Creation V Evolution Debate

Wow... those Jack Chick cartoons really are disturbing.

What is wrong with these people..

Quote Excelsior
The contradiction (in Genesis) only enters into the equation when you leave mainstream Christianity (meaning the fullness of mainstream back to the earliest days of the church) and enter into the very modern literalist movement emphasised by many within the independent and non-aligned evangelical Protestant churches.

There is NO contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 full stop – they both describe the same events surrounding Creation in different ways and are mutually complimentary. The Bible is the infallible Word of God – and Christians indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God are fully capable of interpreting it.


Quote Robin
Despite the claims of some posters, I'm afraid to say that creationism is, in a scientific sense, completely meaningless as it looks at virtually no facts, carries out virtually no research and, where it does, only does so to reinforce the simplistic conclusion(s) previously arrived at.

The above statement actually represents the current ‘sorry state’ of EVOLUTION - and that is why you have been unable to answer my basic questions about evolution.

Creation Science continues to make great strides in it's research – and this is recognised by over 90 % of the American public – according to your own posting quoted below.



Quote Robin
FYI, and repeating what appeared on the skeptics board earlier, amongst *trained* biologists working in the USA (where creationism is much stronger than anywhere else in the world), this page backs up the claim that around one tenth of one percent of relevant scientists reject the Theory of Evolution, versus those who do not; in numerical terms, that's around 700 creationists versus 480,000 evolutionists.

Amongst the population at large who are untrained in biology, the figures are that around 80% to 90% (depending upon how you ask the question) of the population of the USA are creationists in some form or other.

I think that these comparative figures for understandings of a technical subject, between trained and untrained people, speak for themselves.

This looks like the ultimate example of “the Emperor’s new clothes” – with 99.9% of "TRAINED" scientists apparently proudly displaying their belief in a theory that has long since passed it’s ‘sell by date’. The vast majority of the US population (who are ultimately paying the salaries of the scientists that produce this stuff) obviously don’t believe a word of it – and so it doesn’t sound like a long-term sustainable position to me.

The figures certainly do speak for themselves. There is something very “odd” about a situation where less than 1% of scientists view the world in the way that over 90% of “the population at large” view it. Is that out of touch or what??!!!!!

Or, just maybe everyone is wrong except ‘little Johnnie evolutionist’???

Or maybe the US education system somehow manages to train 'super brained' scientists while 'dumbing down' 90% of the general population - I think not!!!

One possibility is that the evolutionists are very poor communicators – but this is unlikely – nobody could be that bad a communicator – especially in view of the unquestioning sympathetic publicity given to evolutionists and their ideas by ALL of the main media outlets!!!

The alternative explanation is that the vast majority of people HAVE looked at evolution and HAVE correctly concluded that it doesn't make sense.

The lack of evidence for Evolution provided by contributors to this thread would indicate that Evolution could also become a ‘minority sport’ on this side of the Atlantic as well!!!


Quote Capt’n Midnight
Back in the 1890's most Africian elephants had tusks.
Nowadays about 30% don't.

One hypothesis is that elephants without tusks are less likely to be poached and that eventually more suriviors become tuskless like the Indian elephants.

Anyone care to suggest a creationist mechanism ?

The hypothesis that you suggest would appear to be a good example of natural / artificial selection acting on EXISTING genetic diversity among African Elephants. The differential survival rate of tuskless elephants would be highly significant under heavy poaching pressure for Ivory – and one could envisage a situation where the African Elephant population could become largely tuskless within a few generations if such selection pressure continued unabated.

The observed reason that Indian elephants are almost invariably tuskless is because these animals are domesticated from the wild as ‘beasts of burden’ and low tolerance is shown to tusked elephants – because tusks represent such a very serious threat to Human life and limb under such conditions. This ‘low tolerance’ has included the culling of tusked wild Indian elephants to reduce tusked genotypes from being passed on to future generations of wild Indian Elephants – thereby ensuring the increased availability of safer tuskless working Elephants.

However, none of the above disproves Creation or proves Evolution. These phenomena are merely examples of selection pressures operating on EXISTING diversity. The key question is how this diversity arose, in the first place. Creation by an all-powerful and intelligent God, adequately explains how genetic diversity could arise - but Evolution doesn’t have any plausible mechanisms to account for the massive AMOUNT of information observed in all life, including elephants.
As I have already pointed out, the un-directed production of the sequence for a simple useful protein is a mathematical impossibility – so forget about the spontaneous generation of the complex bio-chemical pathways that produce Ivory and as for a living Elephant – dream on!!!!

As a soon to be physics graduate. I'd just like to point out that if god created earth 6000 years ago, he sure did leave a lot of evidence to try trick us into thinking it's ~ 4.5 billion years old. Take uranium-238.. Half life = 4.5 billion years.

