Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by 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.

Actually, though 350 years is well outside of the modern limit, I don't think its primary source is the one you've mentioned. Allow me to read some quotes from my Chemistry book:

Originally written in "Basics for Chemistry"
As ionizing radiation passes through matter, it interacts with molecules, creating ions and high-energy molecular fragments called free radicals. Free radicals are very reactive, and cause further chemical changes that are harmful to living cells.

Large doses of radiation are fatal because they cause failure of the blood-forming system, the gastrointestinal system, and the central nervous system. Smaller doses have effects that may not be observed until years later, such as impaired fertility, shortened life span[italics added], or cancer.

It is impossible to avoid exposure to radiation, because small amounts of radiation, called background radiation, are constantly present around us. High energy radiation from outer space, called cosmic rays, contribute to the background radiation. Background radiation is also produced by the naturally occurring radioisotopes in minerals and in the construction materials that contain these minerals. As shown in Table 17-4, background radiation is the major source of radiation exposure for most people.

Table 17-4 proceeds to show us that the Average dose rate (mrem/year) is 182. Of that 182, 102 comes primarily from cosmic rays and radioisotopes. Most of the remainder comes from modern medical instruments.

Now, let's look again at the different symptoms of long term radiation contact. Cancer, impaired fertility, and shortened life span.

Originally written in the World Book
Cancer strikes people of all ages but especially middle-aged persons and the elderly.

So cancer vulnerability plainly could increase over the long run because of radioactivity. As is logical- it has effect over the short term.

I don't need a World Book quote to demonstrate that it is middle aged persons and the elderly that are less likely to successfully bear children- we all know it.

And shortened life span also is a symptom.


Is it not conceivable then, that by a dramatic change in the radiocarbon levels on the planet, ages might be greatly reduced from what they once were?



I'm going to miss this thread when, the day after tomorrow, I have to go back to school for a week and not post on Entmoot .

[Khamûl]

Originally posted by 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.

According to the vapor canopy theory, the canopy is not the main source of the water for Noah's flood.

Genesis 7:11 -- "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month -- on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."

The 'springs of the great deep' seem to indicate that not only did the water come from the sky, but also from within the Earth.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Is it not conceivable then, that by a dramatic change in the radiocarbon levels on the planet, ages might be greatly reduced from what they once were?

No. Radiocarbon dates are only relevant to recent dates. The age of the earth is determined by correlating many different techniques. Besides, what mechanism do you propose for changing not the amount of radiocarbon, but the ratio of radiocarbon to carbon? This is the critical issue, not the total amount of carbon.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
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?

Yes. Why aren't ther more Flintstones cars in the fossil record? Technology growth, like population growth, is dependent on many variables, and has grown exponentially. Gunpowder was invented 800 years before anyone put it to practical use. Why didn't the Egyptians build Saturn rockets instead of those big, useless pyramids if they were so smart? You also don't give credit to the pre-written history inventors who figured out the movement of the moon and the stars, masonry, metalurgy, ballistics, leverage, agriculture, animal husbandry, polytheism, architecture, textiles and of course writing. Writing wasn't invented until there was a need for it.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
No. Radiocarbon dates are only relevant to recent dates. The age of the earth is determined by correlating many different techniques. Besides, what mechanism do you propose for changing not the amount of radiocarbon, but the ratio of radiocarbon to carbon? This is the critical issue, not the total amount of carbon.

You misunderstood my post. I was talking about ages of people, not ages of the earth or radiocarbon dating.

Originally posted by Cirdan
Yes. Why aren't ther more Flintstones cars in the fossil record? Technology growth, like population growth, is dependent on many variables, and has grown exponentially. Gunpowder was invented 800 years before anyone put it to practical use. Why didn't the Egyptians build Saturn rockets instead of those big, useless pyramids if they were so smart? You also don't give credit to the pre-written history inventors who figured out the movement of the moon and the stars, masonry, metalurgy, ballistics, leverage, agriculture, animal husbandry, polytheism, architecture, textiles and of course writing. Writing wasn't invented until there was a need for it.

Again, I think you're somewhat misunderstanding me. What you have said is true, but it goes further simply to emphasize my point. Which of those things have been dated to have been invented hundreds of thousands of years ago?

Look at the history of metal:

Originally written in "The World Book"
Ancient people knew and used many native metals. Gold was used for ornaments, plateds, jewelry, and utensils as early as 3500 BC. Gold objects showing a high degree of culture have been excavated at the ruins of the ancient city of Ur in Mesopotamia. Silver was used as early as 2400 BC, and many ancient people considered it to be more valuable than gold, because it was rarer in the native state. Native copper also was used at an early date for making tools and utensils, because it was found near the surface of the ground in the native state and could be easily worked and shaped.

