Creation Theory vs. Evolution Theory
-
I've recently read a online book entitled "Evolution Cruncher" which deals with the scientific facts behind both the Theory of Evolution & The Theory of Creation. What I have found, however slanted given the nature of the book, is a proponderance of evidence which leads me to believe that teh creation theory holds much more scientific water than Evolution Theory. to quote on passage from the book dealing with the age of the Earth: Po-218 HALOS - AND THE ORIGIN OF GRANITE In the late 1800s, scientists began studying rocks with microscopes in order to better understand their crystals and composition. Learning how to cut rocks into thin slices, they turned their microscopes on certain rocks, especially granite,—and found small colored concentric circles inside them. It was eventually realized that these were actually spherical shells that went around a central grain in the center (something like slicing an onion through the middle, and finding circles, circles inside circles.) These circles (actually sliced sections of the spheres) were given the name, "halos." We today call them "radiohalos." (The technical term is pleochroic halos.) A radiohalo is the mark left around a particle of a radioactive substance by the radiation coming from the particle. It can only form in a solid, such as rock, since in a liquid, or in molten rock, the mark would dissipate and could not be seen. 1 - There are many polonium 218, 214, and 210 halos in granite,—in fact, careful specimen counts and extrapolations based on them reveal that there are trillions upon trillions of them in granites all over the world. 2 - The vast majority of these polonium 218, 214, and 210 radiohalos have no uranium 238 halos with them. Therefore they are primary polonium halos, and not daughter products of uranium 238. 3 - The primary polonium 218 (Po-218) halos are totally independent of radioactive parents. They are original in all rock in which they are found. There is no evidence that they were caused by uranium in the central grain or by passing uranium streams. 4 - These independent Po-218 halos develop their half-life halo in only three minutes (in other words, they only emit radiation for only a few minutes), so the radiohalos had to be in those rocks when the rocks were first brought into existence. 5 - The rock in which they are found had to be solid at the time it was brought into existence, or those halos could not form inside it within that three minutes. However, all evolutionary theories say that the earth was molten fo
Oh, man.... THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CREATION THEORY. What people call "creation theory" is just a lame-assed attempt to make the Biblical myth of creation seem reasonable. In other words, they started with the theory, then went in search of facts to supprt it, rather than the other way around (which is how the scientific method works.) All these jerks are doing is looking for holes in our explanation of teh univers and using them to justify their silly religious beliefs. What they don't understand is that real science does not claim to explain everything. It simply provides a way to learn what the explanations are. And it recognizes that this is an iterative process. Here's my 30-second rebuff of creationism: You're using a comnputer, right? This computer is build using transistors. Transistors are engineered devices that make use of our understanding of quantum physics... specifically, that electrons can only have certain energy levels. Another thing we learn from quantum physics is that light wavelengths are also quantized. Each element emits its own specific wavelength, which we see as color (for those elements that emit in the visible wavelengths, of course.) The wavelengths in between these quantized wavelengths simply can't be produced. When we look up at the stars, we see that all stars emit wavelenths that are just a little redder than the "possible" wavelengths. This indicates that these stars are moving away from us, at varying speeds. By measuring the difference in wavelengths, we can tell how fast the stars are mving.. and it turns out that, by extrapolating backwards, we can see that all of the starts were in the same place, approximately 15 billion years ago. So this leaves us with three possible conclusions: 1) The universe was created 15 billion years ago 2) The universe was created at some other time, and the stars were set moving in some supernatural way. Which seems more likely? I'd love to be able to respond to the stuff in your message, but my training is in electronics, not geology.
-
Christian Graus wrote: It has several distinct parts which work together to give vision. How is it possible for something to evolve into this state ? read Jay Steven Gould. it's simple. ask the AIDS virus, or staphlococus, or any of the other dozens of critters man is driving into antibiotic resistance about competitive mutations. -c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917Chris Losinger wrote: read Jay Steven Gould. it's simple. crap. Chris Losinger wrote: ask the AIDS virus, or staphlococus, or any of the other dozens of critters man is driving into antibiotic resistance about competitive mutations. They mutate in response to a threat in the form of an antibiotic. That is how immunisations work as well, they make you sick enough for your body to become immune. That doesn't remotely relate to the eye example. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
-
The important thing to remember is that the Bible does NOT say the Earth is 6,000 years old. It is this mistake that makes a lot of Creation Science look plain dumb. Beyond that, I agree that Creation is what happened, and that this stacks up scientifically at least as well as Evolution. The Bible says that the heavens declare that there is a God, i.e. it is totally illogical to think that the world around us just happened. For example, look at your eye. It has several distinct parts which work together to give vision. How is it possible for something to evolve into this state ? Until it functioned, the body has no way of knowing what vision IS, and for an eye to spontaneously mutate in one generate and thus give it's owner a competitive edge is as ludicrous as to suggest that my next child may have wings or breathe fire. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
For example, look at your eye. It has several distinct parts which work together to give vision. How is it possible for something to evolve into this state ? There are plenty of ways a species could benefit from an non-fully functioning eye. Even if a species didn't see clearly - i.e. if it only saw light and dark, but no details at all, it could be quite benefitial because it could move towards or away from the light. This ability would be very advantagous to algae or a plant because it could move to where ever the light is, thereby getting more food. Another favorite of creationists is the complex mechanism for blood clotting. This could not have all evolved by chance, they say, because all parts have to work correctly to actually function at all. But, it has already been discovered that these proteins play other roles in the body. For example, some marine life (which does not use the same clotting mechanism as mammals) have some of these very same proteins used for entirely different purposes. ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
-
I don't understand people some times. Science is a constantly evolving (pardon the expression) thing. We learn new things all the time. "Evolution" is not a set of beliefs about how we got to where we are today. The theory of evolution is a biological theory that has been observed in nature (as described in the previous post). It doesn't mean that we know everything there is to know about evolution. When a currently held scientific idea is contested by new evidence, we go back to the drawing board and redraft our understanding. Just because granite can only form in 3 minutes (if true), does not do anything to disprove other aspects of scientific research. "Evolution" is not a belief, but "Creation" is. (right or wrong) By the way, if you believe in creation, it does not mean that you can't believe in evolution. Perhaps your god simply created a world that can adapt itself to survive (Created it in an instant, but it began to evolve from there on out). DNA mutates, living organisims evolove, it happens... get over it.
