Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Now for the issue of the flood.....

During a glacial maximum, the sea levels decrease in altitude - after this period ends, land that was previously exposed, becomes flooded under the deluge of the rising ocean. I presume this is what your dad's research is pointing to. If that is the case, then I would have to point out that there is no way in heck that this would be a global phenomenon as an 'ice age' is generally localised to certain areas - the last one was localised in the northern hemisphere with a heavy concentration in the European region.

[Khamûl]

I'm just going to jump in wherever I can.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I haven't read your whole thing - but i wanted to ask you this - where is the proof that man lived 350 years old? Why don't we live that old now - even with modern medicine? That is so fichtion - I can't belive you actually used it as supporting evidence. I will say this again - the bible is a work of FICTION - that being a prime example. I can not believe that you say that evolution is hard to believe - but yet you have no problem believing in fairy tales. Sorry - but that is how I feel.

I don't care if that is what you believe - just please start bringing ACTUAL science into your arguments instead of relying on the bible.

[edit] made it through your post- you sort of answered YOUR feelings on why man might have lived a long time. I might like to point out though that that is based on NO scientific evidence whatsoever.

Let me give one possible explanation about why man lived so long back then.

Genesis 2, starting in the last sentence of verse 4 in the NIV translation: "When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens -- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [footnote: or 'mist'] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground..." Also remember that in Genesis 1:6-7 God separated the waters. "6 And God said, 'Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.' 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so."

Here's a scientific theory for you. Some scientists believe that the 'waters above' refer to a vapor canopy that surrounded the pre-Flood Earth like a bubble. This vapor canopy would have had three very interesting effects on the Earth.

The first thing is that it would have allowed the Sun's warmth to be more evenly distributed all over the world via the Greenhouse Effect. If the air temperature was fairly constant all over the world, there wouldn't be warm and cold air masses interacting and producing rain, storms, tornados, hurricanes, etc. This is a reasonable explanation for the lack of rain before the Flood. The whole planet would also have had a relatively temperate climate; no deserts, no ice fields, no storms... Sounds a bit like what you would call a Paradise, doesn't it?

The vapor canopy would also have acted like sunscreen for the entire planet, filtering out most, if not all of the harmful cosmic rays that reach us today. This is known as the Filter Effect. Many of these rays that penetrate our present atmosphere cause mutation and aging. This could be one explanation why people before the Flood lived so long.

The third effect the vapor canopy would have had would be to push down on the air beneath it, causing increased air pressure or a hyperbaric environment. We now know that a hyperbaric situation is very beneficial to living things, causing them to grow larger, metabolize food more efficiently, resist diseases more effectively, and recover from injuries and ailments more rapidly. Just think about how quickly pro athletes heal from soft tissue injuries after time in the hyperbaric chamber. All this is another factor about why people lived for so many years.

[Sheeana]

Problem is bub, that the hominid record simply does not support a long lived human. Average ages certainly don't tend to extend much beyond 40.

[Khamûl]

I am curious about how you can tell how old someone was when they died by looking at their fossils. Maybe you could shed some light on this for me, since I believe anthropology is one of your strong points.

Please know that I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely wondering.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Problem is bub, that the hominid record simply does not support a long lived human. Average ages certainly don't tend to extend much beyond 40.

I agree. Even today we have extended our physical ages - but our brains don't usually last. I seriously don't believe man lived to 350 years of age without modern medical science - and even then our science can not make most people live past 80.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Khamûl
I am curious about how you can tell how old someone was when they died by looking at their fossils. Maybe you could shed some light on this for me, since I believe anthropology is one of your strong points.

There are a few things that you can look at. The common ones that I am familiar with are: teeth and cranial sutures.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sheeana
There are a few things that you can look at. The common ones that I am familiar with are: teeth and cranial sutures.

I know about the teeth - because our teeth wear down - they wouldn't withstand 350 years of grinding and chewing. What happens to cranial sutures though?

[Sheeana]

No, I'm not talking about teeth erosion, as that is not a good uniform occurance. I'm talking about the rate of calcification that occurs steadily thoughout our life time. As for the cranial sutures: sutures such as the saggital suture start out as being open (a newly born baby's skull is actually soft, and malleable as the sutures are all unfused and open, allowing for ease of birth, and ease of growth.) Throughout our lifetime, these sutures gradually become more fused at a steady rate. You can actually calculate the degree of fusion, and work at the Age of Death of an individual from this.

