The Creation vs Evolution debate thread...

[CaptainHaplo]

For all those participating in a constructive way - Thank you!

A "young earth" belief does not mean that one cannot acknowledge the process of natural selection. It simply postulates that the earth and the life it sustains is not the product of untold billions of years worth of random chance happenings that all just amazingly came together to bring us to here we are.

Onelifecrisis - most young earth theories do exactly as you suggest, noting that God did not just create the earth, but the universe as well, and thus laid down its laws and set things in motion just about as we see them today, including putting the light we see from stars millions of light years away already in place, etc.

Stealth-hunter - unfortunately the theory of evolution must be tied to the origin of the universe, simply because of the amount of time that evolution states it takes for the huge changes it postulates have occured throughout the history of the universe. If it takes a billion years for a fish to develop lungs, then it and its evolving progeny has to have a place to swim for that billion years. If the earth can be demonstrated to not be a relatively stable and suitable platform for such a time frame, then water breathers could not have evolved into mammalian life forms on the earth, as is stated in the evolutionary theory. Hard to evolve if the planet your on doesn't exist...

McBee - I am not falling over myself to prove a different view wrong. I find that open debate can often open me, and others up, to additional information that can be used to further refine and modify my own belief based on reasonably demonstrated and verifiable facts.

More to come.

[CaptainHaplo]

Sailor Steve-

Regarding the moon - the 750 Million year age is the absolute maximum possible, meaning evolution would not have had the time to occur as evolution postulates. This simply shows that the evolutionary timeline is flawed. However, there is nothing that states that God, in his wisdom, did not create the moon somewhat closer to the earth, a few thousand years ago, which is the view put forth by the young earth theory.

Aramike - Oil wells.

The density does have a place in the equation, but porous rock under significant pressure usually over time slowly loses its structural integrity (the barriers between can break down). Rock under enough pressure will crumble, while cork, in your example - under the pressure of champagne, is "springy" enough to actually compress and thus INCREASE its density (and thus the tensile strength of the barriers between the pores) as well as collapsing the pores themselves, limiting the pressure that can be applied to them. Rock has no such ability, nor is it under the constraints of pressure from a stronger, outside source, unlike a cork that is held in place by the constraints of the stronger glass that surrounds and compresses it. Its also fair to note that the pressure igneous rock is subjected to is much greater than that of cork sealing a bottle. While at first glance its a nice picture, a closer look shows your comparing apples to oranges, and not apples to apples, which is why the comparison is not vaild.

On that same note - Sailor Steve, the young earth theory puts the formation of such oil wells - and indeed the formation of oil in its many parts of the world, at between merely 3-4 thousand years ago. In fact, the mere presence of oil in the great quantities it is seen actually are one of many evidences of a worldwide, bilbilcal flood, as described in the time of "Noah". This time frame would explain why there is still pressure on the wells.

Aramike - on the mito-eve - I am not sure I understood your counterpoint. I understand your saying its invalid - but your explanation of why wasn't something I could follow. Could you explain it in a step by step process so I can evaluate it? I am not trying to be difficult, but there must be facts in the argument I am not aware of that invalidate the concept, because what you said was as clear as mud to me.

Lastly - to tribesman - since I rarely am going to stoop to acknowledging your inane comments. You again prove your lack of openmindedness and forthrightness considering the whole thing section on "dragon bones", you noted it specifically references the animal in question and identifies it as a T-rex. The original author substituted terms, which you well knew, but instead wanted to pick and choose to try and discredit an entire arguement. You also have a PM regarding this.

I really like some of the points brought up - but so far, all I have seen is "counterpoints" to why a young earth can't be accurate - but not a single post pointing out why evolution is a fact. Cmon people - a debate is an open forum to present both sides, not just poke holes in one. Lets have some arguements that point out the other side. If no one puts any out, then some may conclude that the "evolution" camp has no proof at all......

Oh - Platypus - no I don't think creationism and evolution must be distinct and seperate views personally.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I really like some of the points brought up - but so far, all I have seen is "counterpoints" to why a young earth can't be accurate - but not a single post pointing out why evolution is a fact. Cmon people - a debate is an open forum to present both sides, not just poke holes in one. Lets have some arguements that point out the other side. If no one puts any out, then some may conclude that the "evolution" camp has no proof at all......

Are you trying to shift the burden of proof? Regardless I would like you to adress my points in post #48. But just to humour you I will provide you with several pieces of evidence for evolution and common decent.