Since about 1000 BC, iron and steel have been the chief metals for construction.

So in the case of metal, which you acknowledge doesn't require knowledge of writing, it has been an incredibly swift discovery when compared with those hundreds of thousands of years of absence of major discovery in metal.

Originally written in "The World Book"
Milestones in star study:
3000 BC The earliest recorded astronomical observations were made in China.
100's BC Hipparchus, a Greek astronomer, drew up the first catalog of stars that showed their brightness and position.
AD 150 Ptolemy, an astronomer in Egypt, cataloged more than 1,000 stars and developed a way of using numbers to record the positions of stars.
1572 Tycho Brahe, a Danish astronomer, proved that a supernova he observed was a star. He thus proved wrong an ancient idea that no change in the heavens could occur.
1609-1610 Galileo, an Italian scientist, pioneered the use of a telescope to study stars too faint to be seen with the unaided eye.
1718 Edmond Halley, an English astronomer, checked the positions of stars recorded by Hipparchus and found that some stars had moved. He thus showed that stars had a proper motion.

It continues, but I don't feel like writing out the whole history. In any case, again, we observe huge increase from these dates around 3000 BC, like with metal. We learned and discovered awesome things through our observations, in fast succession. Prehistoric man, meanwhile, discovered virtually nothing that we know of about the stars for hundreds of thousands of years.

I could look up those other subjects you mentioned, but they all seem to simply demonstrate further: For hundreds of thousands of years man used his incredible brain resources to do virtually nothing, while within incredibly recent history (relatively speaking), vast quantities of knowledge have been uncovered. Man suddenly started using his mind.

I don't think this makes sense. Man of the past was just as clever as man of the present, by the evolutionary model. How come we hear so little about that man doing anything of relevance? Why is there this huge incongruency between what prehistoric man did during his vast tracts of time, while we have discovered just about everything within our tiny slot of 5000 years?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
So in the case of metal, which you acknowledge doesn't require knowledge of writing, it has been an incredibly swift discovery when compared with those hundreds of thousands of years of absence of major discovery in metal.

It continues, but I don't feel like writing out the whole history. In any case, again, we observe huge increase from these dates around 3000 BC, like with metal. We learned and discovered awesome things through our observations, in fast succession. Prehistoric man, meanwhile, discovered virtually nothing that we know of about the stars for hundreds of thousands of years.

I could look up those other subjects you mentioned, but they all seem to simply demonstrate further: For hundreds of thousands of years man used his incredible brain resources to do virtually nothing, while within incredibly recent history (relatively speaking), vast quantities of knowledge have been uncovered. Man suddenly started using his mind.

I don't think this makes sense. Man of the past was just as clever as man of the present, by the evolutionary model. How come we hear so little about that man doing anything of relevance? Why is there this huge incongruency between what prehistoric man did during his vast tracts of time, while we have discovered just about everything within our tiny slot of 5000 years?

technology breeds technology. You act as if out of the blue man just started working with metals. All the basic stuff had to be figured out - how to smelt it, form it, etc. For the history of many - there were many advances - from horse back riding - to the invention of the wheel. You could not create a cart without first inventing the wheel, you can not create a hores drawn carriage without first domesticing horses, inventing the wheel, seats, etc. You can have farms without inventing agriculture, which requires an understanding of plants and seeds and irrigation. At first they gathered and hunted what they needed - then they invented things that made their life easier. One of the reasons there have been so much of a exponential technological leap in the 20th centure is becuase of the airplane, electricity, cars and computers.

Airplanes and cars allowed for increase of knowledge transfer - instead of having to be months at sea - we can now get to Europe in 6 hours. Computers allow us to design things which would be impossible to design without them. Computers are the key advance that has created such a huge increase in techonogy - all you have to do is look at cell phones, palm pilots, etc.

You seem to act that man should have been able to create a computer, without knowing how to make a pencil first.

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I don't think this makes sense. Man of the past was just as clever as man of the present, by the evolutionary model. How come we hear so little about that man doing anything of relevance? Why is there this huge incongruency between what prehistoric man did during his vast tracts of time, while we have discovered just about everything within our tiny slot of 5000 years?

Man didn't have time to do very much while he was still a hunter. When Man started to cultivate the land, he suddenly had much more spare time to do things. He didn't need to use all of his brain capacity to hunt and stay alive any longer. He finally got a lot of spare time to discover new things and invent news inventions.
And after Industrial Revolution, Man could discover and invent things even faster.

