Creation vs. Evolution

[JeffG]

To turn around and say true scientists distort the facts into what they want to believe is an insulting display of hypocrisy.

But it is a handy tool to use when debating though.

 

[SeanQ]

But it is a handy tool to use when debating though.

It's as invaluable as a towel is to an intergallactic hitchhiker.

 

[adza]

I would prefer not to waste my time going though each 'point' one by one, but one that comes to mind is the point about the Mississippi delta emptying into the Gulf of Mexico and filling it up. Absolute silliness. Has this person never heard of plate tectonics, and a changing face of the earth?

My point exactily. If you're not willing to "waste time" by going through each point one by one - how do you know that the points made are all false? Evolutionists simply ignore the points made that disagree with their point of view.

What evidence in there is legitimate?

Pray tell, what evidence of a young earth is there?

If many people have seen evidence of a young earth, and you have not - could this mean that you have not properly weighed up the evidence to make a proper decision in the first place - having only seen evidence that agree's with the "evolutionary theory".

Try a book called "in 6 days" to start with. Fifty scientists worldwide, with recognized earned doctorates in various specialties, give personal testimony to their belief in the Biblical view of creation as contrasted with evolution. Not the most simplistic book to read - because of all the scientific information involved.

If you are truely serious about looking at some good firm evidence on creation (as opposed to a 5 minute throw by someone not as well knowledged posting a quick reply on a forum) - so you can have a more balanced view (or to help concrete your view on evolution if you can disprove them) - I suggest you try this book.

But evolution is not a closed box. Find the evidence. If you can find the evidence, you can change the theory. Good luck.

Already been done (see my book above as an example) - but many choose again to ignore that evidence (or hide it from others, which may be why you haven't seen any 'evidence' contradicting it - unless you go searching).

It again gives an example to my point that evolutionists have a closed mind, and an agenda.

Because we have people wanting creationism taught in school, brainwashing our children with ideas that not only don't fit the world we know around us, but isn't even a majority belief in the world. Creationism is like the anti-science and, as has been proven over and over and over and over again in this thread, is a view based primarily on misinformation.

So instead, we have evolutionists teaching their theory in schools, brainwashing our children with ideas that don't only fit the world we know around us. Again - you have no proof that creationism is an anti-science, but you make statements in order to make your belief sound more credible. I can't blame you though - you're just doing what the founders and supporters of evolution do too. It's the only way to make evolution seem legitimate.

I better go to work now. I'll come back later - thanks for the dialog

 

[mdb]

As with many threads, this is now the province of the High school smug types, the all knowing, the true belivers, and some who try, vainly,to have a real discussion. Time to take this one to Whine and Cheese.

 

[SeanQ]

My point exactily. If you're not willing to "waste time" by going through each point one by one - how do you know that the points made are all false? Evolutionists simply ignore the points made that disagree with their point of view.

This is a perfect example of the type of logical fallacies that are abundent in this thread. It's hard to understand science when you don't understand logic.

 

[Cacia]

why the passion?

simply put, it is a battle for our children's souls.

Self determined or dogma, regardless of which side you are on.

 

[Uncle Pug]

How do you expain all of the great creatures prior to that, i.e dinosuars?

There is an interesting item in the Old Testament book of Job where God is pointing out to Job just how puny he is compared to two of God's creatures. They are so great that man is unable to kill, capture or tame them.

The creatures are called *behemoth* and *leviathan*. The old understanding was that they were the hippopotamus and crocodile but the descriptions don't fit these known animals.

However the descriptions do fit with a very large though docile land/swamp dinosaur and an equally large but especially ferocious sea dinosaur.

This explanation is automatically disallowed by the theory of evolution since man and dinosaur are not to occupy Earth at the same time.

Those who are not constrained in what they can or cannot believe might find the answer to your question in the book of Job.

 

[Thalassamania]

Please don't take this as a personal attack - I just want to use your post as an example of many posts I've seen here in this thread. Where do you get your evidence that Stezby was factually wrong?

Just look around.

I have seen disagreements amongst scientists too - and many who show flaws in Evolutionary Science. What I seem to see in this thread are those (on both sides of the fence) who have their belief first - and then look for scientific evidence to back up this belief, in many cases - ignoring any other evidence that may go against their belief, and class it as being 'made up', or 'fiction', or 'inaccurate' without considering that it may be legitimate.

The disagreements among scientists (in the area of evolution) are on fine points not on, did evolution occur. On that point there is complete agreement

The same has been used with evolution. Only those dating methods that meet their requirements (like argon dating) are considered for review - which has been proven to be inaccurate over and over again - ignoring evidence of a 'young' earth.

