get me wrong; religion finds its self in the same problem... picking the point at which god started the universe (or life) starts us off at an arbitrary spot, and the conditions which caused god, who supposedly caused life, need to be sourced... because excepting that god created life would mean that, those conditions which created god would also have been responsible for creating life.

The obvious argument here is that 'nothing created God, he was always just there'. But then there is no rational argument for why life could not have always 'been there'. In a sense, the religious swap the issue of where life came from with the issue of where god came from, and seem fine with an answer for where god came from that could just as easily have worked for where life came from.

[nerdvincent]

My opinion cites that biblical creationism is utterly false if we take it as a fact. You may play at finding some allegorical story reflecting the philosophy mixed with the scientific knowlegde of the 2000-3000 before JC era, but not the plain truth.
This said, should we trust the whole evolution process? Like every theory, it remain possible to improve it, or even change the concept for something else which suit with all the archeological fact we've found. But since biblical creationism isn't in love with isotopic dating, it will never be fitting the hole again. We're's God in all this? Well we must observe that if there is a God, evolution is the way He did things.

[nerdvincent]

Who don't agree?

[Mr. Big]

Hi nerdvincent,

Was that directed towards me? If so, I am not sure why you think I am a biblical creationist. You may want to reread it.

As for "biblical creationism is utterly false if we take it as a fact," if we took it as fact it would be true, wouldn't it? By definition, isn't a fact something that is true? I am not sure if there can exist a fact that is not a fact.

[nerdvincent]

Thank you for answering so fast Mr Big.
But as a matter of fact, no it was not especially directed toward you, and I aint considering you as a blind ''fundi''. You try to do a logical raisoning and you seem to be somewhat open-minded, so don't worry. And I meant by facts reality, so Genesis is true, as well as any Stephen King stories are true. But not real. See my point? :p
Kindly your, nerdvincent.

[nokton]

Dont think anyone kissed the cup
here. Evolution and ' God ' not in
the same sentence. When will it
end.....' God ' is a concept, not a
reality. Evolution is. And with that
in mind, consider this. A genetic
program based on DNA, to self
generate and become more complex
In other words, a random sequence
that explores all possibilities. Those
who understand, will.
Nokton

[Porfyra]

It’s obvious here what side I stand on. So to start with I have a kinda long list of scientific evidence that contradicts evolution. Here we go:

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape. Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this “the winding-up dilemma,” which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same “winding-up” dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called “density waves.”1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the “Whirlpool” galaxy, M51.

2. Too few supernova remnants.
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years. Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical “Oort cloud” well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed. So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the “Kuiper Belt,” a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters. The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
Every year, rivers and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year. As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates. This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
The total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field (“dipole” and “non-dipole”) is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 years. Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then. This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes. The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.

7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.

8. Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years. DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils. Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.

9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay. “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale. “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.

10. Too much helium in minerals.
Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape. Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years. This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.

dang it my list is too long to post all of it.... i will post more later.

^^but anyways, there you go…………………………..

[gallo]

Quote by: Porfyra It’s obvious here what side I stand on. So to start with I have a kinda long list of scientific evidence that contradicts evolution. Here we go:

The problem is that it isn't your list. You stole this list, probably from AIG, although it could have been from any number of sources, including the ICR or even Mr. Kent Hovind. Do you know what it is called when you steal material from others and represent it as your own? A christian would give other people credit for the work that they have done, so I can only conclude that you are not a christian.

By the way, if you had made an effort to educate yourself, you would have learned that your list of arguments is bogus. They count on the ignorance of the audience.

[Thanatos]

Is this list a joke? Come on, did you just say the inner parts of the galaxy are rotating to fast? Do the words dark matter, galactic rotation curve and scientific conundrum of the century ring a bell? Hello? And did I really just read that the Earth's field has a half life? Dynamos and pole inversions and big rotating chunks of iron not forming any new connections?

I thought about double-checking the depth and density of ocean sediments and how much goes in each year, but then I remembered the word word sandstone and realized I'd also need to calculate the total mass of sedimentary rock on Earth and how much goes under each year and that it really wouldn't be worth it...seriously, this is disturbing to read because I know there must be people somewhere who really have no critical thinking skills or worse still choose subconsciously not to use them.