1. Endogenous retroviruses
Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.
Figure 1Human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K) insertions in identical chromosomal locations in various primates (Reprinted from Lebedev et al. 2000, © 2000, with permission from Elsevier Science)

2. Transitional forms some creationists claim do not exist, incomplete list in following article.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd..._intermediates

3. Anatomical vestiges
Some of the most renowned evidence for evolution are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, both anatomical and molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality.
For example, wings are very complex anatomical structures specifically adapted for powered flight, yet ostriches have flightless wings. The vestigial wings of ostriches may be used for relatively simple functions, such as balance during running and courtship displays—a situation akin to hammering tacks with a computer keyboard. The specific complexity of the ostrich wing indicates a function which it does not perform, and it performs functions incommensurate with its complexity. Ostrich wings are not vestigial because they are useless structures per se, nor are they vestigial simply because they have different functions compared to wings in other birds. Rather, what defines ostrich wings as vestigial is that they are rudimentary wings which are useless as wings.

These are just three, there are more, loads more. Now for some evidence that the Earth is older than what you claim it is.

1. Radiometric dating

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.
Most of the other measurements for the age of the Earth rest upon calculating an age for the solar system by dating objects which are expected to have formed with the planets but are not geologically active (and therefore cannot erase evidence of their formation), such as meteorites.

Figure 2


2. Ice core dating

The Vostok Ice-Core was collected in East Antarctica by the Russian Antarctic expedition. The Vostok Ice-Core is 2,083 meters long and was collected in two portions: 1) 0 - 950 m in 1970-1974, 2) 950 - 2083 m in 1982-1983. The total depth of the ice sheet from which the core was collected is approximately 3,700 meters.

The ice core was sliced into 1.5-2.0 meter segments. A discontinuous series sampled every 25 meters and a continuous series from 1,406 to 2,803 meters were then sent in solid form to Grenoble, France for further analysis.

At Grenoble the ice was put into clean stainless steel containers. The samples were crushed and then melted with the gases given off collected and saved for further analysis. The melt water was tested for chemical composition and then electrolysised.

The methods used in the determination of the ages include 18O/16O isotopic analysis, independent ice-flow calculations, comparison with other ice cores, paleoclimatic comparison, comparison with deep sea cores, 10Be/9Be isotopic analysis, deuterium/hydrogen isotopic analysis, comparison with marine climatic record, CO2 correspondances between dated ice-cores and CO2 correspondances with dated oceanic cores.

The results determined from these various samples were consistent between the continuous and discontinuous slices within the sections that overlapped. They were also consistent with Greenland ice-cores, other Antarctic ice-cores, dated volcanic records, deep sea cores, and paleoclimatic evidence.

While unable to provide specific dates (within a millenia), the analysis show definate evidence of the the last two ice ages. Using the methods listed above the bottom of the ice-core was laid down 160,000 +- 15,000 years ago. It should be noted that all of the methods listed above were consistent with the above results.

From the data gathered from the Vostok ice-core indicates that the minimum age of the earth is 160,000 +- 15,000 years. Furthermore there exists approximately 33% of additional ice below the core sample which would hold a disproportionate number of years due to thinning of the ice layers under the tremendous pressure of the ice above it.

To maintain an age for the earth of 50,000 years, one would need to describe a mechanism that allows more than 2 false ice layers to form per year. It should be noted that one also needs to describe why this mechanism has ceased to function in historic times since the Vostok ice-core demonstrates a number of the historically recorded volcanism at the correct periods of time.

Refrences
1. C. Lorius et al., NATURE 316 (1985) 591-596.
2. F. Yiou et al., NATURE 316 (1985) 616-617.
3. J. Jouzel et al., NATURE 329 (1987) 403-408.
4. J.M. Barnola et al., NATURE 329 (1987) 408-414.
5. van Nostrands' SCIENTIFIC DICTIONARY
6. THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
7. E. Wolff, GEOGRAPHICAL MAGAZINE 59 (1987) 73-77.
8. Julie M. Palais OCEANUS 29 (Winter 86/87) 55-60.
9. W. Dansgaard et al., SCIENCE 218 (1982) 1273-1277.
10. C.U. Hammer et al., NATURE 288 (1980) 230-235.


I could go on here but I am tied and in need of sleep.

[Shearwater]

"Philosophendampfer"

[Letum]

Halpo:
Hypothetically, if it was the case that the 'Young Earth' idea was
incorrect, what kind of evidence would we find that we do not find now?

Or to put it another way: What evidence of age would an old Earth
produce that this young Earth does not?

[Skybird]

Beside that and what Letum said, why to assume young world "theory" in the first? There is no hint and not evidence for ther world being that young, and there is no other need to assume that "theory" (it is no theory, but a claim) that would be different from creationism simply claiming that the world is young.

Also, get your scientific knowledge straight. The "timetable" of evolution and the earth's age you just outlined is so much out of scale and so extremely, unbelievably simplified that I would not even know where to begin. That is no model you described there - it simply is utmost confusion. A confusion you claim to be real scinece in the next step, and accusing this science then to be of flaws and errors. But actually you just point out the flaws and errors in your own inadequate understanding of the matter. And that is not science's problem - but yours.