You do not know what you are talking about.

I know I'm not going to convince people here who are solid evolutionists of anything else - their decision is made up and they won't be deterred, but that's not my point to this post. My point is to show how evolutionary science is just as much a closed box when it comes to thinking as anything else - including religion / creation / etc.

When all the evidence, often independently collected and analyzed, yields that same conclusion, except for a mythology that is written in a book which is of debatable origin, I’d go with the evidence. There much evidence to support evolution and the multi-billion year age of the earth, there is only myth and made up evidence to contradict either of these concepts.

On another note - I do have one question (seriously) that I can't understand from an evolutionist point of view. Why do evolutionists push so hard to have their point of view believed?

I mean - Christians, sure - I can understand. They want people 'saved' from hell - which is why they share their views, but evolutionists? What's the point? It doesn't matter what people believe - it won't matter anyway. We're all going to die, and then that's it? What motivates the passion of evolutionists?

There are many reasons and they are different for each individual, the more anal retentive just find what they perceive as stupidity to be disgusting, while others have a real fear of falling back into superstition. For me it’s a commitment to truth and human progress.

 

[Soggy]

Try a book called "in 6 days" to start with. Fifty scientists worldwide, with recognized earned doctorates in various specialties, give personal testimony to their belief in the Biblical view of creation as contrasted with evolution. Not the most simplistic book to read - because of all the scientific information involved.

I'll add it to my long list of books to read. Who is it by? I couldn't find it on amazon.

 

[Soggy]

Here's a start. I got bored. I'll try to come back to it...

Creation Theory
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

Evolution Theory:
Origin of the universe – The Big Bang Theory.

Origin of life – The Spontaneous Generation Theory

Evolution of man – The Theory of Evolution

Evolutionists believe that the entire solar system was formed from clouds of gas and dust. If so, the Sun, planets, and the moon should be made of similar elements.

In fact:

The Sun is 98% Hydrogen or Helium

The Earth, the moon, Venus , Mercury – all contain less than 1% Hydrogen or Helium!

Stars contain most of the hydrogen and helium in the universe and create, through nuclear reactions, the other stuff. Planets do not have the necessary gravity to hold hydrogen and helium in their atmosphere.

If solar system evolved, all planets should be spinning in the same direction.

Why would this be true?

If the Solar system evolved, all the moons should orbit their planets in the same direction.

Why would this be true?

Large gaseous planets like Jupiter and Saturn

Scientists cannot explain why their gases have not dissipated into the vacuum of space in 4 billion years!

It's called gravity. Those planets are large enough to hold their gasses in place.

The Moon

The Moon has quite different elements to Earth. If the Earth and the Moon evolved from a big bang, it would be expected that they would have identical composition.

The most accepted theory is that the moon was created about 4.5 billion years ago when a large object collided with a still-molten earth, breaking off a large chunk. I don't know enough about the composition of the moon and earth, to answer your question about why they differ, if they indeed do differ.

The Moon is getting farther from the Earth by 2 inches every year.

It used to be closer!

Duh. It used to be part of the earth.

The Moon controls the tides. The closer the Moon, the higher the tides (Inverse Square Law)

If the Moon were 2 million years old the tides would be so high that they would drown everyone twice a day!

Well, first the moon is about as old as the earth, ~4.5 billion years. It was broken off of the earth in a cataclismic collision and obtained orbit quite a distance from the earth. It's not like the moon was created 2 inches from the earth and orbited there, then kept expanding 2 inches a year from there. You can't just assume a linear relationship going back in time and ignore history.

The Earth is slowing down.

At the equator the Earth is travelling at about 1000 miles per hour.

The Earth slows down by 1/1000 second per day.

The Earth used to spin faster

Leap seconds are added every 1 months.

If the Earth is only 6000 years old there is no problem.

If the Earth is billions of years old – that is a major problem.

Earth would then have been spinning much faster!

Days and nights would have elapsed much faster!

What's the point of this? The earth's rotation has been slowing down (though not at a predictable rate) due to the gravitational effect of the moon. Yes, it used to spin much much much much faster. Why is this a problem?

Age of the Sahara desert

Only 4000 years old.

This is consistent with the Flood 4,400 years ago, as the Bible says.

What do you mean it is only 4400 years old? The desert part? The formation? What? It has undergone periods of wet and dry for millenia. The end of the last ice age brought a temporary wet period, but 13k years ago it was dry also....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_desert