Evolution or Creation

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by The Gatherer, Oct 28, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Simulation Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 11, 2002
    LOL Simulation, what bold words coming from your mouth, you saying "Lie, Ref" when I showed proof.

    Really? you showed proof??? WHERE?!

    How can you say it's a Lie if you don't got PROOF to say it's a lie? This is ridoclious.

    Hi! I have a working cold fusion generator in my basement. PROVE ME WRONG

    And for your information, they were TRUE events that happened (About the fresh dinosaur fossils and Dinosaur Heart).

    Ok then, where are some references?? It should be THAT hard to name a book or point out a website.

    Why should I further waste my breath, if you already turned down most of the proof I mentioned?

    WHAT PROOF!!?

    For all I know, if I state a review on how Dinosaurs couldn't have elolved into Birds. Then you will probally say thats a Lie as well.

    Well hey, if you have a peer-reviewed publication showing why dinosaurs and birds aren't related, post it.
  2. SSO_DarthVader_ Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 11, 2002
    What about the great preachers such as Billy Graham, Kathyrn Kuhlman, and others that did supernatural things that the human body does not have the ability to do.

    There was this one female Holy Spirit preacher "Kathryn Kuhlman" who healed people that God told her to heal, with His Power. She is dead now (she lived during the 20th century), but during her time she would preach in stadiums and large halls, and heal people right in front of the peoples eyes. Such as, this one guy had his Knee-cap surgically removed, and with a touch, his knee-cap reappeared, his leg was good as new again.

    There was a lot of marvelous events, such as crippled people being able to walk again and etc. And believe me, there were thousands and thousands of witnesses of these events and SUPERNATURAL things.

    How can you explain on what she had? Obviously you cant say it was magic or the power from God, since it's against your beliefs. So what do you think it was? (And believe me, they didn't trick people, people saw the guy's knee-cap gone, it was in his medical portfolio, including the other crippled people who got healed by her).
  3. SSO_DarthVader_ Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Simulation read the other posts before the one you just posted now, I answered some of your questions. Also I will post about the dinosaurs can not be birds thing later.


    PS: The proof about the University of Montana finding fossils that had remaining blood cells in them, and etc. I even stated in a couple posts after that one where I got that information from.
  4. Simulation Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 11, 2002

    It basically said, that since carbon dating is a fairly new science, it is inaccurate, because scientists measure the life of something by using a point of reference, so they date something under a controlled condition, so they let something age 2 years and measure the decay and then they use that as a point of reference in order to test fossils. The problem here is that it has something to do with light and the speed of light, but the problem this scientists says, is that the speed of light has been slowing down troughout the passage of time, therefore any calcuation is inaccurate, and since the speed has slowed down, then all those fossils are VERY MUCH younger than what is calculated through that testing.


    The speed of light is NOT slowing down.
  5. R2D2-PENA Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 6, 2001
    star 3
    Here is one of the web pages i found, i will look up more since you might discredit this one.

    Factors Affecting Carbon Dating

    The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun's activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.

    The strength of the earth's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth's magnetic field has been decreasing,[5] so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.

    Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere -- plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.

    Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.

    Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.[6] Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating -- for example, very discordant "dates" for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.[7]

    Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism (see Noah's Flood..., How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places?, and What About Continental Drift?), fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.

    In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.

    Other Radiometric Dating Methods

    There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.

    The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:


    1.-The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).

    2.-Decay rates have always been constant.

    3.-Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.
  6. R2D2-PENA Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 6, 2001
    star 3
    Sorry about the speed of light thing here, like i said i was not very knowledgeable on the subject but i have looking it up and it seems that the radiation that passes through the atmosphere as a cause of light emitted by the sun is somehow affected, read my previous post.
  7. Darth Gleng Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 17, 1999
    star 3
    SSO_DarthVader_: I can't really comment on those things as I have no other info on those events. Also, I do believe in the supernatural (although I prefer not to call it that because I believe it is just part of nature, therfore not supernatural) as I have been witness to what I would regard evedence towards it. I just don't believe in creationism and a higher deity.

