Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[OnlyAmbrose]

...evolution has numerous facts where as creation has fewer facts...

...that's as simply as i can state it.
i'll come back later when i have more time and post my backing facts...

Are they really facts or assumptions that can never truly be tested because the initial condition required for proper scientific study can never be known?

Well, ponder this. Carbon dating. It's basically analyzing the half-life of carbon atoms, which break down over time. (My chemistry is very rusty, so I'm sure I said that wrong). Anyways, point is carbon dating indicates through very sound mathematics and chemistry that prehistoric fossils are often over 60 million years old.

Carbon dating is only good to 60,000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

60,000 > 10,000

[The Weird One]

I believe in God (from the Bible). I believe the earth is a young earth 6,000- 10,000 years old

if the earth is only this old, how is the following [bolded] possible?

Diamonds: Diamonds have Carbon – 14. If diamonds are millions of years old, how do they have carbon 14.
There is even measurable carbon 14 in diamonds! Dr. Baumgardner [Wieland 03] sent a diamond for C-14 dating. It was the first time this had been attempted, and the answer came back positive—i.e. the diamond, formed deep inside the earth in a ‘Precambrian’ layer, nevertheless contained radioactive carbon, even though it ‘shouldn’t have’. This is exceptionally striking evidence, because a diamond has remarkably powerful lattice bonds, so there is no way that subsequent biological contamination can be expected to find its way into the interior. The diamond’s carbon-dated ‘age’ of less than 58,000 years is thus an upper limit for the age of geological column from the Cambrian period onwards. And this age is brought down still further now that the helium diffusion results have so strongly affirmed dramatic past acceleration of radioactive decay.

[WidowMakers]

...evolution has numerous facts where as creation has fewer facts...

...that's as simply as i can state it.
i'll come back later when i have more time and post my backing facts...

Are they really facts or assumptions that can never truly be tested because the initial condition required for proper scientific study can never be known?

Well, ponder this. Carbon dating. It's basically analyzing the half-life of carbon atoms, which break down over time. (My chemistry is very rusty, so I'm sure I said that wrong). Anyways, point is carbon dating indicates through very sound mathematics and chemistry that prehistoric fossils are often over 60 million years old.

Carbon dating is only good to 60,000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

60,000 > 10,000

I agree but we still do not know the initial conditions of the material. But 60,000 is much closer to 10,000 and to 3 billion. The amount of error or adjustment from the actual initial conditions of the diamonds, coal, or oil (which are measure anywhere from 4,000 - 50,00 years with c14) would need to be so huge to allow for millions of years.

I believe in the Bible. Based on the Bible the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old (chronology from Adam to Jesus).

I AM NOT SAYING I CAN PROVE CREATION! I AM SAYING "LOOK AT THE DATA, THE ASSUMPTIONS, THE METHODS. WHICH ONES MAKE THE MOST SENSE ARE ARE MOST OFTEN CONSISTENT AND ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT WE FIND IN NATURE.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I AM NOT SAYING I CAN PROVE CREATION! I AM SAYING "LOOK AT THE DATA, THE ASSUMPTIONS, THE METHODS. WHICH ONES MAKE THE MOST SENSE ARE ARE MOST OFTEN CONSISTENT AND ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT WE FIND IN NATURE.

I have certainly asked that question before, and the answer has always been "both".

God created the world. Who are we to tell him HOW to do it?

And more to the point, why on earth does it really matter?

[WidowMakers]

I AM NOT SAYING I CAN PROVE CREATION! I AM SAYING "LOOK AT THE DATA, THE ASSUMPTIONS, THE METHODS. WHICH ONES MAKE THE MOST SENSE ARE ARE MOST OFTEN CONSISTENT AND ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT WE FIND IN NATURE.

I have certainly asked that question before, and the answer has always been "both".

God created the world. Who are we to tell him HOW to do it?

And more to the point, why on earth does it really matter?

1)Both evolution and creation (Biblical) both can't happen. How can both happen when each side disagrees with the other?
2)We are not telling Him how he did it. Some of us think He does not exist. Others are saying how He did it.
3)Why are we here? Is there a purpose to life? Are there true moral standards? How did everything happen? There are many reasons why it matters.

Well I am off to bed.
Talk to everyone later.

WM

[OnlyAmbrose]

1)Both evolution and creation (Biblical) both can't happen. How can both happen when each side disagrees with the other?

