Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But you're trying to work backwards, Cirdan, from today's ages, whereas the creationist model would be that Adam and Eve's descendants were closer to the ideal state of the initial human creation before sin started taking its toll on all life.

I sure the deleterious effects of sin on DNA would be very easy to test in a laboratory situation. But seriously, it defies logic since the long lives are post-sin.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Again, sorry for starting up a thread and then leaving for a few days (but we had a terrific coupla parties!!! )

I should be able to post every afternoon this week.

And again, Lief was entirely correct to use the Bible in answering GrayMouser's (IIRC) question, since he was questioning the numbers given in .... the Bible.

Yeah, absolutely. I was challenging him on the basis of the Bible's internal evidence, and he was totally justified in replying on that basis (though he's still wrong )

[samwise of the shire]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jerseydevil
Sorry Sam - byut you really have NO idea what you are talking about.

Your statements have no basis in fact whatsoever though. If you're going to make statements concerning evolution - at least make sure they make sure you know what you are talking about first.

Who's they?

Why would you see evolved animals? You don't see dinosaurs today - but they existed. The mammouth, the Siaber tooth Tiger. The reason why you don't see the "tranistional" is because the "transitions" die out and evolve. What happened to the dinosaurs it is believed is that they grew into what you see flying around you (at least some of the dinosaurs).

So do they die out, and THEN evolve as fossils? JD you are NOT making ANY sense. For a transition you need animals that have 1 mutations and 2. and that are ALIVE so they can reproduce and pass on those mutations. Then if that were the case, I would see a new species that started evolving a thousand years before Homo Sapien Sapien (Wise wise man? Odd. Man is not that intelligent to me. Sure we understand more, but do we USE it to our fellow mans advantage or to our own? That's folly) evolved, and if evolution is taking as long as you say it is, we would see animals with small mutations yes, but still visible, because when did modern man evolve? I seem to remember reading 2.6 millions years ago, or was that the start of the earth in the 40's? *shrugs*Anywho it seems to me that descendants of a frog lets say with mutations would be still here today.

It would be a lot easier to talk to you if your statements made sense. Where has it ever been said that a huge meteor caused a worldwide "draught"? The meteor threw up tons and tons of debris into the atmosphere - this caused the sun to be blocked out, which caused the earth to cool and the plants to die, as the plants died - the large herbivore dinosaurs didn't have enough to eat, as they died - so did the carnivores which relied on them for food. Other animals, mammals, insects and so forth - were able to scavage of their bodies and continue to survive. No where is it believed there was a worldwide draught. Believe start doing some research.

Oh my WORD. They say it fell in Mexico? Where's the crater? Show me evidence for a crater in Mexico the size of a meteor big enough to destroy MOST of the dinosaurs. And BTW a draught is a long drink you take from a mug of ale...a DROUGHT on the other hand is what I was referring to I'm TEASING. I know you slipped up. But just thought I'd point it out, being the idiot I am.

I went to catholic school all my life - I have read the bible many times on my own. I, myself, have come to the conclusion that based on the evidence - evolution explains a lot more than creationism. Creationism is basically a simple childrens story - like most of the bible. Good rules to live by - at least the New Testament and the 10 commandments (which I only believe in the last 6)- but the rest is nothing more than stories. I however do not believe in a mythical supreme being anymore than I believe in Zeus on Mt Olympus.

*sighs* Could you TELL me what is so CONFOUNDED confusing about Creationism up front? Maybe we can come to an understanding. Not a compromise...an UNDERSTANDING. That way we won't kill each other every time either of us posts on this subject.
Cheers,
Sam.
ps. I know one of you will reply to this post...I will reply to that person and then that will be the last post I will make on this thread...I think to the relief of us all. I hope you'll enjoy this thread...please don't start a huge world war, but be prepared...I'll be back.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
You know what? I personally don't think it would take very long for language to begin. *edit*

All the examples you gave are of people who already have language and understand the concept. Man is not the only aminal capable of using language, as we all know, since chimps and gorillas can be taught to use sign language. What then would be the insipient factor in "discovering" language as something beyond animal grunts, whistles, clicks, etc.? How many people does it take to require the ability to communicate, to create language were none existed before? It must require a significant population to justify an entire language, and for it to be successful it would need to be adopted by other groups. Evwen Latin, as successful as it was, died out. How many attempts failed to take over time? It could have taken quite a long time.