[Porfyra]

lol evolutionists are RUDE

gallo all my credits were at the end of the list, which if you read the end of my post, you would know that i could not post it all. it was a simple mistake- i forgot to make sure that they were on what part of the list that i had. and making a mistake doesn't make someone un-christian. just in case you hadn't heard, my God is a FORGIVING God. and also:

By the way, if you had made an effort to educate yourself, you would have learned that your list of arguments is bogus. They count on the ignorance of the audience.

hah thats funny because i think that what you believe is bogus.... humor me- how is that information bogus? you have any evidence to contradict it?



Thanatos- besides questioning everything i said, i didnt actually see any evidence to contradict the list. come on ppl! contradict me! give me something to debate with besides insults!


... and now the end of the list WITH CREDITS to make you all happy:

11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon. These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began, during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies. If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

13. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago. Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.

14. History is too short.
According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.

credits:Evidence for a Young World
by Dr. Russell Humphreys

[Thanatos]

Do your own research. Dark matter. Sandstone. Half lives. I shouldn't think for you; I want you to do it. We're rude because the thought of having our brains turned off represents a sort of living death.

[Porfyra]

have you ever actually stopped to think how crazy evolution is? and the point of a debate is to debate not to be bossed around and told what to reasearch. i still dont think you can argue with what ive posted because you HAVENT YET

oh and one last thing, even though i am annoyed with you, Jesus is telling me right now to tell you that he loves you even if you ignore him :)

[Jack]