Simple - I believe that the story of Adam and Eve uses an immense amount of figurative language to describe to rebellion of man, and should not be looked to as the scientific truth of creation.

I believe in evolution in that i believe it is the way God went about creating life.

3)Why are we here? Is there a purpose to life? Are there true moral standards? How did everything happen? There are many reasons why it matters.

See, I see the debate on evolution as almost COMPLETELY exclusive from the debate about whether or not there is a God.

[The Weird One]

1)Both evolution and creation (Biblical) both can't happen. How can both happen when each side disagrees with the other?

Simple - I believe that the story of Adam and Eve uses an immense amount of figurative language to describe to rebellion of man, and should not be looked to as the scientific truth of creation.

I believe in evolution in that i believe it is the way God went about creating life.

wow, I never thought I'd find a highly religious person who shares so many of my views on such things

[AlgyTaylor]

OnlyAmbrose ... as far as I'm concerned you're up there with the Dalai Lama in terms of religious nuts who I respect

To me, evolution isn't even a debate. It happened. Get over it.

Doesn't mean that there isn't a god, of course. I have my own beliefs on the matter, but that's all they are - beliefs. I'll not for one moment stop someone from thinking there is (or isn't) some kind of deity.

BUT, bringing these beliefs in to a debate that isn't even scientifically considered is ridiculous.


Any creationists out there who've actually READ The Origin of Species and then tried to poke holes in it? Doubt it very much ...

[Iliad]

OnlyAmbrose ... as far as I'm concerned you're up there with the Dalai Lama in terms of religious nuts who I respect

To me, evolution isn't even a debate. It happened. Get over it.

Doesn't mean that there isn't a god, of course. I have my own beliefs on the matter, but that's all they are - beliefs. I'll not for one moment stop someone from thinking there is (or isn't) some kind of deity.

BUT, bringing these beliefs in to a debate that isn't even scientifically considered is ridiculous.


Any creationists out there who've actually READ The Origin of Species and then tried to poke holes in it? Doubt it very much ...

More like read some random news and decided they suddenly know everything about it

[WidowMakers]

OnlyAmbrose ... as far as I'm concerned you're up there with the Dalai Lama in terms of religious nuts who I respect

To me, evolution isn't even a debate. It happened. Get over it.

Doesn't mean that there isn't a god, of course. I have my own beliefs on the matter, but that's all they are - beliefs. I'll not for one moment stop someone from thinking there is (or isn't) some kind of deity.

BUT, bringing these beliefs in to a debate that isn't even scientifically considered is ridiculous.


Any creationists out there who've actually READ The Origin of Species and then tried to poke holes in it? Doubt it very much ...

Show me a fact that proves atoms to man. Macro evolution to another species. I have asked for this the entire thread.

[WidowMakers]

Simple - I believe that the story of Adam and Eve uses an immense amount of figurative language to describe to rebellion of man, and should not be looked to as the scientific truth of creation.

You need to red teh section I wrote about teh 24 hour period in genesis. Based on the ancient text and the words used, the Bible is not saying "days" as a generic amount of time but 24 hour days. The morning and the evening were one day.

I believe in evolution in that i believe it is the way God went about creating life.

CAN WE TRUST THE BIBLE?

In accepting evolution, liberal theologians reject a number of key Christian beliefs. They reject the traditional date and authorship of many books in the Bible, which in itself represents a drastic undercutting of confidence in Scripture. If we cannot trust the Bible when it makes simple claims about when and by whom it was written, can we trust it when it makes much more important spiritual claims?

REDEEMED FROM WHAT?

If there was no Fall, why do we need redemption? If the problem is not our sin but our animal nature, then we only need to wait for evolution to raise us to the next stage.

[AlgyTaylor]

Show me a fact that proves atoms to man. Macro evolution to another species. I have asked for this the entire thread.

Have you read The Origin of Species or haven't you?

If you've not read this 'theory', how can you then go on to say that it's wrong?

[Iliad]

Simple - I believe that the story of Adam and Eve uses an immense amount of figurative language to describe to rebellion of man, and should not be looked to as the scientific truth of creation.

You need to red teh section I wrote about teh 24 hour period in genesis. Based on the ancient text and the words used, the Bible is not saying "days" as a generic amount of time but 24 hour days. The morning and the evening were one day.

I believe in evolution in that i believe it is the way God went about creating life.