[Cirdan]

One asteroid crater coming up....

here

[samwise of the shire]

Now I feel hypocritical.

All the examples you gave are of people who already have language and understand the concept. Man is not the only aminal capable of using language, as we all know, since chimps and gorillas can be taught to use sign language.

But do they UNDERSTAND? Language is much more than talking and making words...you have to UNDERSTAND it to speak it. French is a language, but I don't understand it...so I don't speak that language, even though I might be able to say something in French correctly. ASL is a language, but do the chimps know what they're saying? Sure they might say "I need food" but why is that? Because they're given food every time they say something in ASL.
Cheers,
Sam.

[Jonathan]

Yes, the chimps know and understand what they're saying. They're not as good as we are at learning new words and they don't have our ability to speak, but they can still be thaught to communicate with signs. You could have conversations with a chimpanzee, which would not be possible if they weren't aware of language and just said "I need food" when they're hungry.
Even certain parrots can understand what they say! You can communicate with the smartest parrots and tell them what to do, and they'll do it!
If parrots can be thaught to understand a language rather than just imitate it, chimps must be able understand languages too.

[GrayMouser]

A question I developed while musing about SARS.

One speculation was that SARS was transmitted from civets captured and eaten in Guangdong (Canton). If you ever go to the market there, you'll see cages and cages of miserable animals and birds, many from endangered species, as well as tanks and buckets of slimy, scaly and multi-legged creatures that I can't even put a name to.

People will eat just about anything in their environment (though as Sir Walter Raleigh noted, "it was a brave man that first ate an oyster")- I have eaten locusts in Africa, wasps in Taiwan, rats in China, and ants in Mexico, as well as nameless squirming sea creatures in many locations.

So, how about the trilobite? One thing Evolutionist and Creationist alike can agree on is that there were a lot of trilobites. Whether you think they were one of nature's most successful body plans over millions of years, or whether you think God created them in such splendid design and varieties of species that they all promptly went extinct, the fossil record shows trilobites; lots and lots of trilobites.

The fossil record also shows abundant numbers of brachiopods and ammonites, marine molluscs.

From very early human history there has been a relationship between humans and marine molluscs and arthropods which can be summarized as "yum, yum , yum".

Clams, mussels, oysters, squid, octopus; lobsters,crabs, shrimp, prawns....

So how come, while we find all these abundantly in the garbage pits of primitive shore-dwelling communities, we don't find any trilobites? Not boiled, not roasted, not baked- no trilobites.

No ammonites, no brachiopods....

For that matter, we never find ANY of what we evolutionists would call ancient species in human middens. No armoured fish skeletons, no dimetrodons, no seymourias, no dinosaurs of any kind, even the ubiquitous (and tiny) Compsagnothus- no charred remnants, no bones cracked for marrow.

None of the early birds or mammals, either- in fact, the ONLY remains of animals and plants found with humans are those from the late Pliocene , Pliestocene and Recent Epochs.

While we have abundant evidence of human hunting and utilizing more recent animals- stone spear points in mammoths, signs of worked bones etc., there is NO repeat NO evidence of human exploitation of earlier life forms.

So what gives? Did those people have stricter codes than Leviticus?

"Thou shalt not eat of the trilobite, or of the brachiopod; yea, the Dinosauria shall also be unclean, and thy wives shalt not adorn themselves with the feathers of the Archaeopteryx, for that is an abomination unto the Lord"

[GrayMouser]

As for non-homan language users, I think the experiments with chimps and gorillas are greatly overstated.

[Jonathan]

GrayMouser, that was a great point you made.

Scientists haven't found any ancient animal species in pre-historic human settlements. It would have been quite a shock if they had done that one day
But I don't think we have to worry about that, it won't happen.

[GrayMouser]

So the theory of Creationism says that because of the exquisite design of living organisms, it is impossible for them to have evolved under natural circumstances.

Their existence can only be explained by the actions of a super-intelligent Creator, who so carefully crafted them to live and flourish in His Creation that well over 99% of the species that He designed immediately became extinct .

