Evolution VS Creation

[kazukifafner]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

The thing that would interest me more for a creationist to answer is vestigial organs and atavisms. Why do some dolphins grow hind fins? Why do we have muscles in our ears? Why do our hairs stand up when we are afraid? Why do blind salamanders have eyes underneath their skin?

I could use the classic reason "that's how they were designed", however, that doesn't bode well for most people, since the need for something to have purpose is perfectly logical and understandable. The only reason I could think of (and I don't think it is particularly good), is that the animals "adapted" to new environments (adaptation/development isn't the same things as evolving to a more advanced form).

Perhaps it is my personal bias at play, but I find that there are far more things that an evolutionist would have to answer than the creationist.

1) Why is it that the earth would have been inside the Sun during the evolutionary timeframe?

2) Why is it that the earth's polarity would have been beyond what was possible in the evolutionary timeline?

3) Why is it that things (such as strata patterns) which are supposed to take millions of years can happen in a day (evidence in the Mt. Saint Helens eruption)?

4) Why is it that biology textbooks include both spontaneous generation and biogenesis?

5) Why is it that the date for a layer of strata is determined by the fossil that is in it, yet the date for the fossil is determined by the layer of strata that it is in?

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Does the Catholic Church welcome challenges to its faith? I thought not.

Which is one of the reasons that I don't like the Catholic "version" of Christianity. I'm not entirely sure where they got the idea of having a Pope from (sorry if that offended any Catholics).

For clarification, I would probably be considered an "Evangelical" Christian. Although, to be honest, I don't like that denominations exist to begin with. To me, it seems to defeat the purpose of a unified Christian body (although, that is an entirely different debate).

[Face Down]

Not really.

He made the humans design as great as it is.

Same with the animals and plants.

[::Venn::]

well, if evolution exists. then where'd the monkeys come from?

[Phoenix]

More than likely the reason is because of how they were designed.

1. I thought you said science could explain genetic diversity and atavisms without evolution? This is not science explaining it, this is equivalent to saying "A wizard did it".

2. So, uh, God designed useless organs and parts. There's a designer right there.

I could use the classic reason "that's how they were designed", however, that doesn't bode well for most people, since the need for something to have purpose is perfectly logical and understandable. The only reason I could think of (and I don't think it is particularly good), is that the animals "adapted" to new environments (adaptation/development isn't the same things as evolving to a more advanced form).

So, you're saying that when an organisms changes the way it reproduces, that's not evolution? Evolution is defined as the change in alleles (inherited traits) of a population of organisms from generation to generation. If you believe that traits can be inherited from parents, you believe in evolution.

Dandelions have flowers and pollen. This is what flowers use to reproduce. The dandelion reproduces asexually. From a creationism worldview, explain this.

Perhaps it is my personal bias at play, but I find that there are far more things that an evolutionist would have to answer than the creationist.

While I'll answer the question, I'll thank you to provide proof for the claims you make in said questions, please.

1) Why is it that the earth would have been inside the Sun during the evolutionary timeframe?

Are you referring to the shrinkage? Stars expand and shrink cyclically. It's baseless to assume that our Sun is uniform in this. Furthermore, there's not even good evidence of shrinking. I'll quote:

"The claim is based on a single report from 1980. Other measurements, from 1980 and later, do not show any significant shrinkage. It is likely that the original report showing shrinkage contained systematic errors due to different measuring techniquies over the decades."

2) Why is it that the earth's polarity would have been beyond what was possible in the evolutionary timeline?

Are you aware that out magnetic field has shifted polarity multiple times in the Earth's history?

3) Why is it that things (such as strata patterns) which are supposed to take millions of years can happen in a day (evidence in the Mt. Saint Helens eruption)?

Are you comparing unconsolidated volcanic ash (which erodes in a flash) to other rocks like limestone?

4) Why is it that biology textbooks include both spontaneous generation and biogenesis?

What? Since when is abiogenesis part of the theory of evolution?

5) Why is it that the date for a layer of strata is determined by the fossil that is in it, yet the date for the fossil is determined by the layer of strata that it is in?

For this one, I'll just copy/paste:

" 1. Many strata are not dated from fossils. Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others. Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric dating. These methods are sufficient to determine a great deal of stratigraphy.

Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means.

2. The geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution."


Lastly, a message to all creationists. Finding proof against evolution, even if you were able to, would do nothing for your theory. Even if you were to completely demolish the theory of evolution, that wouldn't do squat, because in science, to be taken seriously, you have to prove your theory right, not the other guy's theory wrong.

EDIT:

well, if evolution exists. then where'd the monkeys come from?

Common creationist claim. Obviously incorrect.

Nobody said, not Darwin, not any scientists, that we evolved from chimps or some such. Chimps, gorillas, monkeys, humans, etc, evolved from a common ancestor, but the chimps of today are exactly as modern as us.