    Simulation: "I have a working cold fusion generator in my basement"

    Can I have a go on it???? :D
  8. SSO_DarthVader_ Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Very good points R2D2, that just pointed out to some evolutionists that Creationists DO observe LOL.
  9. Darth Gleng Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 17, 1999
    star 3
    I agree! ( :eek: ) Carbon dating isn't the best measurement, but it is accurate to a certain degree and unfortunately it's the best method we have for organic material.

    That still doesn't affect the radio-isotope analysis/magnetic analysis of rocks though.

  10. R2D2-PENA Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 6, 2001
    star 3
    But my point here is that evolutionsist claim that they have PROOF and this is one example of their LACK of proof, so if we both lack proof, i would much rather have faith (which both sides have, based on the fact of lack of physical proof) on God than on a random occurrence that even its most basic point is ridiculous, which is that in the beginning there was NOTHING and then it exploded.
  11. SSO_DarthVader_ Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 11, 2002
    LOL I agree with you R2D2, it is to me more understandable for a supernatural force/being who created the Universe. Not a firecracker bang like on the 4th of July.
  12. R2D2-PENA Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 6, 2001
    star 3
    Think about this one!!

    What evidence is there that living things were created, rather than evolving? Dr. Arlie J. Hoover, in his book Fallacies of Evolution, gives a simple answer along the following lines:

    Sometimes evolutionists ask creationists: ?Can you produce clear-cut evidence that definitely suggests creation? Can you indicate some material that can only be explained by creation??

    Of course, this is an unfair demand, and would kill evolution as well as creation, but I venture to suggest that a good sign of creation would be the appearance of something without antecedents. The fossil record reveals something that is disturbing to the evolutionary theory. It shows that complex animals appear rather suddenly in the early strata.

    Complex organs appear suddenly

    For example, in the Cambrian rocks we find lamp shells, moss animals, worms, trilobites, and shrimp. These creatures have complex organs: intestines, stomachs, bristles, spines, and appendages. They have eyes and feelers, which indicates that they possessed a good nervous system. They have gills, which shows that they both extracted oxygen from the water and had complex blood circulation systems. Nothing primitive or simple about these Cambrian creatures!

    Now the big question: Where are the ancestors of these Cambrian fossils? We find no organisms with partially formed intestines, stomachs, bristles, spines, appendages, eyes, feelers, and gills.

    Where are all the simpler creatures that should have led up to these complex forms, if ?molecules to man? evolution is supposed to be a scientific fact? This problem is so acute that even the modern ?father of evolution,? Charles Darwin, admitted that it ?may truly be urged as a valid argument? against evolution.

    Evolution hasn't occurred

    Doesn't the sudden appearance of these Cambrian animals with no antecedents suggest creation rather than evolution? We may state it in syllogistic form this way:

    1.-If evolution has occurred, we would find antecedents.
    2.-We find no antecedents.
    3.-Therefore, evolution hasn't occurred.

    It's possible, I admit, that evolution has occurred and that for some strange reason the antecedents have disappeared. But the evolutionist should try to give us a plausible reason why they disappeared and he should certainly stop dogmatizing about his theory in view of these missing antecedents.

  13. Darth Gleng Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 17, 1999
    star 3
    "in the beginning there was NOTHING and then it exploded"

    Absolutely nothing to do with evolution. :)

    Although I do actually find the BB theory to be a bit suspect, all available evidence seems to point towards a comparable event at the early stages of the universe.

    Yes, evolution theory is a bit patchy in places, but there is far more evidence in favour of it than there is against it.

    For example, if you only knew half of the periodic table, would the lack of the other half proove that the whole did not exist? Of course not.