What kind of Intelligent Design is it where far fewer than 1% of the designs last a lousy couple of thousands of years?

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Or, far better than that, you could read "The Case for Christ" yourself. But Jerseydevil, I fear that you are blinded by an incredibly strong bias, without even being willing to accept the remotest possibility that anything we present, be it factual or not, is true.

I read it, every single word. It is a "case", but certainly not "proof". It boiled down to (IMO) ....Since so many people truely believed that christ was the son of god, who died and rose, to save souls (or whatever his deification is supposed to mean! ) ....."and were willing to die for this belief" it must be true. Makes me think of all the matyrs of other religions, willing to die for their various beliefs, thus proving "not much" to me.

[MasterMothra]

i too have read the "case for christ". i enjoyed reading it, but it in no way delivered any concrete evidence or logical reasoning to make me believe there is a god, or that jesus was his son. the book is written as though the author went on a mission to prove that jesus was a myth and that while making this book he saw the light and was transformed. this is simply not true. lee strobel was a practicing christian by the time he began writing this book.

mr strobel also leads us to believe that he was a hard nosed skeptical journalist. well, if this were true, then wouldnt he include critics of christian apologists in his interviews? wouldnt it be more objective and effective for his case to provide both sides, then tell why he chose one side over the other?
oh yeah, did i forget to mention that mr strobel is a pastor at Willow Creek Community Church, a church that has over 30,000 members. that would be a lot of people to let down if they actually found out the truth about their existence.

[Lizra]

Gee! I didn't know all that. Shame on him! I really thought he was a hard nosed reporter awed and changed by it all! I hate it when people try to manipulate *information* to suit their agenda. I bought and read that book because I seek the truth, plain and simple, whatever it my be. I consider my lifetime very important (to me at least! ), and I want to base my decisions on how I lead my life, on truth. (Same as when I vote! It's hard to do! )

[MasterMothra]

dont get me wrong, i think mr strobel believes in what he says. i also respect his opinion and his credentials. i just think that if he truely wantd to seek the truth then he would have presented both sides. Rian recommended the book to me several month's ago, and since i respect her opinion, i read it. its probably one of the better christian apologist books ive seen.

even though i dont agree with any of them.

[Lizra]

If I had known he was the pastor of a christian church with a membership of 30,000, (how can a church have so many members?) I would have veiwed his factual review a little more suspiciously. I feel duped!

[Sheeana]

1. 200,000 years is not that long a period in the grand scheme of things.
2. Up until fairly recently, people were still dying of things like the flu, childbirth, etc. Longevity has only really been attained in the last 100 years or so. It was common in the victorian age for women to die giving birth.
3. Isolation and small populations are not adequate "breeding grounds" for the exchange of information and invention.
4. The advent of farming only occured recently, with the rise of agriculture occuring approx. 10,000 BP.
5. Prior to farming, hunting was the main source of food income. During the late hunting phase, task forces would leave the main settlement for weeks at a time. This meant that for a certain portion of the year, men (and quite possibly women) weren't at the settlement to breed. Thus we have smaller population numbers.
6. Farming meant that the male could stay at home, and breed more. It is no coincidence that there is a population expansion around 10,000BP.
7. For cultural evolution - much like biological evolution - the best conditions for the spread of ideas is in a fertile breeding ground where there are lots of ideas floating around and being exchanged. In isolation, things happen more slowly, and have a higher chance of the cultural equivalent of "founders effect" kicking in.
8. Writing is a precursor of civilisation. You can not have bureaucracy without it. And there was no need for writing until there was an adequate enough population for complicated trade. It is no coincidence that the first writing samples are a crude form of business keeping/mathematics.
9. You are underselling what has come before. Fire is a big invention. It meant that we could increase our consumption of meat, and therein increase our brain capacity. Hunting is a big invention. Again, a means of increasing our meat intake - prior to that, we were scavengers reliant on other predatorial kills. Change of diet is another one - scavenging for bone marrow meant that we could spend less time looking for grains, and eat less. Eating less meant that we could spend more time ... uh... thinking. (Ties in with what Jon said - although the overall trend is still LESS leisure time today, than that of the H/G.) Maths is a huge invention. We could not build some structures without it. And maths is relatively OLD. Clothes are important. Without them, we probably wouldn't have survived the increasingly cold temperatures of the glacial maximum. Shelters are important. Again, protection against the weather elements.
10. Without an increase in brain size, we could not engage in larger groups. As such, developing bigger brains was also a precursor to civilisation, and as such, we needed biology to push us there first. (The bigger the mammals brain, the bigger the group within which it socializes in.)
11. Again, TRADE and EXCHANGE are integral to the development of technology. The bigger the population, the more information is freely available.
12. A change in environment was needed. Up until fairly recently, hominids were 'plaqued' by the last glacial maximum - which was not farm friendly. It also forced populations to cluster in small areas as opposed to spread out and scattered. Again - this caused isolation, and hindered the spread of ideas.
13. Giving up nomadism was probably a good idea....
14. Modern medicine means that we can live longer, and develop ideas over longer periods of time.
15. The internet means that ideas can be exchanged/stolen instantaneously.
16. The archaeological record only preserves a small amount of durable material. Stone is one of them. Undoubtedly, other materials were used, but unless we find a miracle cache, we will never know. Philosophy, ideology, ideas are NOT preserved. AND furthermore, what IS preserved, is only a small indication of what the technology is really like.
17. We have not reached the peak of our technological development. Who's not to say in another 200,000 years time, we won't have developed telepathy?
18. Technology relies on what has come before. Certain barriers have to be broken down before we can progress forward.
19. Generally, technology won't be invented until there is a need for it.