If you happen to find any of this stuff around you'll note that it generally won't be pure.. approximately half of it will be made up of lead. What a coincidence that U238 (eventually) decays into lead.

There are many many other radioactive isotopes that conclude similarly. They're not even rare.. you can take a pack of low-salt outta your kitchen and do some geiger-counter tests on the potassium-40 in it.. You may not find the age of the earth but you'd at least know it's over a billion years old anyhow..

Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing 'does not!'

I'd certainly agree with that..

J C wrote:

This looks like the ultimate example of “the Emperor’s new clothes” – with 99.9% of "TRAINED" scientists apparently proudly displaying their belief in a theory that has long since passed it’s ‘sell by date’. The vast majority of the US population (who are ultimately paying the salaries of the scientists that produce this stuff) obviously don’t believe a word of it – and so it doesn’t sound like a long-term sustainable position to me.

The figures certainly do speak for themselves. There is something very “odd” about a situation where less than 1% of scientists view the world in the way that over 90% of “the population at large” view it. Is that out of touch or what??!!!!!

Or, just maybe everyone is wrong except ‘little Johnnie evolutionist’???

Or maybe the US education system somehow manages to train 'super brained' scientists while 'dumbing down' 90% of the general population - I think not!!!

One possibility is that the evolutionists are very poor communicators – but this is unlikely – nobody could be that bad a communicator – especially in view of the unquestioning sympathetic publicity given to evolutionists and their ideas by ALL of the main media outlets!!!

The alternative explanation is that the vast majority of people HAVE looked at evolution and HAVE correctly concluded that it is complete rubbish.

The lack of evidence for Evolution provided by contributors to this thread would indicate that Evolution could also become a ‘minority sport’ on this side of the Atlantic as well!!!

The validity of evolutionary theory is not based on how many of the public believe it to be true. Biologists opinions in this regard do matter more because they know what they are talking about. Furthermore their opinion is based on knowledge of the evidence available and their ability to weigh it up. Science is not a popularity contest much as you would like it to be. However, your belief that it is a popularity contest may explain why you think that if you shout loud enough you'll win. We know you desperately want young earth creationism to be true ... it shows in every word you type. But desperation is all you have. Your egregious assault on scientific truth is that of a desperate man who believes in a myth; a myth so outlandish and pathetic it almost engenders pity if it weren't for the aggressive, disrespectful and deliberately obfuscating manner with which you present it.

Quote Zod
1. How old is the earth in your view, also how old is man?

2. How many people did God create directly ? (Adam and Eve had Cain and Able only I think?)

3. What are these not quite human fossils that we keep digging up?

4. If life is found on another planet(s) are we missing a chapter, or is there some reference to this in the Bible already?

5. What do you think of the differing creationist views of the rest of the religions (the incorrect majority I assume)?

Answers
1. The Earth and Mankind are both 6,500 +/- 500 years old.

2. God directly created TWO people – Adam and Eve. He told them in Gen 1:28 to “Be fruitful and increase in number”(NIV). Cain, Abel and Seth as well as many other unrecorded children were conceived by and born to Adam and Eve. Gen 5:4 confirms this fact “After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters”(NIV). Such was the perfection of Humans and the newly created environment, that Adam lived for 930 years!! The number of children produced by such long-lived healthy people would be very large indeed.

3. They are usually fossilised monkeys / apes – and in some cases fossilised Humans. In the case of ‘Nebraska Man’ this so-called ‘Hominoid fossil’ was later identified as an extinct PIG’S TOOTH!!!. Piltdown Man was discovered to be a combination of an Orang-utan’s jaw and a Human skull after being displayed for over 40 years as a missing link between Humans and our supposed ‘Hominoid ancestors’!!!!!

4. The Bible is silent about ET life. It is unlikely that God created life on other planets without telling us about it. However, the angelic and indeed demonic hosts are also ‘forms of life’ currently residing in the spiritual dimension both here on Earth and elsewhere.

5. Other creationist views are all approximations of the truth in the Bible. The many “creation” and “flood” stories among different native peoples all over the world point to the veracity of Creation and Noah’s Flood. However, the stories have gotten somewhat changed as they were passed down through “word of mouth” among various isolated groups of people after the “Dispersal of Babel”. The Bible contains the most accurate account, and is the infallible written Word of God – who was actually present at both the Creation and Noah’s Flood events.


Quote bounty
Your creation fairy tales are not a science, that’s why there is no schools of creation in any credible Universities

There are no credible scientific ‘schools of evolution’ either, but I am happy to confirm that Creation Science is making rapid progress in observing and reporting on the real world and how it “works”.
As for fairy tales, evolutionists are the ones claiming that frogs eventually turned into princes (i.e. amphibians were ancestors to man).