    I'll take evidence and scientific direction over blind faith any day.
  14. R2D2-PENA Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 6, 2001
    star 3
    Fine if the BB theory is independent from evolution, give me scientific proof of the very beginning of the universe. Even Einstein, who is the example of a genius and a excellent scientist and the person to whom everyone is compared to said that science and the universe has proven the existence of God. Einstein died a creationist in case you didn't know.
  15. Simulation Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 11, 2002


    Gleng, how can you say Evolution is based on observation and hard facts? There is definatly one thing Evolution can NOT have observed or based hard facts on, if Evolution says Dinosaurs lived before man? How can they date how long Dinosaurs live if they don't have a fully accurate reading scale or technolagy to do so. They can only ASSUME. Assume isn't observing, assume isn't hard facts, assume is a belief and/or assumption.

    Are you saying science doesn?t have a means to date things? HUH?!

    Creationism isn't all hard facts etheir, both have assumptions. Lets just leave it like that.

    Creationism = NO FACTS

    Are Evolutionists the only ones that can say "We base our assumptions on our facts".

    No, I?d say ?We base our facts on the evidence?

    And Creationists can't do the same thing? What hypocrits!

    What facts do creationists have?!


    1. "The Genesis Solution" writen by Ken Ham and Paul Taylor.

    2. "The Great Dinosaur Mystery SOLVED" writen by Ken Ham.


    Ken Ham is liar? you didn?t know?


    And it does make me wonder how Evolutionists can put faith that there might be other life in the Universe, but can't put faith into God.


    We know evolution has occurred here so why wouldn?t it occur somewhere else. There?s really no faith about it.

    Giest, the proof of that is in the Bible. It's not fiction, it's basically a acient History Book.

    So if I make a book up with a few pieces of history and then throw in tons of nonsense it?s all true?

    ...this is in the "The Great Dinosaur Mystery SOLVED" writen by Ken Ham.
    ...So look who's talkin now lol. Here is a link about the flaws of Evolution, and scientific proof. http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/cartoon.htm


    A better name for that website would be ?Flawed flaws of evolution?

    I see your point Gleng, but still. Evolutionists have not prooved HOW the Big Bang happened. The reason....it's impossible. Because how could the Big Bang occured if there was nothing at ALL before it to produce it, there was no matter before the Big Bang, therefore you can't make something out of pure nothing. Only a Supernatural force/being has the ability to do something like that.

    Again, I?d like to see you PROVE nothing existed prior to the big bang!


    And to show a sign of the global Flood, the Grand Canyon is the perfect example of the massive effects of this global flood.

    The Grand Canyon is definitively NOT the result of a global flood. Don?t believe me? TALK TO A GEOLOGIST!

    What about the great preachers such as Billy Graham, Kathyrn Kuhlman, and others that did supernatural things that the human body does not have the ability to do.

    Funny how none of this has or can be proved. Pure speculation

    There was this one female Holy Spirit preacher "Kathryn Kuhlman" who healed people that God told her to heal, with His Power. She is dead now (she lived during the 20th century), but during her time she would preach in stadiums and large halls, and heal people right in front of the peoples eyes. Such as, this one guy had his Knee-cap surgically removed, and with a touch, his knee-cap reappeared, his leg was good as new again.

    Or so the story goes?

    There was a lot of marvelous events, such as crippled people being able to walk again and etc. And believe me, there were thousands and thousands of witnesses of these events and SUPERNATURAL things.

    Funny how it still remains unproven?

    Simulation read the other posts before the one you just posted now, I answered some of your questions. Also I will post about the dinosaurs can not be birds thing later.

    You have? Looks like more jibber jabber to me?


    PS: The proof about the University of Montana finding fossils that had remaining blood cells in them, and etc. I even stated in a couple posts after that one where I got that information from.

    Where? I missed it? It?s peer-reviewed right?