[Lief Erikson]

Again, Jerseydevil, you're completely missing the point. The farthest back discoveries with metal date to about 3500 BC. It took us about 5000 years to get as far as we have now. Not some hundreds of thousands, or millions of years. So why did we create everything so quickly, in comparison with the sluggish rate of creation? Again, like Sheeana, you seem to think I'm complaining about our having to carve on stones before we write with pens. But that is completely missing the point, which is that just about all invention has taken place within the last 5000 or so years. Movement from crude tools up through various stages of development to where we are now, all happened within about 5000 or so years. Where is the development prior to that? And if there is none, or incredibly little, why does that exist?

You see, it's a difficulty in the Theory of Evolution. It's like having a species of carnivors not using their teeth, having humans go for hundreds of thousands of years without using their brains to learn new things.

If you want to argue that they were developing things just as we are now, you'll have to show me what they did. I looked up some of the different things Cirdan said, and none of the beginnings of those branches of knowledge have been going on for very long, in comparison with the vast gap of time.

[samwise of the shire]

Jersey you mentioned several things of interest. One was the reference to an evolutionary purpose in everything, and how evolution does not rely on chance. First off I want to ask you...what evolutionary purpose does a sunset or leaves changing in autumn have? I mean why are they so spectacular and beautiful and what purpose does that beauty have in furthering our evolution?
2nd you mentioned Leif and I being blind to our faith. God has nothing against us studying evolution, but it is such a garbled, unsteady, and changeable theory that often one gets lost in trying to get into the details. How can something so reasonable (as you put it) as evolution be so garbled unless someone blind to their need for God put it together?
3rd you mentioned new species. If Evolution is true then why is it that we don't find transitional species in the fossil record? A bird species CAN change the shape of it's bill, it happens, and has been proven scientifically, but just a change of bill does not mean that the birds are going to become another species of bird, or another completely different animal.
4th you asked where the water from the flood went. Into the ocean. The rise from the flood waters covered parts of the earth, huge ice caps formed due to drastic changes in the weather (we can agree that something catastrophic changed the weather).
I just want to know...what is the point for this debate which is "evolving" into an arguement? I think that the idea for this thread to be able to give us creationists a chance to give OUR ideas on the earths origins and to support them without having to answer 2 billion evolutionists in the process. And I would like to remind you that this is a debate thread...not a Hobbit walking party created for the amusement of those who are not furthering the debate, but are only adding to the confusion.
Cheers all,
Sam.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Man didn't have time to do very much while he was still a hunter. When Man started to cultivate the land, he suddenly had much more spare time to do things. He didn't need to use all of his brain capacity to hunt and stay alive any longer. He finally got a lot of spare time to discover new things and invent news inventions.
And after Industrial Revolution, Man could discover and invent things even faster.

I heard a story about a North American Indian who invented a manner of writing and tested it with his daughter. Then they demonstrated their discovery to the other Indians, and were nearly killed because they were suspected of witchcraft. Their bark strips and tools were burned.

In tribes, there are levels of heirarchy also, and the development of medicines has always been going on. Indians learned to use all the different parts of the buffalo. The tribes learned, even if they learned more slowly than we can now, because we are provided with large amounts of time.

Also, planting crops has been going on for a long time and in various parts of the world. The Indians planted corn before they contacted white men, and the white men also knew how to plant, though they planted grain that originated in central Asia, Asia Minor, and Egypt between 5000 and 7000 BC. The earliest Indian corn cobs are believed to date to 10,000 BC, while there are more at 7000 BC. Again, two recent discoveries, in different places.

Different tribes also likely had heirarchies, as I said, and do you think the women and children had to likewise be busy all the time? I know they had a harder time than we do now, and that might help explain any increase in technological learning over the past very recent centuries. But even the earliest major learning is within a relatively recent ballpark, still ignoring those hundreds of thousands-or millions-of years.

Are you saying that for hundreds of thousands of years, hunting took too much time for man to learn?

However, I thank you very much, Jonathan, for trying to offer a rational explanation for the mystery. It shows that you have an understand the problem I'm trying to present, which means I might be able to stop rewriting it soon .

[Lief Erikson]

Samwise, I think they do have a right to question our theories or opinions, and to try to poke holes in them. If what we bring up cannot stand up when questioned, it's not worth our supporting.

Also, the reason they'd give for why you don't see the fish transforming into frogs is that they change very slowly.

[Cirdan]

LE, how old is that world book, anyway?

The Sumerians were very advanced 10,000 years ago.

