Evolution and Creation

WALL_E1 · March 12, 2009, 10:28pm

and bald is a hair colour.

Fett101 · March 13, 2009, 1:19am

Well, not rejection of a god as that would mean the atheists are rejecting nothing.

But yeah, teaching atheism in schools would be just the same as teaching religion. And really, the best solution would be to teach a religion class that gives kids an understanding of all major belief systems.

“I saw that guy. He wasn’t bald, he was shaved. Hairstyle.” Sorry, Spongebob quote

Rac_Rules · March 13, 2009, 2:13am

Ah, isn’t it lovely when we can quote Spongebob in a board as serious as E vs. C? I love this forum (:

Luke · June 27, 2009, 10:33pm

I’m not saying you don’t need the scientific method. You obvioulsy need it. You’re not going to decide wether evolution happens or not because it hapens. The thing with science is that people need to eb interested and learn. Religion doesn’t need that.

I’m sorr,d eciding about any God is not science’s bussiness. A scientist has the right to say that- it’s a person like you. It is just that no God applies to sciebnce, and he/she/it isn’t necesary to explain things. And can’t be defined.

Ever heard of an accretion disk? The situation you are describing can be the result of an usual process in the univers. The responsibles are gravity and the density of the materials and others. It’s simple to explain anyway but I have to go to sleep. Tomorrow maybe. (Damm how I LOVE astronomy!!).

It could have happen any other way? I think no. Every particle in the universe acts as a result of the particles surrounding it. Everything has a cause. The Novikov principle applies here. I think it could have happen any other way… if you travlled back in time and changed it, creating a new timeline/paralell universe, whatever it’s called.

But wait, what was the title of this thread? Lets talk evolution!

You say you believe Christian God carried evolution. I could ask you why Christian God and not any other, as there is no proof in any direction. Lets suppose Christian God.

You know evolution happens whithout the needing of any God right? I’m simply curious in which way you think God carried it. You think he/she/it acts a a simple observer, he changes the medium (again, the medium changes without the needing of any God), he makes mutations (again, mutations happen without the needing of any God), etc.

Just curious.

WALL_E1 · July 2, 2009, 9:31pm

Luke: I’m thinking they are imagining it like a firework. God struck the match lit the fuse and the evolution happened.

NanoGeek · July 15, 2009, 2:24am

I was asked to post the proof, and here it is. Forgive me from copying it from another website, but I don’t have a lot of spare time.

Strength of the Planets’ Magnetic Fields
There is evidence that every planet and large moon in our solar system, including earth, has—or once had—a magnetic field surrounding it. And since the earth’s creation, its field has been steadily decaying (losing strength), for which Horace Lamb created a model over 100 years ago. More recently (1984), creationist physicist D. Russell Humphreys developed a theory to explain the strength of the magnetic fields of the earth and the other planets.
Test Result: Voyager 2’s Measurements

If the earth were even 20,000 years old, its magnetic field would have been so strong as to make life impossible, based on the present rate of decay. The theories of Humphreys and Lamb can be used to determine how much the magnetic field of an astronomical object should decay after 6,000 years at the present decay rate. The numbers that resulted from Humphreys’s theory not only matched the strengths of the known magnetic fields at the time but also successfully anticipated Voyager 2’s measurements of the magnetic field of Uranus (in 1986) and Neptune (in 1990). These results not only confirmed a creationist theory but also helped confirm that the solar system really is as young as the Bible claims.

Read: The Earth’s Magnetic Field and the Age of the Earth and Neptune: Monument to Creation

Decay and Helium Release (RATE)

When radioactive elements, such as uranium, decay, particles are released. These particles include helium atoms, which are “slippery” and make their way out of the crystals where they are formed. If uranium has been decaying at the present slow rate over millions and billions of years, most of the helium should have slipped out of rock crystals. If, in contrast, the earth is young and radioactive decay was much more rapid in the past, then we would expect to find lots of helium in the earth’s rocks.
Test Result: New Mexico Drill Site

When rock was tested from a drill site in Fenton Hill, New Mexico, large amounts of helium in crystals were found. This suggests not only that those crystals are only thousands of years old, but also that lots of radioisotope decay (which would require more than a billions of years at today’s rates) had to occur in only thousands of years. This in turn suggests that nothing on the earth can be dated any older than the Bible indicates.

Watch: Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth

Radiohalos in Sandstones

Radiohalos are the evidence of damage caused when radioactive elements within rocks break down. The breakdown of uranium also creates the fast-decaying radioactive element polonium. Geologist Andrew Snelling suggested that if water flowed rapidly through a rock at the time uranium was rapidly decaying, polonium could be concentrated in a separate place from the uranium. If Snelling’s theory were correct, geologists would expect to find more polonium halos wherever additional water was passing through the rock.
Test Result: Smoky Mountains

When Snelling examined metamorphosed sandstones in the Smoky Mountains, he found exactly what he had predicted. Not only do these polonium halos confirm this creationist theory, but they also suggest that many processes were more rapid in the past. Radioactive decay, metamorphism, and cooling of rocks must have been more rapid in the past to fit into a biblical understanding of earth history.