There are other means that I covered in bioarchaeology, but we didn't cover them in much detail. Things such as the ossification of long bones, and such.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sheeana
As for the cranial sutures: sutures such as the saggital suture start out as being open (a newly born baby's skull is actually soft, and malleable as the sutures are all unfused and open, allowing for ease of birth, and ease of growth.) Throughout our lifetime, these sutures gradually become more fused at a steady rate. You can actually calculate the degree of fusion, and work at the Age of Death of an individual from this.

I knew about the babies skull and "soft spots" - but I was unaware that they actually continue to fuse together during the course of our lifetime. I thought they pretty much stopped after a certian age - except for growth.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
There are a lot of reasons why we have prospered in the last couple of thousand years. Life has been a lot easier. Before we didn't have the weapons to use against predatory animals, we didn't have medicine we have today. These things as well as many other have helped the human species prosper and expand.

Life has not been a lot easier then it was in those hundreds of thousands of years, as far as I know. I am willing to be enlightened, but it doesn't seem likely to me that you can belittle human ingenuity to such a degree. We invented those medicines and weapons. Were we less capable of creating them before? If so, why?

Those inventions certainly aided our growth, but they came suddenly, and we made them. They didn't just come and aid our growth. That simply raises another reasonable question. If we had been around for those hundreds of thousands of years, without getting into sheer population, but related to that issue. How come there never happened to come up technology of any sophisticated level?

It's enough time for us to have populated the Earth at least a hundred times over. Instead we remained a minor species with crude tools and weapons.

I might be getting carried away with this argument, but it is a problem of rather major proportions.

Originally posted by Ruinel
As has been repeatedly posted, and is in the original post that started this thread. This is a thread for you to post your evidence to support the theory of creation. It is not a debate between evolution and creation, or a thread to post arguments against evolution. But again, no evidence is provided to support the theory of creation. Not by you or anyone else. Perhaps there is no evidence at all for this theory, and it is a faith issue. Either you believe it blindly, or you do not.

Evidence doesn't have to constitute proof. And the various posts we've been making have offered some evidence, though no doubt much more sketchy and less adequate than a more knowledgable creationist could offer.

The thing I brought up, questioning (from our present knowledge) the slowness (by evolutionary theory) of humanity's known to be exponential growth, was an evidence in support of the Bible. The Biblical exponential growth rate for people from the time of Noah fits the basic numbers we see today. It doesn't at all fit the slow evolution model, though, to me.

Meanwhile we have offered numerous other things- that was only the most recent.

Originally posted by Ruinel
My sister reads historical romances that contain historical information from a period in history. That historical information is true, but it does NOT make the book nor the story true.

Offer me good evidence that the Biblical stories are incorrect. You, Jerseydevil and others seem broadly to accept it as historically reliable. Historians accept them as well, and they've been taken as containing extremely good information (by nonChristians), except for the unfortunate happenchance that they are full of miracles and spiritual contact. Are these the primary things that you object to? Besides the story of creation .

Originally posted by Sheeana
During a glacial maximum, the sea levels decrease in altitude - after this period ends, land that was previously exposed, becomes flooded under the deluge of the rising ocean. I presume this is what your dad's research is pointing to. If that is the case, then I would have to point out that there is no way in heck that this would be a global phenomenon as an 'ice age' is generally localised to certain areas - the last one was localised in the northern hemisphere with a heavy concentration in the European region.

Plainly, I'll have to make that trip to the library. I'll talk further on this particular topic then, unless someone else beats me to it.

[Khamûl]

Perhaps because aging didn't work the same way, those things didn't work the same way either. I'm not sure why they wouldn't, but that's just a thought.

But you say that the hominid record doesn't support evidence of people that old. I don't really want to open up the evolutionary can of worms again, but aren't they still looking for the "missing link"?

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Khamûl
Perhaps because aging didn't work the same way, those things didn't work the same way either. I'm not sure why they wouldn't, but that's just a thought.

This process of aging is also used in other mammals as well. The results have been fairly consistent. Besides, as a creationist, aren't you against change? Not being sarcastic, but if our rate of aging HAS changed, wouldn't that tie more in with the so-called evolutionist's POV more than the creationists'?

But you say that the hominid record doesn't support evidence of people that old. I don't really want to open up the evolutionary can of worms again, but aren't they still looking for the "missing link"?

If you look on the appropriate thread, you will find plenty of debate regarding the so-called missing link. It is a misnomer to say the least.


Leif:
Regarding technology - a lot of what we have today would not be in existance without the skill of writing. The development of technology (cultural evolution) is much like biological evolution - certain steps have to be taken before a certain level of technology is attained. And Leif, I highly encourage you to take a class in experimental archaeology. It is easy to discount 'crude tools' when you haven't tried to make an oldawan axe yourself! It is interesting to note that we no longer have the skills to make these so-called crude tools! And the view of what is primitive and what isn't is highly relative. We didn't just have a technological boom in the last one hundred years - this has been developing over the last few million years - ever since the first hominid picked up a rock and used it as a tool.