Galaxies wind themselves up too fast (maximum age: a few hundred million years). Humphreys shows off a computer simulation in which a very simple "galaxy," a line of stars about a center point, develops a spiral shape. This spiral then winds up and disappears in just a few hundred million years. In this way, Humphreys claims to "prove" that galaxies can not be billions of years old. In his super-simple simulation, however, the stars are attracted to a "galactic center" - but not to each other! As a result, more distant stars move more slowly about the "galactic center," just as planets do around our Sun. But Humphreys fails to mention that the situation in real galaxies is far more complex than this: for one, real stars attract each other with large gravitational fields. Only the outermost stars of real galaxies have the "Keplerian" orbits he assumes, while the inner stars of a galaxy can move very differently, often almost as a rigid disk. Humphreys dismisses one of the modern theories of spiral formation, "density wave theory," as too complex, but it's really his ideas that are far too simple. Humphreys' strawman galaxy does not prove that galaxies are young. Comets disintegrate too quickly (maximum age: 100,000 years). Humphreys notes that comets lose some mass with every trip around the sun, claims that there is no source of new comets in the solar system, and then concludes that comet lifetimes (10 to 100 thousand years) provide an upper limit to the age of the solar system. But Humphreys' comet theory fell apart recently because a source for new comets, the Kuiper Belt (predicted by astronomer Gerard Kuiper in 1951), has been actually photographed and confirmed by several teams of astronomers. Humphreys responds to these discoveries by saying that the supposed "Kuyper Belt" [sic] doesn't help scientists because it must be supplied by the unproven Oort Cloud; and that even if what he calls the "Kuyper Belt" existed, it would exhaust itself of comets in a short time (say, a million years). But he has his astronomy backwards - the Kuiper Belt contains the remains of the "volatile" (icy) planetesimals that were left over from the formation of the solar system - numbering in the hundreds of millions. If anything, it is the Kuiper Belt that supplies the more remote Oort Cloud, as some icy chunks are occasionally flung far away by interactions with large planets. There is a source for new comets, and the fact that we still see comets does not prove the solar system is young. Not enough mud on the sea floor (maximum age: 12 million years). Humphreys mentions reports that 25 billion tons of sediment erode from the continents each year, and that plate tectonic subduction removes only 1 billion tons of sediment from the ocean floor per year. He then claims that it would only take 12 million years at most for the excess 24 billion tons per year to produce the current amount of sediment - at an average depth of about 400 meters. But once again, Humphreys' model is far too simple. The depth of sediments on the ocean bottoms is not a uniform 400 meters, but varies considerably. And much sediment never gets to the oceanic floor, but is trapped instead on continental slopes and shelves, or in huge river deltas. Over the years, some of these continental slopes can accumulate several kilometers of sediment, while others can even become part of mountain ranges in continental plate-to-plate collisions. Neither erosion nor subduction are expected to be constant processes over millions of years, and they are simply not very good clocks. Humphreys' strawman ocean floor does not prove the Earth is young. Not enough sodium in the sea (maximum age: 62 million years). This is another example of processes which vary greatly being used as "constant-rate" processes for dating the Earth. Humphreys finds estimates of oceanic salt accumulation and deposition that provide him the data to "set" an upper limit of 62 million years. But modern geologists do not use erratic processes like these for clocks. It's like someone noticing that (A) it's snowing at an inch per hour, (B) the snow outside is 4 feet deep, and then concluding that (C) the Earth is just 48 hours, or two days, in age. Snowfall is erratic; some snow can melt; and so on. The Earth is older than 2 days, so there must be a flaw with the "snow" dating method, just as there is with the "salt" method. (Several other creationist "proofs" of a young Earth involve similar extrapolations.) Not enough stone age skeletons (Upper limit for duration of Stone Age: 500 years). Humphreys assumes that the Stone Age had a constant population of about 1 million, with 25 years average between generations. Thus, if the Stone Age lasted for 100,000 years (like those "evolutionists" think), then there should be 4,000 generations, times one million people per generation, for a total of 4 billion buried bodies to be found. Humphreys notes that only a few thousand have been found, and concludes that the actual duration of the Stone Age is only 500 years. He provides no justification for his model of grave discovery rates as a "clock." Perhaps, in a thousand centuries, some of those burial sites might just have been eroded away, or covered with tons of soil or debris. Predators or vandals might have disturbed some of the graves, and subsequent generations of cavemen may have even re-used some of the same traditional burial sites. In any event, it is clear that the number of discovered Stone Age graves does not provide a very accurate "clock" for finding the age of the Earth. Finally, Dr. Humphreys rejects scientifically-accepted methods for determination of the Earth's age, such as radioactive dating. He often shows a slide indicating that carbon-14 (C-14) radioactive dating methods are inaccurate because "the ratio of radioactive (C-14) to normal (C-12) carbon was at least 16 times smaller before the flood [of Noah]," and therefore that "Evolutionists overestimate C-14 ages." Humphreys' statement on carbon ratios is based on a short piece in the journal Nature (C. J. Yapp and H. Poths, Vol 355, p. 342, 23 Jan. 1992), which refers to a 16-fold increase in atmospheric carbon in rocks from the Ordovician Period. These rocks are actually about 440 million years old. Now, the relatively rapid decay of carbon-14 prevents its use as a clock on anything older than about 50,000 years. Using C-14 to find the age of a rock which is millions of years old is a lot like trying to look at Mars with a microscope instead of a telescope; it's simply not the right tool for the job. Humphreys has presented this "analysis" of radiocarbon dating for years, even though he cannot point to even one age estimate which has been incorrect because of the "pre-flood" carbon dioxide levels. Humphreys creates a slick, scientific-sounding argument for a "young" Earth, but in the process seriously misrepresents modern consensus. All serious dating methods (radiometric age dating, dendrochronology, ice core analysis, varve deposition, and more) yield ages far older than Humphreys' methods. D. Russell Humphreys breaks all the rules of science. He uses flawed logic, overly simple models, and twisted data to sell his young Earth.

"Creation Physicist" D. Russell Humphreys, and his Questionable "Evidence for a Young World" :: CESE :: Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education

have you ever actually stopped to think how crazy evolution is?

Have you ever actually stopped to think how crazy the notion of a god is?