    R2D2 ? PENA

    The problem with those arguments is C14 had been c
  16. Peez Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 4
    SSO_DarthVader_:
    Ok first of, I'm a Creationist. I believe in Creation, not in Secular Humanism/Evolution.
    Evolution is a science, and has no necessary connection to Secular Humanism.
    Because I believe in my God and the Holy Bible, everything thing in it, 100%. I have strong Faith, it doesn't mean I can be right. But I do have some issues and proof that might change your minds on how you view Creation and Evolution. I'll separate [sic] this artical [sic] into colums [sic] and such so it'll be easier to read.
    The fact that you accept the Bible as 100% accurate should be taken as evidence that you will not assess the evidence for evolution in an unbiased manner.
    1. "Evolution is 100% fact, Creation is not".
    What is "100% fact"?
    Actually it's the other way around my friend, Evolutionists DON'T know 100% accuratly [sic] the history of the Earth and the Universe, they can only assume.
    Science is based on the concept that we do not know anything with complete certainty. You are the one talking about complete certainty (if that is what you mean by "100% fact"). In science there is never complete certainty. Not about the Earth orbiting the Sun, not about matter being made up of atoms, not about the age of the Earth, and not about the common descent of all living things on this planet. You clearly do not understand science at all. By the way, what is an "evolutionist"? I am no more an evolutionist than I am a heliocentrist or an atomist.
    Because they don't have no time machine, and nobody lived long enough back then to write down on HOW it happened, accuratly [sic]. So Evolutionists can only assume and predict on what happened back then.
    Scientists can directly detect the effects of events in the distant past, just as your eyes can directly detect the photons that were emitted by an object in the recent past
    Of course they have fossils, land markings and such, but that doesn't 100% on how old these things are.
    See above.
    You don't see a Evolutionist Scientist dig in a fossil field and find a fossil that has a tag on it saying "65 billion years old".
    Actually, scientists find just that. The tag is simply written in a language that you do not understand.
    However, there was one supernatural being who saw all, and that was the Almighty Lord.
    What about Odin, Zeus, Shiva, etc.? (not to mention Satan :) )
    He's the ONLY one who saw all of time and even lived before time itself, he created TIME!
    Who created him?
    He used man to write down, with His own Words to say what happened, when, how, why, and etc.
    I guess that your god just didn't know that rabbits do not chew the cud (Lev. 11:6)
    It wasn't ONLY just men who decided to have fun by writing fictional stories and myths to screw up the whole Religion of Christianity.
    Christianity? Wasn't part of the Bible written before your Messiah showed up?
    If they were to do that, God wouldn't allow it.
    The way that he didn't allow the Koran to be written?
    Some might say that "well that MIGHT be true, but it's still not scientific".
    Well, I agree with the second part.
    Oh really, lets see hot shot.
    Is that supposed to make you sound smart?
    It's a KNOWN FACT that Creationists have MORE STABILE proof then do Evolutionists.
    LOL!! :D I haven't heard anyone use the "it's a known fact" argument since I was in grade school. An the all caps is sure to convince people. So, you say that there is proof for creationism? Then your belief is not based on faith. But you stated that it was, thus you are not even consistent with yourself.
    Here are a few examples...
    A) Creationists have the Bible, that is 100% fact, and that it was w
  17. Darth Gleng Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 17, 1999
    star 3
    Some more evidence

    "Fine if the BB theory is independent from evolution, give me scientific proof of the very beginning of the universe."

    I can't. And neither can you.

    What I can do though is give you some info on possible explainations of the birth of the universe, which rely on the physics that have been observed in the existing universe.

    Edit:
    Quote: "Einstein ultimately gave grudging acceptance to what he called "the necessity for a beginning" and eventually to "the presence of a superior reasoning power." But he never did accept the reality of a God"

    In case you didn't know ;)
  18. R2D2-PENA Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 6, 2001
    star 3
    Possible explanations!!!! i want proof, give me proof and i will believe you otherwise its faith in an unknown.

    Until you can scientifically prove your point its just as much faith as mine, the difference is what i already stated above.

    Observation is a part of the scientific method but as we all know not everything in science is accurate and aplicable to all situations, so watching an atom explode doesn't prove big bang.
  19. SSO_DarthVader_ Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Simulation EDIT, Kathyrn Kulhman was on TV! National TV man, during the 70's. How can you say "Or so the story goes...".