See the research: Testing the Hydrothermal Fluid Transport Model for Polonium Radiohalo Formation: The Thunderhead Sandstone, Great Smoky Mountains, Tennessee–North Carolina

Cold Material near the Earth’s Core

In the early 1980s, physicist John Baumgardner developed a creationist theory for the rapid motion of the earth’s crust during the Flood. His theory suggested that the “cold” crust, located beneath the pre-Flood oceans, should have sunk the full 1,800 miles (2900 km) to the base of the earth’s hot mantle, where the temperatures are up to 7,232°F (4000°C). This crust would have melted if it had millions of years to reach the base of the mantle, sinking as slowly as today’s rates. On the other hand, if it sank quickly 4,350 years ago, as Baumgardner’s theory suggested, then piles of those plates should still be found at the base of the mantle, cooler than the mantle around them.
Test Result: Mantle Discovery

It took ten more years before scientists developed the technology capable of “seeing” something like that at the base of the mantle. When that technology was developed, the cold material was discovered, just as Baumgardner’s model had expected. This successful prediction suggests that Baumgardner’s model is true. It also suggests that continents moved rapidly during the Flood and that the Flood occurred only thousands of years ago, just as the Bible suggests.

Discover: Catastrophic Plate Tectonics

Reversal of Earth’s Magnetic Field

All magnetic fields have two distinct poles, a north and a south, and so it is with the earth’s. At various times in the past, however, the earth’s magnetic field has actually switched directions. In each case, the North Pole switched with the South Pole. Since volcanic lava, as it cools, records the direction of the magnetic field at the time of the cooling, the rocks of the earth have recorded these flips of the magnetic field. In 1986, however, D. Russell Humphreys suggested that the turmoil of the Flood caused the magnetic field of the earth to flip rapidly during the Flood. If so, the field must have flipped every couple of weeks or so.
Test Result: Steens Mountain Record

In 1988, a basalt flow was found at Steens Mountain in southern Oregon that did indeed record a flip in the earth’s magnetic field. So far, the only way to explain such a rapid reversal is by the disruption of the young earth’s magnetic field during a global Flood—just as the Bible claims.

Hope that helps. The website by the way was answersingenesis.org. They have a whole gob of articles about the evolution/creation debate and other Biblical mysteries.

Bemijaminji · July 15, 2009, 10:35pm

I have always believed in creation from the Bible, but I do have evidence even though I consider it secondary to faith…
One point of proof against evolution is that it goes against a fundamental law of science and that is the second law of thermodynamics which states that all system tend toward disorder. This makes the notion of life forming spontaneously impossible.

Fett101 · July 15, 2009, 11:08pm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law … ng_systems

And evolution does not state that life spontaneously formed. Evolution states that current life evolved to it’s current higher level over a very long period of time from much simpler creatures. Evolution does say life must have started at a tiny level, but it does not make any specific claims about how life came to exist any more then the thoery of gravity does. Please try and keep your scientific theories straight.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models

Bemijaminji · July 16, 2009, 2:35am

Thank you for the correction Fett101.

Halos_Nach_Tariff · July 16, 2009, 8:45am

Although I am a Christian I do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, I find the theory of evolution far more palpatable than the ideology of creation ex nihilo.

As Gallileo said: ‘The Bible shows not how the Heaven’s go, but how to go to Heaven.’

WALL_E1 · July 16, 2009, 9:04am

so you believe god ‘lit the fuse’?

Fett101 · July 16, 2009, 12:12pm

Not taking the bible literally doesn’t really limit someone to believing in either a ‘hands on’ or ‘hands off’ god, does it? You could make arguments for either side.

NanoGeek · July 16, 2009, 12:43pm

I’m curious. If you believe in God, but not in the Bible, why do you believe in God? I’m not trying to insult you, but it seems that it would be impossible to believe in parts of the Bible, but not all of it.

Halos_Nach_Tariff · July 16, 2009, 4:08pm

I don’t ‘not believe in the Bible’ I just don’t believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Seeing the Bible as God’s infallible word, applicable to every situation just doesn’t sit right with me. I believe that the Bible is a human text, written by men and women, but inspired by their view of God, that is why it contains so many different styles.

In Genesis there are two different accounts of creation, does this mean creation happened twice? Of course not, it is just two different peoples interpretation of creation, that’s how I see it.

I suppose I believe in God because I’ve been brought up as a Christian, either way may worldview (Blik if you will) contains an omnibenevolent creator.

Now I’m curious, to those of you who do believe in creation over evolution, how do you explain the existence of the bones of prehistoric creatures? And the fact that we can see through the fossil record, to a degree, how creatures have evolved?