[Porfyra]

Have you ever actually stopped to think how crazy the notion of a god is?

people have believed in God for over two thousand years.
people have believed in evolution for less than half that time.
hm lets see which makes more sense?

now i am going to use an example from a MIDDLE SCHOOL textbook. this is from Dr. Jay Wile’s Exploring Creation with General Science:

“When the molecules within the rods and cones [in your eyes] are struck by light, they set off a complex chain of chemical reactions in the cell. These chemicals eventually form an electrical signal, which travels down a nerve fiber and eventually into the optic nerve. As the signal travels toward the brain, it is partially analyzed by ganglia that exist on the way. Eventually, these “preprocessed” signals reach the cerebrum where the information is analyzed in many different parts of the brain. The brain then puts all of this information together and produces an image for you. Ok, now here’s the really amazing part: all of this happens in less than one thousandth of a second!”

Do you seriously believe that all of that was created by accident????

[Jack]

I have no problem at all accepting that nature is able to produce complex and (to us) amazing things. A study of science, particularly biology and evolution, helps in grasping what to the uninformed appears to be magic (created by a mythical god).

People have believed in unicorns and thunder gods longer than they've believed in the Christian god. Are they right, too? The length of time misinformation is accepted as fact does not lend credibility to the misinformation. The length of time that we've understood and studied evolution only speaks to our previous ignorance of natural processes. Evolution was going on even though we had no name for the process and weren't aware of it.

The eye is a famous example of a supposedly irreducibly complex structure, due to its many elaborate and interlocking parts, seemingly all dependent upon one another. It is frequently cited by intelligent design and creationism advocates as an example of irreducible complexity. Behe used the "development of the eye problem" as evidence for intelligent design in Darwin's Black Box. Although Behe acknowledged that the evolution of the larger anatomical features of the eye have been well-explained, he claimed that the complexity of the minute biochemical reactions required at a molecular level for light sensitivity still defies explanation. Creationist Jonathan Sarfati has described the eye as evolutionary biologists' "greatest challenge as an example of superb 'irreducible complexity' in God's creation", specifically pointing to the supposed "vast complexity" required for transparency.[41] In an oft-quoted passage from The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin himself acknowledged the eye's development as a difficulty for his theory, noting that "to suppose that the eye... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree". However, he went on to note that, if gradual evolution of the eye could be shown to be possible, "the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real", and proceeded to roughly map a possible course for evolution through examples from gradually more complex eyes of various species. Since Darwin's day, the eye's ancestry has become much better understood. Although learning about the construction of ancient eyes through fossil evidence is problematic due to the soft tissues leaving no imprint or remains, genetic and comparative anatomical evidence has increasingly supported the idea of a common ancestry for all eyes.[43][44][45] As Behe admits, current evidence does suggest possible evolutionary lineages for the origins of the anatomical features of the eye, for example, that eyes originated as simple patches of photoreceptor cells that could detect the presence or absence of light, but not its direction. By developing a small depression for the photosensitive cells, the organisms obtained a better sense of the light's source, and by continuing to deepen the depression into a pit so that light would strike certain cells depending on its angle, increasingly precise visible information was possible. The aperture of the eye was then shrunk in order to focus the light, turning the eye into a pinhole camera and allowing the organism to dimly make out shapes—the nautilus is a modern example of an animal with such an eye. Finally, the protective layer of transparent cells over the aperture was differentiated into a crude lens, and the interior of the eye was filled with humours to assist in focusing images.[46][47][48] In this way, eyes are recognized by modern biologists as actually a relatively unambiguous and simple structure to evolve, and many of the major developments of the eye's evolution are believed to have taken place over only a few million years, during the Cambrian explosion.[49] However, according to Behe, the complexity of light sensitivity at the molecular level and the minute biochemical reactions required for those first "simple patches of photoreceptor[s]" still defies explanation.

Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just because a concept is hard to understand does not mean it can't be understood. Just because nature is complex does not mean we quit trying to understand its processes and say, "God did it".

[gallo]

Quote by: Porfyra Do you seriously believe that all of that was created by accident????