So you think the entire world was created in 7 days.
And how is there a day without a sun? Or Earth for that matter?

[unriggable]

Whoever said that radiometric dating is untrue, this is how you are wrong:

Equation for radiometric dating



t = age of the sample
D = number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample
P = number of atoms of the parent isotope in the sample
λ = decay constant of the parent isotope
ln = natural logarithm


We know all except for age of sample. As for leakage, multiple samples are taken from different points of the rock / fossil, so there is a common result.

[WidowMakers]

Show me a fact that proves atoms to man. Macro evolution to another species. I have asked for this the entire thread.

Have you read The Origin of Species or haven't you?

If you've not read this 'theory', how can you then go on to say that it's wrong?

FOSSIL RECORD

In ''The Origin of Species,'' Darwin noted that without the appropriate fossil evidence (which did not exist in his day) his general theory would hold no weight. He and others tenaciously clung to the hope that the unfolding of the fossil record would show all of the intermediate forms necessary to support his claims. Today, however, with more than 100,000 species represented in fossils, the lack of intermediate forms is even greater than it was in Darwin's day.

So No proof from fossils to show macroevolution.
======================================
irreducibly complex system

"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly
(that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism)
by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system
because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional."

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

The eye (so many parts that serve no purpose by themselves but are needed to make an eye work. Why for millions of year would a worthless part exist if it had no function only to be used later by a part that was not evolved yet but once there made an eye work?

Blood Clotting
The Blood Clotting Cascade

1. A cut occurs and Hageman Factor sticks to the surface of cells near the wound. Bound Hageman Factor reacts with another enzyme called HMK to produce Activated Hageman.

2. Pre Kallikrein reacts with Activated Hageman to produce Kallikrein.

3. Hageman Factor also reacts with HMK and Kallikrein to form Activated Hageman.

4. PTA reacts with Activated Hageman and HMK to produce Activated PTA.

5. Christmas Factor reacts with Activated PTA and Convertin to produce Activated Christmas Factor.

6. Antihemophilic Factor is activated by Thrombin to produce Activated Antihemophilic Factor.

7. Stuart Factor reacts with Activated Christmas Factor and Activated Antihemophilic Factor to produce Activated Stuart Factor.

8. Proconvertin is activated by Activated Hageman Factor to produce Convertin.

9. When a cut occurs, Tissue Factor (which is only found outside of cells) is brought in near the wound where it reacts with Convertin and Stuart Factor to produce Activated Stuart Factor. (Note that step 9 involves an extrinsic process whereas step 7 is an intrinsic process.)

10. Proaccelerin is activated by Thrombin to produce Accelerin.

11a. GLU-Prothrombin reacts with Prothrombin Enzyme and Vitamin K to produce GLA-Prothrombin. (Note that Prothrombin cannot be activated in the GLU form so it must be formed into the GLA form. In this process ten amino acids must be changed from glutamate to gama carboxy glutamate.)

11b. GLS-Prothrombin is then able to bind to Calcium. This allows GLA-Prothrombin to stick to surfaces of cells. Only intact modified Calcium-Prothrombin Complex can bind to the cell membrane and be cleaved by Activated Stuart and Accerlerin to produce Thrombin.

12. Prothrombin-Ca (bound to cell surface) is activated by Activated Stuart to produce Thrombin.

13.Prothrombin also reacts with Activated Stuart and Accelerin to produce Thrombin. (Step 13 is much faster than step 12.)

14. Fibrinogin is activated by Thrombin to produce Fibrin. Threads of Fibrin are the final clot. However, it would be more effective if the Fibrin threads could form more cross links with each other.

15. FSF (Fibrin Stabilizing Factor) is activated by Thrombin to form Activated FSF.

16. When Fibrin reacts with Activated FSF many more cross ties are made with other Fibrin filaments to form a more effective clot.

If one of these steps was left out, the process would fail. But all steps are needed to clot properly.
So did all of these step evolve at the exact same time? If not how did small early animals with blood survive a cut if the entire process had not evolved yet?

Several examples of Irreducible Complexity that show systems that could not have evolved.

These are two examples of holes in Darwin's Theory.

[WidowMakers]

Whoever said that radiometric dating is untrue, this is how you are wrong:

Equation for radiometric dating



t = age of the sample
D = number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample
P = number of atoms of the parent isotope in the sample
λ = decay constant of the parent isotope
ln = natural logarithm


We know all except for age of sample. As for leakage, multiple samples are taken from different points of the rock / fossil, so there is a common result.