Creation Scientists are people of both faith and science – and they know EXACTLY where the science stops and their faith begins – unlike some people that I could mention!!!!.


Quote bounty
Your uncorroborated babblings are merely the opinions of a corrupt old cult that relies on your unheeding ignorant zealotry, to maintain its degrading position of power in this primitive society.

The above quote is actually a perfect description of many Evolutionists from the ancient Greeks to Hitler and Stalin!!!

It certainly isn’t an objective description of Creation Scientists or for that matter most enlightened modern Evolutionists.


Quote 13rian
I think bounty makes a valid point about creation not being studied in any science departments in Universities.

Heliocentric astronomy wasn’t studied in Medieval Universities either – and they were also wrong.

The study of evolution has led to precious little objective evidence being produced in support of it’s scientific validity.

Quote Robin
For those coming in late to this thread, all of JC's questions have been fully answered over in the skeptics forum

Unfortunately NO answers were provided to any of my SPECIFIC questions about Evolution. There was a great deal of ‘huffing and puffing’ and references to internet sites – which also DIDN’T provide any valid answers to my questions. The sceptics then closed down the threads unilaterally and without warning while threatening anybody who re-opened the debate about evolution with being expelled from their forum!!!!!.
I then ‘sought refuge’ on the Christian Forum and the debate has progressed from there!!!!

So here once more are my questions, Robin. Please bear in mind the advice that you got from your Leaving Certificate teachers that you cannot get ANY credit unless you ATTEMPT the questions:-

1. Please explain to me in your own words how Evolution "Muck to Man" 'WORKS'.

2. What is the postulated mechanism for the spontaneous generation of life - or is there one postulated?

3. What is the postulated 'primitive' mechanism that provided the diversity upon which Natural Selection supposedly worked?

4. What is the postulated "conservation" mechanism that the supposed earliest life forms used to preserve any "accidental" positive changes from one generation to the next?

Patiently awaiting answers ………. but not holding my breath – due to the likelihood of acute anoxia!!!!

The ‘deafening silence’ that has greeted these questions every time that I have asked them speaks volumes about the current desperate situation in which Evolution finds itself !!!!


Quote ApeXaviour
As a soon to be physics graduate. I'd just like to point out that if god created earth 6000 years ago, he sure did leave a lot of evidence to try trick us into thinking it's ~ 4.5 billion years old. Take uranium-238.. Half life = 4.5 billion years.

If you happen to find any of this stuff around you'll note that it generally won't be pure.. approximately half of it will be made up of lead. What a coincidence that U238 (eventually) decays into lead.

God certainly doesn’t try to trick us into thinking up false ideas – we are usually quite capable of doing this on our own!!!!

The fact is that Uranium ore is generally mined as Pitchblende (Uranium Oxide) or Carnotite (Uranium mixed with Vanadium, Potassium and Oxygen) – and Lead is rarely if ever found in close proximity to Uranium ore.
Equally, Lead mines generally don’t produce Uranium - Sulphur, Copper, Gold and Silver are the most common impurities found in Lead ores.

About 8 MILLION tonnes of Lead are mined annually – and it is estimated that every year, only about 10 tonnes of Lead is produced through the radioactive decay of Uranium WORLDWIDE.

Obviously, God created BOTH Uranium and Lead separately – small amounts of Uranium and large amounts of Lead. The radioactive decay of Uranium to Lead is therefore a ‘side issue’ from which we cannot draw any valid conclusions in relation to the age of the Earth.


Quote ApeXaviour
There are many many other radioactive isotopes that conclude similarly. They're not even rare. You can take a pack of low-salt outta your kitchen and do some geiger-counter tests on the potassium-40 in it.. You may not find the age of the earth but you'd at least know it's over a billion years old anyhow

Potassium-40 is an IMPURITY in NaCl and therefore varies enormously depending on the salt source and it’s subsequent processing. All you can tell by measuring the radioactivity of a salt sample – is the radioactivity of that particular salt sample.

To measure it’s “age” you would need to know what it’s radioactivity was “at the beginning” as well as how much and what types of radioactive material was added to or subtracted from it during it’s ‘lifetime’. You would also need to know if the rate of radioactive decay remained constant over the time that the salt has existed.
None of these factors can be measured – so therefore you cannot scientifically conclude ANYTHING about the ‘age’ of a salt sample by measuring it’s present radioactivity.

No explanation for the radiation proof physicists have provided then eh? (see my last post)

Thought so..

It's just one of many ridiculous things that is fed by the bible...