Only creationists ever make such foolish statements. Of course it wasn't all by accident.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Porfyra people have believed in God for over two thousand years. people have believed in evolution for less than half that time. hm lets see which makes more sense? now i am going to use an example from a MIDDLE SCHOOL textbook. this is from Dr. Jay Wile’s Exploring Creation with General Science: “When the molecules within the rods and cones [in your eyes] are struck by light, they set off a complex chain of chemical reactions in the cell. These chemicals eventually form an electrical signal, which travels down a nerve fiber and eventually into the optic nerve. As the signal travels toward the brain, it is partially analyzed by ganglia that exist on the way. Eventually, these “preprocessed” signals reach the cerebrum where the information is analyzed in many different parts of the brain. The brain then puts all of this information together and produces an image for you. Ok, now here’s the really amazing part: all of this happens in less than one thousandth of a second!” Do you seriously believe that all of that was created by accident????

People thought the Earth was flat for most of history too, and that diseases were caused by evil spirits or humoral imbalance...that's not a valid argument.

About the eye...

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye

I'd kind of like to convince somebody in addition to debating them. I can't do that by feeding people vast quantities of information; invariably there will be some argument I didn't cover and you will have to figure it out on your own. I'd hazard a guess that you don't think the Earth is flat because people thought so for a very long time, so theoretically you'll take away both the example and the idea of testing reasoning by applying it to other similar ideas with a known truth value.

[nerdvincent]

Here is another contradiction with the evolution theory: the Homo Fundi is supposed to be extinct since a century or so, but we still find specimens nowaday! It's God will that keep them alive, for sure...
No harm, I'm joking:)
But I'm sorry to tell you most of your "scientific'' claims are false, and the others are misinterpreted.
The isotopic dating, the mud in the ocean [...] and the inter-species fossils we've found are all matching with our naughty evolutionist predictions. Do you really think that's all by accident, as you said?

[gallo]

Quote by: Porfyra lol evolutionists are RUDE

But not as rude as creationists.

gallo all my credits were at the end of the list, which if you read the end of my post, you would know that i could not post it all.

But you stated that is was your list and you didn't post the reference. It doesn't matter that you had more, why didn't you just post a link. I know why. You wanted to claim it as your work and only when I objected did you add the reference. After all, you are a creationist christian and that is expected of you. We have seen it so many times before. Here's the thing. If you weren't trying to claim credit, then why not just post the link to that trite nonsense instead of claiming it as "your list"? The simple answer is that your are a christian.

it was a simple mistake- i forgot to make sure that they were on what part of the list that i had. and making a mistake doesn't make someone un-christian. just in case you hadn't heard, my God is a FORGIVING God. and also:

Except it wasn't a mistake. You wouldn't have posted the reference if I hadn't mentioned it. That's how you christians operate. And, just in case you haven't heard, the christian god forgives only if you confess your sin, which you haven't done. However, it is clear that it was never you intent to honorably admit your theft because you bring up forgiveness in the first place. That would only be relevant if I were correct. So, your god will forgive you only when you confess your sin to those you have wronged - those you have wronged by lying are the members of this board. Otherwise, you will be punished by your god for your sin of lying.

hah thats funny because i think that what you believe is bogus.... humor me- how is that information bogus? you have any evidence to contradict it?

Certainly. Lots. But on the other hand I don't tend to learn my science from young earth creationist fundamentalist preachers. I actually learned my science from scientists (Mr. Hovind has no accredited degrees).

Thanatos- besides questioning everything i said, i didnt actually see any evidence to contradict the list. come on ppl! contradict me! give me something to debate with besides insults!

But you didn't present any evidence. Why should we? In fact, Thanatos told you why your first point (that you plagerized from Humphreys) is wrong. If you were motivated by a desire to learn the truth, you would check out these claims before you post them. Your point #1 is wrong. The question that needs explaining is not why galaxies have not wound down because inner stars orbit faster than outer stars. The question is why outer stars are orbiting at speeds far greater than might be assumed when considering only the visible matter. The problem is that your assumption is not based on actual observation. In fact, observations of near galaxies (Andromeda and M51 among them) that the outer regions do not rotate at speeds that might be expected based only on the visible stars. It seems that there is some sort of gravitational force that extends far out from the center of those galaxies (and thus, probably our own)