    What the hell made you say that statement if it was on TV and thousands of people witnessed it? I have it on video tape for cry out loud. So before you post your "Inferior, illogical and hot headed posts" you better start talking like a REAL MAN, and deal with this debate in a calm way. You give Evolutionists a bad name.
  20. SSO_DarthVader_ Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Peez I have friends who have different versions of beliefs of Evolution. There is not just ONE way of evolution.

    Also the posts after the one that you made comments about, showed some references and such.

    Creationists do have facts, here are some evidences Mr. Hot Shot...



    EVIDENCE #1
    There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
    Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all. There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today. There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world.

    "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For example, "the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind." ([22], p.19)
    "Nowhere do we see animals with partially evolved legs, eyes, brains, or various other tissues, organs, and biological structures." ([22], p.19-20)
    "If continuous evolution is a universal law of nature, as the evolutionist claims, then there should be an abundance of evidences of continuity and transition between all the kinds of organisms involved in the process, both in the present world and in the fossil record. Instead we find great gaps between all the basic kinds, and essentially the same gaps in the fossil record that exist in the modern world." ([18], p.34)
    There are no links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to birds and mammals. There are no links whatsoever.
    "All of the present orders, classes, and phyla appear quite suddenly in the fossil record, without indications of the evolving lines from which they developed. The same is largely true even for most families and genera. There are literally an innumerable host of `missing links' in the record." ([18] , p.33)
    "There is simply no evidence of partially evolved animals or plants in the fossil record to indicate that evolution has occurred in the past, and certainly no evidence of partially evolved animals and plants existing today to indicate that evolution is occurring at the present." ([22], p.20)
    "...the outstanding characteristics of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution." ([11], p.50)
    If there were links then they would have been found since the fossil record is "...quite ample to represent the true state of the ancient world. Most individual species of fossil plants and animals have been collected in considerable numbers, but the hypothetical intermediate species have never been represented at all!" ([18], p.33)
    Darwin stated, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" ([11], p.46)
    Darwin admitted that the number of transitional links "must have been conceivably great." The fact that there are none prompted him to conclude that this fact is "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
    "The occasional suggested examples of missing links (such as the famous archaeopteryx - supposedly linking the birds and reptiles) can usually be rec
  21. Darth Geist Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 1999
    star 5
    It strikes me as odd how one person can tell another to "stop acting like a dumb **** hot head man," then suggest that he "deal with this debate in a calm way."
  22. Darth Gleng Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 17, 1999
    star 3
    R2D2-PENA: Ok, I think we've reached a stalemate here. Although I still doubt creationism primarily because of the lack of proof of a god in all other situations, lack of hard evidence in the birth of the universe still does not equate to the existance of a god. You are as much entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine. So I think we'll have to agree that we're in an irresistable force/immovable object situation :)

    SSO_DarthVader_: You might want to do a little bit of editing a couple of posts up, swearing tends to get people banned ;)

    Thanks for the great discussion guys, I'm going to bed. It's 5:41am here and I have to get up for work in a few hours :D

    Edit: typos and stuff
  23. SSO_DarthVader_ Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 11, 2002
    The reason why he's acting like a Dumb **** because some of the questions he asked have already been said in the posts after the ones he mentioned. And that the way he's posting on every line is in a type of yelling. Seems to be a hot head.


    Hey I was "scientific" about it. I observed, and I layed down my assumptions and facts ;).


    PS: I didn't mean to insult, I just got fusterated the way he was acting, sorry.
  24. Darth Gleng Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 17, 1999
    star 3
    Don't get banned! :)

    Edit: Seriously, I've really enjoyed this discussion. Let's not finish it off with a flame war.
  25. SSO_DarthVader_ Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Ok I'll stop. I think someone should close this topic, it gets annoying fighting over something that MIGHT not change people's minds, just break there hearts...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.