For German readers, to introduce yourself in a very entertaining, yet competent way to the timetable of the earth's developement, and the emerging of life and the forming of species in the oceans, I recommend the wonderful and very entertaining, exciting (thick) book by Frank Schätzing, "Nachrichten aus einem unbekannten Universum". Books like this that are entertaining and educating at the same time are a true gift for readers interested in a popular and general understanding of science.

You talk a lot about openmindedness, Haplo. What you mean by that is just this: you want hear-say and unproven, unreasonable fantasies being taken as serious science, that qualifies as that by criterias of academic and scientific standards. I think that demand is - sorry to be so blunt - impertinent, not only when it is being raised by you, but by religions in general. That's what makes projects and attempts like this thread so very annoying. You demand recoignition and merit for something that does not qualify for receiving it. As if we do not already have to deal with a Pope who tries to reverse enlightenment and wants to claim science for the church by trying to force it under a preamisse of that science may all be nice and well but must necessarily base in all working and concluding on assuming God to be real in the first. How very much absurd, anti-scientific and a true assassination of reasonability that is.

[goldorak]

Did God in his infinite wisdom guided the asteriod that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs and therefore to the humans as the dominant species on this planet ?
What do you say CaptainHaplo ? Chance or Destiny ?

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by goldorak

I'm sorry, there can be no debate; Creationism as a theory (scientific theory ?) to paraphrase one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century "is not even wrong".
Evolution is a fact, you may dispute the mechanism through which evolution manifests itself (natural selection), but refuting evolution is akin to refuting that we orbit the sun.
I always wonder why is it that the rest of the civilised world has no problem with the scientific theory of Evolution, whereas it is a gigantic problem in the US.

Is it a "gigantic" problem in the US? I don't see how it is really slowing us down. Come on, say it. You want to say we're all stupid
You only believe the earth orbits the sun because that's what you were taught. Did you ever try to prove it for yourself?

Originally Posted by Skybird

concluding on assuming God to be real in the first. How very much absurd, anti-scientific and a true assassination of reasonability that is.

I can imagine, 3000 years or so ago, one man saying how unreasonable and anti-scientific it was to consider the earth as anything other than a flat form--how do you think everything stays down!?!

Yeah, you are right when you said science is a growing, changing process. It has been wrong as many times as religion. You believe what makes sense to you, and just like a man from 3000 years ago, he believed what made sense to him. He took the science of his time, it made sense to him, he believed it. When science is proven wrong and corrects itself, people adjust their beliefs.

I'm a big fan of science and I do not take the Bible literally. But no matter how you spin it, even with our best science, nothing can explain the human soul, where it comes from, or where it goes when the vessel dies. Until science can explain that, we will have religous beliefs.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Stealth-hunter - unfortunately the theory of evolution must be tied to the origin of the universe, simply because of the amount of time that evolution states it takes for the huge changes it postulates have occured throughout the history of the universe.

Wait- the origin of the universe? That's solely the Big Bang, an astronomical and cosmological event in history. Evolution, as far as the theory concerned, is strictly concerned with the biological sense of the term, not astronomical or cosmological affairs. Evolution of bacteriums, reptiles, amphibians, etc.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

If it takes a billion years for a fish to develop lungs, then it and its evolving progeny has to have a place to swim for that billion years.

Right, but again, you're confusing the field of biology (and with it the ToE) with other scientific fields; studying the early earth itself on which life began would constitute geology more than biology simply because biology is the study of living organisms and their past, not so much just the environment on which they lived; that would more or less be closer related to geology.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

If the earth can be demonstrated to not be a relatively stable and suitable platform for such a time frame, then water breathers could not have evolved into mammalian life forms on the earth, as is stated in the evolutionary theory.

No, the Theory of Evolution does not state that. Where did you get the absurd idea that "water breathers" just evolved willy-nilly into mammals? Furthermore, why do you think that they could not have evolved if it were given that the planet was "stable and suitable"? There exists such a thing as competition between species, you know, which is an influencing factor as far as evolution is concerned. Finally, the Theory of Evolution does not state either that the planet is "relatively stable and suitable". Of course, that's not the case, nor has it ever been.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Hard to evolve if the planet your on doesn't exist...

Not if you're on an asteroid or comet. Which reminds me, it was just a few months ago that we confirmed, for the first time in history, that amino acids- the very building blocks for life- were and are definitively present inside and on the surface of comets within the vacuum of space.

[CaptainHaplo]

NikiMcbee - I took no insult and knew you were not singling me out, my friend!