He made the humans design as great as it is.

Wisdom teeth. God's idea of a joke?

[Lezard Valeth]

If god made human, then no one can say it is bad designed. Sure, it is not perfect, but that is more perfect that most existing things.

Like I said, evolution and creation can coexist. And science can and will be proven wrong by science itself. No need to debate, just wait.

[Phoenix]

If god made human, then no one can say it is bad designed. Sure, it is not perfect, but that is more perfect that most existing things.

Last I checked, designers don't add useless parts to their inventions.

Also, there's no such thing as "more perfect".

Like I said, evolution and creation can coexist. And science can and will be proven wrong by science itself. No need to debate, just wait.

lolwut?

[TWDIS]

creation FTW.

NUFF SAID.

[kazukifafner]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

1. I thought you said science could explain genetic diversity and atavisms without evolution? This is not science explaining it, this is equivalent to saying "A wizard did it".

2. So, uh, God designed useless organs and parts. There's a designer right there.



So, you're saying that when an organisms changes the way it reproduces, that's not evolution? Evolution is defined as the change in alleles (inherited traits) of a population of organisms from generation to generation. If you believe that traits can be inherited from parents, you believe in evolution.

Dandelions have flowers and pollen. This is what flowers use to reproduce. The dandelion reproduces asexually. From a creationism worldview, explain this.



While I'll answer the question, I'll thank you to provide proof for the claims you make in said questions, please.



Are you referring to the shrinkage? Stars expand and shrink cyclically. It's baseless to assume that our Sun is uniform in this. Furthermore, there's not even good evidence of shrinking. I'll quote:

"The claim is based on a single report from 1980. Other measurements, from 1980 and later, do not show any significant shrinkage. It is likely that the original report showing shrinkage contained systematic errors due to different measuring techniquies over the decades."



Are you aware that out magnetic field has shifted polarity multiple times in the Earth's history?



Are you comparing unconsolidated volcanic ash (which erodes in a flash) to other rocks like limestone?



What? Since when is abiogenesis part of the theory of evolution?



For this one, I'll just copy/paste:

" 1. Many strata are not dated from fossils. Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others. Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric dating. These methods are sufficient to determine a great deal of stratigraphy.

Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means.

2. The geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution."


Lastly, a message to all creationists. Finding proof against evolution, even if you were able to, would do nothing for your theory. Even if you were to completely demolish the theory of evolution, that wouldn't do squat, because in science, to be taken seriously, you have to prove your theory right, not the other guy's theory wrong.

EDIT:



Common creationist claim. Obviously incorrect.

Nobody said, not Darwin, not any scientists, that we evolved from chimps or some such. Chimps, gorillas, monkeys, humans, etc, evolved from a common ancestor, but the chimps of today are exactly as modern as us.



Wisdom teeth. God's idea of a joke?

1) You're right about my idea of adaptation, that was mere speculation, nothing that I would stake my life on that is for sure.

2) The majority of my information comes from a lecture that I saw which brought forth claims made by both Creationists and Evolutionists evenly (I know, not the best, but I am currently doing more research as well)

3) So, you admit that things don't happen in a sequential, unshifting timeframe? I have to admit, you don't here that too often from Evolutionists (who ABSOLUTELY NEED that steady rate for their theory to have any hope of being correct)

4) I was referring to the "size" of the magnetic field (I'm sorry, sometimes I have trouble with wording), which would have its limit at somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago.

5) No, I was comparing how something on the outside has been given a vastly larger Carbon-14 date than what was inside of it (which should be the larger one, shouldn't it?)

6) How can you support the idea that life started randomly in with a spark, a reducing atmosphere (which, if you look at crystallized amber's Oxygen count, is likely false), and a pool of chemicals, and then say that life comes from other life. Not to mention how life doesn't start randomly, no matter how many times scientists have tried to recreate the process.

7) What about the Hydrogen build up in the atmosphere. If the earth were that old, the concentration would be much larger. As it stands, the concentration points to around 5,000 to 10,000 years (Hydrogen, by the way, cannot leave the atmosphere)

8) Or how about the dust accumulation on the moon. The reason the legs on the first landing craft were so long, was because they thought there would be much more dust than there was. Again, the amount points to 5,000 to 10,000 (closer to the Creationist time frame, as opposed to the Evolutionists')

9) A final point, just because we don't know what something does doesn't mean it doesn't have a purpose (this is the argument that I truly believe in, probably should have started with that, but I'll do it now). The appendix in humans was thought to be useless, but now it is considered part of the lymphatic system, along with the tonsils and spleen.

[Lezard Valeth]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Last I checked, designers don't add useless parts to their inventions.