Sumer Map

[samwise of the shire]

Ah, good points. And I changed one of those...the frog thing because I thought about it awhile and realized what you posted was right...but I don't want to talk about that because it's no longer in my post.
Cheers,
Sam.

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by samwise of the shire
First of I want to ask you...what evolutionary purpose does a sunset or leaves changing in autumn have? I mean why are they so spectacular and beautiful and what purpose does that beauty have in furthering our evolution?

Beauty is something highly subjective. It doesn't really have anything to do with evolution. Though a flower can be 'beautiful' in order to draw insects to it and let them pollinate it.
A sunset is an abiotic factor and itself doesn't have an evolutionary purpose.
Changing leaves are something that have developped thanks to evolution. The purpose of the leaves is to make the trees live and stay alive.

Originally posted by samwise of the shire
3rd you mentioned new species. Why is it that we are loosing more animals to extinction than we are gaining them through evolution? Where are the new animals? That in itself is support for creation. I live by a river, and if evolution as we see it today is taking place then where are the fish turning into frogs? A canary CAN change the shape of it's bill, it happens, and has been proven scientifically, but just a change of bill does not mean that the canary's decendants are going to become another species of bird, or another completely different animal.

We are loosing more animals to extinction than we are gaining through evolution because of ourselves. That is absolutely not supporting the creation theory. It is we who extinct the animals, not mother Nature. And animals have always been extincted. There have been mass-death and most of the life on Earth has been killed. But when animals die, there's lot of room for new animals to live and to evolve. When the dinosaurs died, there were great opportunities for mammals to "take over" the world and therefore, most of the new species that evolved were mammals.

EDIT:

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Are you saying that for hundreds of thousands of years, hunting took too much time for man to learn?

Not really. When man finally learnt to cultivate the earth (which happened at different times at different places), man could breed more quickly and man's standard of living became higher. It's quite logical that man discovered more and invented more when there were more humans and when they had better lives than before.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by samwise of the shire
Jersey you mentioned several things of interest. One was the reference to an evolutionary purpose in everything, and how evolution does not rely on chance. First off I want to ask you...what evolutionary purpose does a sunset or leaves changing in autumn have? I mean why are they so spectacular and beautiful and what purpose does that beauty have in furthering our evolution?

Beauty is nothing. It serves no purpose except on living organism. You only think the sunset is beautiful - but that is a concept. It has nothing to do with evolution. It's the atmosphere and dust and clouds that cause the beautiful sunsets.

2nd you mentioned Leif and I being blind to our faith. God has nothing against us studying evolution, but it is such a garbled, unsteady, and changeable theory that often one gets lost in trying to get into the details. How can something so reasonable (as you put it) as evolution be so garbled unless someone blind to their need for God put it together?

Science isn't easy. I see what your problem is now - you just think that everything should be cut and dry, black and white. If evolution can't be explained in a couple of pages - then it's too complicated.

Also- where did I say the word "reasonable"? And why is god necessary?

3rd you mentioned new species. If Evolution is true then why is it that we don't find transitional species in the fossil record? A bird species CAN change the shape of it's bill, it happens, and has been proven scientifically, but just a change of bill does not mean that the birds are going to become another species of bird, or another completely different animal.

There are a lot of inbetween fossils that have characteristics of "mixed" species. Why do you think birds are felt to be birds are felt to be descended from dinosaurs and that reptiles are no longer felt to be dscended from dinosaurs. It's because dinosaurs share the same bone stucture, etc, whereas as repiles don't. Also very recently there have been dinosaurs that have been found to have the beginnings of feathers. That seems to be the links you claim don't exist. You seem to refuse to look at them.

4th you asked where the water from the flood went. Into the ocean. The rise from the flood waters covered parts of the earth, huge ice caps formed due to drastic changes in the weather (we can agree that something catastrophic changed the weather).

If that was the case - there would be evidence of the oceans all over the world. There is evidence of water covering the entire world. Receding water leaves marks.

I just want to know...what is the point for this debate which is "evolving" into an arguement? I think that the idea for this thread to be able to give us creationists a chance to give OUR ideas on the earths origins and to support them without having to answer 2 billion evolutionists in the process. And I would like to remind you that this is a debate thread...not a Hobbit walking party created for the amusement of those who are not furthering the debate, but are only adding to the confusion.

So just because you disagree - you think evolutionists should just keep their mouth shut? So far the only thing that has been used to support creationism - is the bible and creationists trying to knock holes in the theory of evolution - when they don't even understand it. Bring out some SCIENTIFIC evidence instead of trying to discount a theory you obvisouly have no understanding of and relying on a book you have no idea who actually wrote. And yes - Lief - I still feel you have no idea who wrote the bible or how accurate it is.