[Khamûl]

Originally posted by Sheeana
This process of aging is also used in other mammals as well. The results have been fairly consistent. Besides, as a creationist, aren't you against change? Not being sarcastic, but if our rate of aging HAS changed, wouldn't that tie more in with the so-called evolutionist's POV more than the creationists'?

I don't really think so. Maybe the maturity process was different. Perhaps someone who was 300-400 years old would still be like a modern 40-year-old. I don't know. I'd have to do some more research.

If you look on the appropriate thread, you will find plenty of debate regarding the so-called missing link. It is a misnomer to say the least.

Will do.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Leif:
Regarding technology - a lot of what we have today would not be in existance without the skill of writing. The development of technology (cultural evolution) is much like biological evolution - certain steps have to be taken before a certain level of technology is attained.

That really doesn't explain why for hundreds of thousands of years in which we've had the brain capacity we have now, we discovered almost nothing new. Why didn't we discover writing more quickly?

And Leif, I highly encourage you to take a class in experimental archaeology. It is easy to discount 'crude tools' when you haven't tried to make an oldawan axe yourself! It is interesting to note that we no longer have the skills to make these so-called crude tools!

True, I'm sure they were tougher to make then we have the ability to make them now. We really have lost a lot in terms of hands on management skills. It's interesting to note that America, the wealthiest country, also has around the smallest ability to survive, now, without our technology.

No, what I was objecting to was the fact that these people, no less intelligent then us (or at least not to any noticeable degree) would neither expand in population size, nor increase in knowledge or tools, to any great level, for these vast amounts of time.

And the view of what is primitive and what isn't is highly relative. We didn't just have a technological boom in the last one hundred years - this has been developing over the last few million years - ever since the first hominid picked up a rock and used it as a tool.

Actually . . . if you look back at the information we have, we see a huge increase in the recorded information. I do see a huge jump, not a slow development. Can you give me good evidence that before 5000 BC, in all those hundreds of thousands of years, there was any development of technology that even slightly parallels what we see today?



I think that with each of the three points you made, they were correct, until the last sentence of your post. But the information you've presented is true. It just doesn't answer the question, based upon what we can observe in the past very recent few thousand years, of human ingenuity, speed of production and development of technology, and the awesome speed with which our population reproduces. If there were humans basically identical to humans of our known history, hundreds of thousands of years ago, I think we would have reached our pinacle of civilization ages ago.

I thank you for your response though, Sheeana . I do like how you incorporate into your various posts loads of historical or scientific information.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
NIV version, Chapter 1:9. Further reference is Chapter 10:25.

Of course, with these passages people have tried to interpret them differently, but as science has backed the literal interpretation, I see little point in that. Unless we are afraid that the timelines of the Bible are inaccurate, and I don't believe that that is the case.

One other interpretaion which seems to correlate to the larger context of the chapter is expressed in the Amplified version:

Genesis 10
25To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg [division], because [the inhabitants of] the earth were divided up in his days; and his brother's name was Joktan.

This correlates which the previous description of the formation of the different nations of the biblical world and doesn't seem to relate to any actual physical change in the earth. The first passage is staright forward and does seem to correlate to a concept of a super continent, even though it is very vague and open to various interpretations of the sort.

Now for the issue of the flood. My Dad read the account of a past worldwide flood, millions of years ago, in a book on the Ice Ages. I'll try to pick the book up from the library when I can, if you want a reference. I was wrong about it being an Entmoot Atheist :I.

A reference or a link from Amazon would be adequate if you know the title. The data I've seen shows a sea level drop during the recent ice age, hence the land bridges from Asia to N. America and Australia.

Evolution at a slow and steady rate would require that the human race has been around for several hundred thousand years at least.

Humankind expands exponentially, and we are by far the most clever species on the planet. Within the last few thousand years, we have expanded outward to cover the entire planet. This seems to connect very favorably with the Biblical dates. Does anyone think that a series of disasters, or a limitation on our genius, could keep our species from expanding exponentially as it has done now? Why did we not cover the Earth during our hundreds of thousands of years, and wait for the last few thousand?

There are many variables to consider. The population growth rate, as JD mentioned is varible and technology dependent. Prior to the development of agriculture and animal husbandry the population growth rate would be substantially less. Also, prior to mass construction, humans did not leave a significant imprint on the enviroment in immediately tangible ways. Primative man did, however, hunt many species to extinction in the hunting and gathering days (giant flightless birds in Australia for example), so his impact was being felt before written history. There is a limit to the population that can be supported by hunting and gathering alone, and the famine/drought years were bound to have a much greater impact on this type of subsistance lifestyle than it would on agrarian communities, in terms of death rate, not total numbers.