Some questions: at what rate of development would you consider to be reasonable? Given the amount of inventions that HAVE occured over the last 200,000 years, would you expect these all to be instantly available to us the minute we developed our 1500cc brains?

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Evolution does not have to fit a prewritten guide book that people are afraid to change. That is where the problem comes in. Now you guys are trying to explain how man could live for 350 years. Let's just say that disease was weak and be done with it. All creationist really try to do is fit the theories in so the bible stays intact - to hell with science and discovery and learning.

Both evolutionists and creationists have some tenets in their theories that they won't change. Evolutionists won't change that macro-evolution occurred, and creationists won't change that complex species were created right from the start and only vary in certain ways allowed by characteristis already in the species (and thus do NOT go from fish to man). Mechanisms are proposed for both theories. If the scientific evidence doesn't support the posed mechanism, then a different mechanism is developed. That's why the current evolutionary theory is Neo-Darwinism; because the expected transitional fossils weren't found, the theory of punctuated equilibrium was posed. Do you see what I mean? Evolutionists were NOT willing to throw out macro-evolution when the fossil evidence didn't fit it!! Instead, they proposed another MECHANISM for how macro-evolution occurred. Same for creationists - they are not willing to throw out the creation characteristics of what we see, but they CAN change a proposed mechanism if it doesn't fit the data.

*****EDIT --> I was really in a hurry when I typed this and slipped up and accidently said Neo-Darwinism was because of the lack of transitional fossils. I knew better, but slipped up. Neo-D is that genetic mutations are the source of the beneficial changes. Punct. equil. was developed because of the lack of expected amounts of transitional fossils. But my point remains, that evolutionists won't throw out macro-evolution.

No - I like you and I was looking forward to showing your parents-in-laws around. I just said dislike because I was beginning to think that you thought I either hated you or disliked you. And I would have preferred to show them around NJ - but I do understand the desire to go see Ground Zero. I would have taken them by ferry though from Liberty State Park in Jersey City.

Thanks, JD, for telling me that, because I was starting to think our differing opinions had started to make you dislike me But now I feel better. My in-laws only had a few hours, that's why they wanted to see Ground Zero - a pretty important and solemn site in the history of our country.

[Cirdan]

Speaking of weapons, we didn't replace the bow and arrow until recently 18th century as a hunting weapon). No a bad invention to have such longevity through all that other inventing going on. Same with the fish hook, the fishing net, the sewing needle, the loom, pottery...

[Sheeana]

Ah, Cirdan, my favourite partner-in-crime. Would you like the piece of chocolate I found in my cereal?