I never said it was wrong I said the initial conditions are not know. How much D was in the beginning? How much P was in the beginning. Could there have been leaks?

[Iliad]

I don't think you even know what evolution is. Of course if one of those steps didn't happen then the blood wouldn't clot. So the animals which got that wrong died. The animals that got it right survived and live on.

[Iliad]

Another question: if evolution exists what about the bacteria which eat nylon? Nylon was only invented in 1950!

[WidowMakers]

Simple - I believe that the story of Adam and Eve uses an immense amount of figurative language to describe to rebellion of man, and should not be looked to as the scientific truth of creation.

You need to red teh section I wrote about teh 24 hour period in genesis. Based on the ancient text and the words used, the Bible is not saying "days" as a generic amount of time but 24 hour days. The morning and the evening were one day.

I believe in evolution in that i believe it is the way God went about creating life.

So you think the entire world was created in 7 days.
And how is there a day without a sun? Or Earth for that matter?

Now let’s look at the context in which we find the word "yom" used in Genesis 1:5-2:2...

Day 1 - "And God called the light 'day' [yom] and the darkness he called 'night.' So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FIRST DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:5)

Day 2 - "So God called the firmament 'Heaven.' So the EVENING and the MORNING were the SECOND DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:Cool

Day 3 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the THIRD DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:13)

Day 4 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FOURTH DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:19)

Day 5 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FIFTH DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:23)

Day 6 - "Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the EVENING and the MORNING were the SIXTH DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:31)

Day 7 - "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the SEVENTH DAY [yom] God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the SEVENTH DAY [yom] from all His work which He had done." (Genesis 2:1-2)

[Iliad]

Simple - I believe that the story of Adam and Eve uses an immense amount of figurative language to describe to rebellion of man, and should not be looked to as the scientific truth of creation.

You need to red teh section I wrote about teh 24 hour period in genesis. Based on the ancient text and the words used, the Bible is not saying "days" as a generic amount of time but 24 hour days. The morning and the evening were one day.

I believe in evolution in that i believe it is the way God went about creating life.

So you think the entire world was created in 7 days.
And how is there a day without a sun? Or Earth for that matter?

Now let’s look at the context in which we find the word "yom" used in Genesis 1:5-2:2...

Day 1 - "And God called the light 'day' [yom] and the darkness he called 'night.' So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FIRST DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:5)

Day 2 - "So God called the firmament 'Heaven.' So the EVENING and the MORNING were the SECOND DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:Cool

Day 3 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the THIRD DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:13)

Day 4 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FOURTH DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:19)

Day 5 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FIFTH DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:23)

Day 6 - "Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the EVENING and the MORNING were the SIXTH DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:31)

Day 7 - "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the SEVENTH DAY [yom] God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the SEVENTH DAY [yom] from all His work which He had done." (Genesis 2:1-2)

But your perception of day and night is wrong! The sun always shines it it the rotation of the Earth which cause the day and night. Without a sun or a Earth day and night is impossible

[WidowMakers]

Another question: if evolution exists what about the bacteria which eat nylon? Nylon was only invented in 1950!

I still don't understand how that matters. Are you saying that nylon is so special that nothing on earth could have ever been able to decompose it. SO since there is now it must have evolved. To prove that you must be able to show that no bacteria had the ability to decompose it before nylon existed. You can't

[Iliad]

Another question: if evolution exists what about the bacteria which eat nylon? Nylon was only invented in 1950!

I still don't understand how that matters. Are you saying that nylon is so special that nothing on earth could have ever been able to decompose it. SO since there is now it must have evolved. To prove that you must be able to show that no bacteria had the ability to decompose it before nylon existed. You can't

My point is how the hell DID THE BACTERIA LIVE BEFORE THE NYLON?

[WidowMakers]

Simple - I believe that the story of Adam and Eve uses an immense amount of figurative language to describe to rebellion of man, and should not be looked to as the scientific truth of creation.

You need to red teh section I wrote about teh 24 hour period in genesis. Based on the ancient text and the words used, the Bible is not saying "days" as a generic amount of time but 24 hour days. The morning and the evening were one day.

I believe in evolution in that i believe it is the way God went about creating life.

So you think the entire world was created in 7 days.
And how is there a day without a sun? Or Earth for that matter?

Now let’s look at the context in which we find the word "yom" used in Genesis 1:5-2:2...