Edit: Whoa! Where did all those posts come from?

[Cirdan]

As to the extgrodinary ages described in the bible, you must remember that there is a limit to the number of times our DNA can replicate, without being part of a stem cell, gamete, etc. Even adding extrodinary living conditions and allowing say a 50% increase in age (very generous) 350 years is still well outside all modern limits of age. So, Sheeana is right, this requires a significant genetic variation.

As to the Vapor Canopy Theory, it is unlikely in the present orientation, revolution, and rotation of the earth, that this situation could be stable. There is also no evidence that it actually happened. Glaciers were around well before the time period required for this to fit in the chronology.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I knew about the babies skull and "soft spots" - but I was unaware that they actually continue to fuse together during the course of our lifetime. I thought they pretty much stopped after a certian age - except for growth.

Here's a site that talks about this;

http://www.spoilheap.co.uk/hsrspec.htm

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
One other interpretaion which seems to correlate to the larger context of the chapter is expressed in the Amplified version:


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 10
25To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg [division], because [the inhabitants of] the earth were divided up in his days; and his brother's name was Joktan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This correlates which the previous description of the formation of the different nations of the biblical world and doesn't seem to relate to any actual physical change in the earth. The first passage is staright forward and does seem to correlate to a concept of a super continent, even though it is very vague and open to various interpretations of the sort.

In the second passage, you're right, there is a chance that it might be relating to the nations.
The actual writing, for those who haven't looked it up, is "Two sons were born to Eber: One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan."

There are Christians who have taken the stance that the passage means the nations rather than what it says, the earth, because they don't want to disagree with science.

The first passage is "And God said, 'Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.' And it was so."
I think your analysis is pretty fair, Cirdan, though I don't think there are as many likely ways of interpreting the second one as you seem to imply.

Originally posted by Cirdan
A reference or a link from Amazon would be adequate if you know the title. The data I've seen shows a sea level drop during the recent ice age, hence the land bridges from Asia to N. America and Australia.

Unfortunately, my Dad doesn't remember the title or author, though I asked him. He thinks it was just called "Iceages," but he isn't sure. It doesn't sound like a book that would be commonly out of the library though, so I have some hopes in finding it.

Originally posted by Cirdan
There are many variables to consider. The population growth rate, as JD mentioned is varible and technology dependent. Prior to the development of agriculture and animal husbandry the population growth rate would be substantially less. Also, prior to mass construction, humans did not leave a significant imprint on the enviroment in immediately tangible ways. Primative man did, however, hunt many species to extinction in the hunting and gathering days (giant flightless birds in Australia for example), so his impact was being felt before written history. There is a limit to the population that can be supported by hunting and gathering alone, and the famine/drought years were bound to have a much greater impact on this type of subsistance lifestyle than it would on agrarian communities, in terms of death rate, not total numbers.

Hmm . . . See my response to Sheeana.

Without technology, I agree that we are a weaker species. Weaker than many. Our brains give us a far stronger ability than the other species though, a far stronger one. It's why we didn't use them much that stumps me.

[GrayMouser]

As for the vapour canopy, if this was not to fly off into space it would have to be gravitationally bound to the Earth, as part of the atmosphere- which means it would exert atmospheric pressure on the surface.

If it were enough to cover the Earth in a Flood one mile deep, then the surface atmospheric pressure in Noah's day would be the equivalent of living one mile deep in the ocean.

Of course to keep that as vapour takes heat- add to the Earth enough heat to boil a world-wide ocean.

Paradise?!?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html

And from a Creationist source

What arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use?
Canopy theory. This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so there is no place for dogmatism. Also, no suitable model has been developed that holds sufficient water; but some creationists suggest a partial canopy may have been present. For AiG’s current opinion, see Noah’s Flood—Where did the water come from? from the Answers Book.

‘There was no rain before the Flood.’ This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so again there should be no dogmatism. Genesis 2:5–6 at face value teaches only that there was no rain at the time Adam was created. But it doesn’t rule out rain at any later time before the Flood, as great pre-uniformitarian commentators such as John Calvin pointed out. A related fallacy is that the rainbow covenant of Genesis 9:12–17 proves that there were no rainbows before the Flood. As Calvin pointed out, God frequently invested existing things with new meanings, e.g. the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper.

[GrayMouser]

Also check out the link in AiG to " Noah's Flood: Where did the Water come From" for their rejection of the canopy theory.