Stealthunter - my point to you I think you may have missed. It is simply that we should look at the origin of the planet to first determine if the planet itself has existed and provided a suitable environment for evolution since evolution requires a timeline of billions of years. evolution, on earth, cannot occur if the earth was either A) Not around, or B) not suitable environmentally.

After reading through some of this thread I have to say it is quite refreshing to see this debate take place with so little vitriol and anger involved. In all honesty however, I have to admit that while I am perfectly capable of having this discussion in a friendly non-combative tone, I have little to no intellectual respect for any person who believes that some kind of supernatural being from beyond created our Earth and indeed the entire universe a mere 5 or 6 thousand years ago.

I've seen comments claiming that coming to a conclusion based on incredible amounts of firm, testable, solid scientific data requires the same level of faith as believing in fictional stories created by savage desert people over a thousand years ago. I'm sorry but there is a very clear difference in each of these approaches and to equate the two is dishonest and misleading.

I think what is required is a few additional rules before we can honestly continue this debate if we truly hope to learn something by having this discussion.

Actually only one additional rule is truly required and I will explain why.

The world of science is vast and full of many characters. Scientists are people just like you and me and often do become wrapped up in trying to prove a theory. Sometimes even to the point of acknowledging only that evidence which supports their theory while ignoring all evidence which puts it in doubt. That is why we have the peer review process in the scientific community which is designed to make sure only the strongest theories, which have withstood the most amount of scrutiny will be accepted as true and real science.

This is achieved by rigorous examination by the scientific community of any scientific research that is submitted for the peer reviewed process. The work is examined and tested by highly educated professionals in the field and if the research is found to be accurate it is published as officially scientifically reviewed research and can be trusted as the best data available on the subject at that time.

Without the peer review process I could put forth any ridiculous, crackpot theory I want to come up with as real science. I could say that clouds are composed of dragon farts or the Earth is actually only a few thousand years old or any other unfounded simpleton nonsense I may decide to come up with.

That is why in order to ensure the validity of the discussion I propose we initiate a new rule requiring all evidence presented by either side to include references to peer reviewed research.

Naturally, Creationism Theology, much like voodoo or witchcraft, has never been verified as real science by making it through the peer reviewed process, so please keep this in mind while reading some outlandish conclusions I have seen Creationists present as "evidence" against the process of evolution.

So how bout it, who thinks the rule should be added and followed from this point forward?

[Nicolas]

This have being said, but i thinked on myself before hearing from others, and my point is this:
I believe in God and creation.
Humans took a lot of time to invent simple things, now, how those birds that Darwin studied could change theyre body to eat especific food, if no one design the new form? the nature doesn't have intelligence or conciousnes. Only a person with certain amount of intelligence (God in this case) can observe a thing, think how it can be changed, and implement a change.
Another thing, is how perfect is all in this world, it couldn't be done itself, is like trhow a lot of paint barrels, and magically you have a good painting, or put a monkey writing in your keyboard and having a poem as a result, the probability this world is a casuality is null.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Nicolas

This have being said, but i thinked on myself before hearing from others, and my point is this:
I believe in God and creation.
Humans took a lot of time to invent simple things, now, how those birds that Darwin studied could change theyre body to eat especific food, if no one design the new form? the nature doesn't have intelligence or conciousnes. Only a person with certain amount of intelligence (God in this case) can observe a thing, think how it can be changed, and implement a change.
Another thing, is how perfect is all in this world, it couldn't be done itself, is like trhow a lot of paint barrels, and magically you have a good painting, or put a monkey writing in your keyboard and having a poem as a result, the probability this world is a casuality is null.

That's not how evolution works, though.

Evolution isn't about nature "deciding" anything. It's about what could be considered genetic abnormalities becoming a favorable trait and therefore being passed along to a new generation.

In other words, let's say you were born with a genetic mutatation causing a third arm. It would not be a very attractive quality for a mate - unless something in the environment caused that 3rd arm to be a favorable mutation, thereby making potential mates seek that quality. That mutation would be more likely to be passed along, thusly asserting its dominance in the gene pool.

It has everything to do with random chance and nothing to do with intelligent design.

[Nicolas]

I do not believe in random chance, i dont think serious evolutionist think on that, because if you studied books of science on how the animals evolved they evolved to good, not to have deformations or things like that, if all is random there is no way the body of animal could get better only by chance.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Nicolas

I do not believe in random chance, i dont think serious evolutionist think on that, because if you studied books of science on how the animals evolved they evolved to good, not to have deformations or things like that, if all is random there is no way the body of animal could get better only by chance.

It is not only by chance. Mutations are random, natural selection is not. In the long run beneficial traits are selected for by environmental and predatory attrition.

Just because you do not know what evolution is is not does not make it any less true.