Day 1 - "And God called the light 'day' [yom] and the darkness he called 'night.' So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FIRST DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:5)

Day 2 - "So God called the firmament 'Heaven.' So the EVENING and the MORNING were the SECOND DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:Cool

Day 3 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the THIRD DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:13)

Day 4 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FOURTH DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:19)

Day 5 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FIFTH DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:23)

Day 6 - "Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the EVENING and the MORNING were the SIXTH DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:31)

Day 7 - "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the SEVENTH DAY [yom] God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the SEVENTH DAY [yom] from all His work which He had done." (Genesis 2:1-2)

But your perception of day and night is wrong! The sun always shines it it the rotation of the Earth which cause the day and night. Without a sun or a Earth day and night is impossible

I did not say it was easy to understand or believe but it is what the Bible says. I can't prove the Bible.
For the sake of argument if God exists, who are you to say he can't call light and dark a day? This is not a scientific study. It is interpretation of the Bible and God. If you don't believe in God then what good is it to say he could not do this? I DO believe in Him so I say He can do it.

I really wanted to stay more on the scientific aspect of this debate. I figured we all would eventually come to this topic but I was not expecting so soon.

Well I am off to work. Everyone have a great day. I will post later tonight.

[Iliad]

Simple - I believe that the story of Adam and Eve uses an immense amount of figurative language to describe to rebellion of man, and should not be looked to as the scientific truth of creation.

You need to red teh section I wrote about teh 24 hour period in genesis. Based on the ancient text and the words used, the Bible is not saying "days" as a generic amount of time but 24 hour days. The morning and the evening were one day.

I believe in evolution in that i believe it is the way God went about creating life.

So you think the entire world was created in 7 days.
And how is there a day without a sun? Or Earth for that matter?

Now let’s look at the context in which we find the word "yom" used in Genesis 1:5-2:2...

Day 1 - "And God called the light 'day' [yom] and the darkness he called 'night.' So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FIRST DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:5)

Day 2 - "So God called the firmament 'Heaven.' So the EVENING and the MORNING were the SECOND DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:Cool

Day 3 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the THIRD DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:13)

Day 4 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FOURTH DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:19)

Day 5 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FIFTH DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:23)

Day 6 - "Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the EVENING and the MORNING were the SIXTH DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:31)

Day 7 - "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the SEVENTH DAY [yom] God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the SEVENTH DAY [yom] from all His work which He had done." (Genesis 2:1-2)

But your perception of day and night is wrong! The sun always shines it it the rotation of the Earth which cause the day and night. Without a sun or a Earth day and night is impossible

I did not say it was easy to understand or believe but it is what the Bible says. I can't prove the Bible.
For the sake of argument if God exists, who are you to say he can't call light and dark a day? This is not a scientific study. It is interpretation of the Bible and God. If you don't believe in God then what good is it to say he could not do this? I DO believe in Him so I say He can do it.

I really wanted to stay more on the scientific aspect of this debate. I figured we all would eventually come to this topic but I was not expecting so soon.

Well I am off to work. Everyone have a great day. I will post later tonight.

This is these debates can suck: The Christians just say:
"God is all powerful and smart! You don't understand him!!"

Day and night without a sun or an earth is impossible

[AlgyTaylor]

Show me a fact that proves atoms to man. Macro evolution to another species. I have asked for this the entire thread.

Have you read The Origin of Species or haven't you?

If you've not read this 'theory', how can you then go on to say that it's wrong?

FOSSIL RECORD

In ''The Origin of Species,'' Darwin noted that without the appropriate fossil evidence (which did not exist in his day) his general theory would hold no weight. He and others tenaciously clung to the hope that the unfolding of the fossil record would show all of the intermediate forms necessary to support his claims.
....

That's not an answer. Have you read The Origin of Species or haven't you? I suspect you're just quoting from another source. For a start off, that's not what was said. Darwin wrote that the fossil record won't be correct because of geological reasons then went on to say exactly why there wouldn't be a full fossil record.

If you'd have read the book you'd have noticed this as he took up a sizable part of the book explaining why this was the case - so I assume you're trying to argue against something that you've not even read.

In which scientific circles - or even debating circles - would this stand up as a feasible argument?

In fact, if you were to have read the book you'd have seen that pretty much every argument you've come up with against evolution has already been answered, by Charles Darwin himself, around 150 years ago.