Last time I checked, the bible said that human aren't perfect

Also, there's no such thing as "more perfect".

And? This comment was useless.

lolwut?

Great comment from you, nevertheless watch at human history and you'll see that the number of time human was convinced to be right, then discovered something new proving what they thought being wrong, is huge.

[kazukifafner]

Originally Posted by Lezard Valeth

Last time I checked, the bible said that human aren't perfect.

To clarify, human design is perfect (as you and I both stated, just because we don't know what something does, doesn't mean it is useless). However, sin nature causes said imperfection (I know it isn't directly related to the topic, but I felt the need to clarify).

[Phoenix]

3) So, you admit that things don't happen in a sequential, unshifting timeframe? I have to admit, you don't here that too often from Evolutionists (who ABSOLUTELY NEED that steady rate for their theory to have any hope of being correct)

4) I was referring to the "size" of the magnetic field (I'm sorry, sometimes I have trouble with wording), which would have its limit at somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago.

There is a big difference between assuming uniformity on things that are always known to be uniform (half-life, speed of light) and assuming uniformity on things that are always known to no be uniform (star cycles, Earth's magnetic field). From the 1500s to the 1800s, our magnetic field was quiet, but now recently, it's picking up again, possibly to reverse polarity.

5) No, I was comparing how something on the outside has been given a vastly larger Carbon-14 date than what was inside of it (which should be the larger one, shouldn't it?)

Oh, that? Austin (the guy) sent his samples to a laboratory that made it quite clear that their equipment could not measure anything under 2 million years old. All but one of the samples he sent were just this. The method is fine, the guy simply didn't use it right.

Also, it's a moot point because the samples were impure anyway. They contained xenocrysts, which make the samples seem older (because the xenocrysts themselves are older).

6) How can you support the idea that life started randomly in with a spark, a reducing atmosphere (which, if you look at crystallized amber's Oxygen count, is likely false), and a pool of chemicals, and then say that life comes from other life. Not to mention how life doesn't start randomly, no matter how many times scientists have tried to recreate the process.

Abiogenesis means what to evolution?

7) What about the Hydrogen build up in the atmosphere. If the earth were that old, the concentration would be much larger. As it stands, the concentration points to around 5,000 to 10,000 years (Hydrogen, by the way, cannot leave the atmosphere)

I'll admit my knowledge is rusty, but hydrogen can indeed leave the atmosphere. It's a small gas, temperature alone allows it to reach escape velocity.

However, since you provide a time frame and everything, what proof do you have for the claim?

8) Or how about the dust accumulation on the moon. The reason the legs on the first landing craft were so long, was because they thought there would be much more dust than there was. Again, the amount points to 5,000 to 10,000 (closer to the Creationist time frame, as opposed to the Evolutionists')

Copypasta for this:

"The high number for dust accumulation (14 million tons per year on earth) comes from the high end of a single preliminary measurement that has long been obsolete. Other higher estimates come from even more obsolete sources, although they are sometimes incorrectly cited as being more recent. The actual influx is about 22,000 to 44,000 tons per year on earth and around 840 tons per year on the moon.

The story that scientists worried about astronauts sinking in moon dust is a total fabrication. As early as 1965, scientists were confident, based on optical properties of the moon's surface, that dust was not extensive. Surveyor I, in May 1966, confirmed this. "

9) A final point, just because we don't know what something does doesn't mean it doesn't have a purpose (this is the argument that I truly believe in, probably should have started with that, but I'll do it now). The appendix in humans was thought to be useless, but now it is considered part of the lymphatic system, along with the tonsils and spleen.

You confuse vestigial with useless. A vestigial organ is an organ which doesn't do what it's supposed to do. Since the appendix is in the digestive system, it's function should be a digestive one.

However, the appendix is too iffy. Let's go with embryonic development of hind legs for dolphins, or wisdom teeth (which can even cause death), or the muscles in our ears.

Last time I checked, the bible said that human aren't perfect

So, in your opinion, what was God thinking when he gave humans wisdom teeth?

Great comment from you, nevertheless watch at human history and you'll see that the number of time human was convinced to be right, then discovered something new proving what they thought being wrong, is huge.

That's not what I questioned. Science indeed perfects itself, but if you're waiting for science to drop out evolution, then it's sure as hell possible, but just as likely as science dropping out gravity.

To clarify, human design is perfect (as you and I both stated, just because we don't know what something does, doesn't mean it is useless). However, sin nature causes said imperfection (I know it isn't directly related to the topic, but I felt the need to clarify).

So sin created the appendix...?

[Sir Meta Knight]

Originally Posted by Lezard Valeth

Great comment from you, nevertheless watch at human history and you'll see that the number of time human was convinced to be right, then discovered something new proving what they thought being wrong, is huge.