[Jonathan]

I don't like the term "transitional species" since it can easily be missunderstood. It's not that all the species that live now are perfect, because they too are "transitional". They'll probably not be the same species in the future, since they'll continue to evolve.

I've heard creationists say "there are no fossils of transitional species" before. That is not true. Of course it's quite rare to find fossils of the same animal but at different stages in it's evolution. But the horse is a good example. Fossils of the early horses have been found and we have been able to follow the animals developpment through time.
Many say that the horse fossils are not a good example of "transitional species", but there are other fossils tfrom other animals as well that proves there really existed "transitional species" in the past.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
However, I thank you very much, Jonathan, for trying to offer a rational explanation for the mystery. It shows that you have an understand the problem I'm trying to present, which means I might be able to stop rewriting it soon .

I understand what you are saying Lief - it's just that you're argument makes no sense. Technology breeds technology. Just because metal wasn't used right away - does not mean that there weren't millions and millions of discoveries that needed to come about before metal could be smelted and used. Metal itself allows for many new technologies. You can not make metal axes or spears without it. But without the knowledge of the stone axes and the stone spears - they would not have been able to apply metal and make these new evolved items.

Man had the brain capacity for millenium to make computers - but we didn't have the experience or background knowledge necessary.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Not really. When man finally learnt to cultivate the earth (which happened at different times at different places), man could breed more quickly and man's standard of living became higher. It's quite logical that man discovered more and invented more when there were more humans and when they had better lives than before.

Have you any evidence to support your belief that for hundreds of thousands of years, men did not increase in numbers exponentially, as they now do?

Also, unless you have information that demonstrates differently, Indians learning to plant corn didn't necessarily have huge improvement over Indians living in hunting lifestyle. Sure, it certainly helped them, but I don't see our learning about crops as having been the trigger for all technology. One would think that over hundreds of thousands of years, humanity would have learned to hunt very, very, well. Think of all that time!

I really don't think that's taking the proportions of the problem into consideration. We are an incredibly clever species. We have done a huge amount within a tiny amount of time, on an evolutionary scale. People think. People then thought . . . unless they weren't people.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
And yes - Lief - I still feel you have no idea who wrote the bible or how accurate it is.

Which book(s) this time?

Again, the post-Solomon books of the Old Testament have been proved accurate by multiple archaeological and documentary findings, and by corroboration with accounts from other countries of the period.

Back to Joseph, I can give you strong evidence for the Bible's validity, though it would take me a long time to make such a presentation, multiple posts, because of the nature of the material.

The Creation story is the primary thing that hasn't checked out, and yet we see validation with scientific discoveries (the flood and break-up of the continents) as well, just at different times.

You have said yourself that you don't question much the historical validity of the Bible.

I can give you detailed information on how the manuscripts were preserved to us, and how we know the Old Testament is genuine, and still as it was originally written. The processes the writers went through to keep the books exactly as they had been eliminate all possibility of error. They were quoted in religious services. People of the New Testament times believed completely in their authority and accuracy. They were referred to by Jesus multiple times in his arguments with the Pharisees, as an authority.

Numerous Atheists have turned Christian because of the overwhelming evidence in support of the reliability of the Scriptures.

What qualms, precisely, do you have with them? What evidence do you have that they're incorrect or mythological?

Uh . . . it would be nice if you answered this question in the Offshoot thread.

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Have you any evidence to support your belief that for hundreds of thousands of years, men did not increase in numbers exponentially, as they now do?

I have evidence. If you want I can try to find a diagramme that shows the human population on a serious scientific website. You'll see how the population has gone up and down, and how it the last few hundred years have increased dramatically.
You can look back in history. Before the Industrial Revolution, men did not increase rapidly in numbers. At times, the human population on the planet decreased. For example, half of Europe's population died due to the plage in the Middle Ages.
When the Industrial Revolution saw the light of the day, men suddenly got what they needed to start increasing really fast and truly exponentially. This was not possible before the Revolution, and certainly not possible during man's time as a hunter.

[Cirdan]

The existence of many hunting and gathering tribes during all the technological development begs the question. If humans are so smart why do some develop technology and some do not? They presumably had the same amount of time. Why do cultures invent different things at different rates? If technology is inevitable and must proceed at some defined rate then these differences are inexplicable. Technology was given more impetus in some places than others due to declines in game, population pressures, geography, variations in contact with other civilizations with which to exchange ideas, languages, etc. An exellent overview on why cultures vary in technology is Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.