NanoGeek · July 16, 2009, 8:59pm

Halos Nach Tariff:

I don’t ‘not believe in the Bible’ I just don’t believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Seeing the Bible as God’s infallible word, applicable to every situation just doesn’t sit right with me. I believe that the Bible is a human text, written by men and women, but inspired by their view of God, that is why it contains so many different styles.

In Genesis there are two different accounts of creation, does this mean creation happened twice? Of course not, it is just two different peoples interpretation of creation, that’s how I see it.

I suppose I believe in God because I’ve been brought up as a Christian, either way may worldview (Blik if you will) contains an omnibenevolent creator.

Now I’m curious, to those of you who do believe in creation over evolution, how do you explain the existence of the bones of prehistoric creatures? And the fact that we can see through the fossil record, to a degree, how creatures have evolved?

No “transition” fossils have ever been found. Sure we have found extinct species, but that does not mean that what we have today is in some way evolved from the fossilized creature.

Please read some of the articles here: answersingenesis.org/get-ans … ic/fossils

They can answer questions much better than I can.

WALL_E1 · July 16, 2009, 9:05pm

Wrong.

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Fett101 · July 16, 2009, 11:28pm

And here’s a page for that claim specifically.
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

WALL_E1 · July 19, 2009, 11:07pm

Thanks Fett.

Luke · August 3, 2009, 3:43pm

I’m sorry. I always try not be rude. But can I laugh?

Yeah, fossilization is an extremely rare phenomenon. With the billions and billions of species that have ever existed, sometimes it’s hard to say a concrete actual group of animals has evolved from this one or this one. What it shows is that previous species that could after develop in new species actually existed.

I dont’ get the evolution questioning. And every creationist argument I haver ever erad or heard simply didn’t work.

Why do some people refuse to accept evolution as a fact but accept every other part of science? If you’re going to refuse a part of objectivity, refuse all. Refuse all science. And stay away from, let’s say, hospitals and stuff!

DirtyBirdy · August 21, 2009, 2:56am

Mitch:

I moved this post here from the “Sarah Palin and Republicans” thread. Basically, it’s my response to anyone who believes in the theory of evolution:

All right. You want proof that this world we live in didn’t come about by some explosion of a few dust particles? Go outside your house or look out your window. Go on. Look! Now you tell me that some “accident” created those trees out there. You tell me that this Earth we live in contains just enough – no, more than enough – nutrients, minerals, and water to sustain us. You tell me that we live in an environment that is systemically designed to support us with enough oxygen, carbon dioxide, and other essential ingredients – ones that we’d die without had they not been there. You tell me that our planet is situated just close enough to the sun so we don’t freeze, yet not so close that we become a victim of the undeniable circumstances and burn to death. You-tell-me that this was all an accident…

“Big Bang Theory” my butt. I don’t usually engage in discussions like this, but hey, it’d be a miracle indeed if some explosion in space caused all this to happen. There had to have been something to start that explosion to begin with, so where did that force of nature originate? And I don’t care if anyone says that, “Oh, it took so-and-so “billion” years for the Earth to become situated in this spot, or for animals to evolve into other species until we eventually became a product of chance.” Uh-huh. Yeah. Right? No! If one creature evolved into another, then why aren’t they still doing it now? If that happened, then why did the process stop? Huh? I dare scientists to keep searching for an answer, and heck, they’re gonna do it, because they’ve been doing it for years and years already and they’re not gonna stop.

Open the Book, read the first sentence of the first chapter of the first book. “In the beginning…” Now go to the third verse of that chapter: “Then God said,…” There ya’ have it! The proof? Well, there is none, really, unless you look out your window… You just have to believe it. Of course the principle of faith makes no sense! That’s why it’s faith! I use it all the time because, every single time, it works.

– Mitch

Mitch, I completely agree with you. The very idea with out the existence of God, grinds my guts. People who don’t believe in God, that’s their choice. I acknowledge that opinion. But those who are offensive with their Atheism, just completely turns me off to even respecting that opinion. I’m not saying I am prejudiced towards atheists, but that aspect changes their overall character to me.
The theory of Evolution just has too many gaps and holes for me to ever think that that could ever be the origin of our species. Its funny how most of the fossil record proves creation! The fact that all of a sudden there was a plethora of fossils at one time doesn’t read a “slow change of the species overtime” like evolution preaches. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? The only thing that confuses people over creation is the whole six days thing. sigh, guys guys, They are not literal 24 hour days. if you look at 2nd Peter 3:8 (sorry can’t quote it, I may not be allowed to) it answers that question. there you go.

Now, Before you guys jump to any conclusions, I will not, I repeat NOT pre-judge you because of your beliefs. Whether you believe in God or not, I always get to know people before I judge them. I am just expressing my beliefs and am not trying to insult anyone here. so lets all be friendly with one another, you know you must "Love your neighbor as yourself " (Matthew 5: 43-45)

Truly speaking though, I think this topic is too controversial to be on a website where children browse.