The problem with that last statement is, intelligent design isn't science, and as such you can't use that sort of science to prove evolution wrong.

[kazukifafner]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

There is a big difference between assuming uniformity on things that are always known to be uniform (half-life, speed of light) and assuming uniformity on things that are always known to no be uniform (star cycles, Earth's magnetic field). From the 1500s to the 1800s, our magnetic field was quiet, but now recently, it's picking up again, possibly to reverse polarity.



Oh, that? Austin (the guy) sent his samples to a laboratory that made it quite clear that their equipment could not measure anything under 2 million years old. All but one of the samples he sent were just this. The method is fine, the guy simply didn't use it right.

Also, it's a moot point because the samples were impure anyway. They contained xenocrysts, which make the samples seem older (because the xenocrysts themselves are older).


I'll admit my knowledge is rusty, but hydrogen can indeed leave the atmosphere. It's a small gas, temperature alone allows it to reach escape velocity.

However, since you provide a time frame and everything, what proof do you have for the claim?



Copypasta for this:

"The high number for dust accumulation (14 million tons per year on earth) comes from the high end of a single preliminary measurement that has long been obsolete. Other higher estimates come from even more obsolete sources, although they are sometimes incorrectly cited as being more recent. The actual influx is about 22,000 to 44,000 tons per year on earth and around 840 tons per year on the moon.

The story that scientists worried about astronauts sinking in moon dust is a total fabrication. As early as 1965, scientists were confident, based on optical properties of the moon's surface, that dust was not extensive. Surveyor I, in May 1966, confirmed this. "





So sin created the appendix...?

My apologies, it seems my information was outdated, I'll have to do some more research and get back to you. At any rate, Carbon-14 dating is still very inaccurate, and even so, as the process is improved, the dates still get closer and closer together.

I merely don't understand how biogenesis would be necessary if this was all supposedly random.

Sin created the appendix? What are you talking about, of course it wasn't. It has a purpose as an organ in the lymphatic system.

Also, might I ask you something. Evolution is often stated as a scientific fact, though there is NOT sufficient evidence to make the claim (I suppose that could be the same for Creationists, but then again, Creationism isn't taught as a universal truth in most universities). I simply don't see how something with such unrealistic mathematical odds could be anything more than another religion based more on faith than cold facts. Could you please explain this to me?

[Face Down]

Lol I thought the reason the appendix wasn't needed anymore was because of how we have medicine that does basically what it does.

[Phoenix]

My apologies, it seems my information was outdated, I'll have to do some more research and get back to you. At any rate, Carbon-14 dating is still very inaccurate, and even so, as the process is improved, the dates still get closer and closer together.

You mean dating in general, or carbon-dating?

I merely don't understand how biogenesis would be necessary if this was all supposedly random.

Could you rephrase your question? I'm not sure I understand it.

Sin created the appendix? What are you talking about, of course it wasn't. It has a purpose as an organ in the lymphatic system.

Yet it is located in the digestive system.

Also, might I ask you something. Evolution is often stated as a scientific fact, though there is NOT sufficient evidence to make the claim (I suppose that could be the same for Creationists, but then again, Creationism isn't taught as a universal truth in most universities). I simply don't see how something with such unrealistic mathematical odds could be anything more than another religion based more on faith than cold facts. Could you please explain this to me?

Natural selection = fact

Mutations = fact

Genetic drift = fact

Gene flow = fact

As long as these 4 things are facts, evolution, by definition, must be fact.

Also, you do realize that everything developed in biology that you see today is made within the framework of the theory of evolution, right? Cloning, genetic engineering, insecticides, they're all based on the theory of evolution. The reason you see evolution being accepted as a fact is because evolution is to Biology what gravity is to Physics.

Lol I thought the reason the appendix wasn't needed anymore was because of how we have medicine that does basically what it does.

As far as we know about the appendix, what it did originally was help digest stuff like leaves and such.


EDIT:

To help you understand why evolution is a fact (fact sheet for my biology class):

Observation 1: Natural populations have the potential to grow rapidly because organisms produce much more offspring than what are needed to replace the progenitors

Observation 2: The number of individuals in a population tends to remain relatively constant

Conclusion 1: Organisms compete to survive and reproduce

Observation 3: Members of a population differ in their capacity to obtain resources, survive climate changes, escape from predators, etc...

Conclusion 2: Those organisms whose characteristics are more favorable in that environment have a higher chance of survival and reproduction

Observation 4: The diversity between these individuals exists because of inheritable genetic differences

Conclusion 3: Evolution via natural selection- Better adapted individuals leave more offspring, so these characteristics are passed to a larger number of individuals. After many generations, this reproduction between individuals with different genetic constitution modifies the general genetic composition of the population.


If you cannot find fault in the above observations and conclusion, you believe in evolution too.