Ryan Johnston wrote: By the way, if you believe in creation, it does not mean that you can't believe in evolution. I believe Devo said it best: "God made man.. but he used a monkey to do it!"
-
Christian Graus wrote: cannot be observed don't you mean has not? -c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917No, I mean cannot, in the sense that we do not live long enough. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
-
For example, look at your eye. It has several distinct parts which work together to give vision. How is it possible for something to evolve into this state ? There are plenty of ways a species could benefit from an non-fully functioning eye. Even if a species didn't see clearly - i.e. if it only saw light and dark, but no details at all, it could be quite benefitial because it could move towards or away from the light. This ability would be very advantagous to algae or a plant because it could move to where ever the light is, thereby getting more food. Another favorite of creationists is the complex mechanism for blood clotting. This could not have all evolved by chance, they say, because all parts have to work correctly to actually function at all. But, it has already been discovered that these proteins play other roles in the body. For example, some marine life (which does not use the same clotting mechanism as mammals) have some of these very same proteins used for entirely different purposes. ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
Brit wrote: There are plenty of ways a species could benefit from an non-fully functioning eye. You're missing the point. It needs several complete parts to function AT ALL. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
-
No, I mean cannot, in the sense that we do not live long enough. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
right. since our life span is ~70 years, evolution cannot be real. -c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917 -
Chris Losinger wrote: read Jay Steven Gould. it's simple. crap. Chris Losinger wrote: ask the AIDS virus, or staphlococus, or any of the other dozens of critters man is driving into antibiotic resistance about competitive mutations. They mutate in response to a threat in the form of an antibiotic. That is how immunisations work as well, they make you sick enough for your body to become immune. That doesn't remotely relate to the eye example. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
Christian Graus wrote: They mutate in response to a threat in the form of an antibiotic you give far too much credit to that which is nothing more than a string of RNA. Christian Graus wrote: That doesn't remotely relate to the eye example. uh huh. -c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917 -
Ryan Johnston wrote: By the way, if you believe in creation, it does not mean that you can't believe in evolution. I believe Devo said it best: "God made man.. but he used a monkey to do it!"
Jim A. Johnson wrote: I believe Devo said it best Well, there's *one* big strike against it. Anything else? ;P
Shog9 --
Maybe Java is kind of like God, it "works in mysterious ways". It seems like your apps are running slowly, because in the backgroud Java is solving world hunger, or finding the cure to cancer. - Ryan Johnston, Don't die java!
-
Chris Losinger wrote: read Jay Steven Gould. it's simple. crap. Chris Losinger wrote: ask the AIDS virus, or staphlococus, or any of the other dozens of critters man is driving into antibiotic resistance about competitive mutations. They mutate in response to a threat in the form of an antibiotic. That is how immunisations work as well, they make you sick enough for your body to become immune. That doesn't remotely relate to the eye example. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
Christian Graus wrote: That doesn't remotely relate to the eye example. The eye example is simply evolution over a much much longer span of time. It isn't like the eye just appeared one day.
-
Brit wrote: There are plenty of ways a species could benefit from an non-fully functioning eye. You're missing the point. It needs several complete parts to function AT ALL. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
No, it doesn't. It could start as photo-sensitive tissue.
-
Brit wrote: There are plenty of ways a species could benefit from an non-fully functioning eye. You're missing the point. It needs several complete parts to function AT ALL. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
Christian Graus wrote: You're missing the point. It needs several complete parts to function AT ALL. Given its current design. "Human imagination has been sculpted by the universe within which it was born" Hmmmm...
-
Christian Graus wrote: They mutate in response to a threat in the form of an antibiotic you give far too much credit to that which is nothing more than a string of RNA. Christian Graus wrote: That doesn't remotely relate to the eye example. uh huh. -c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917Chris Losinger wrote: you give far too much credit to that which is nothing more than a string of RNA. And you give far too much credit to the idea that a living thing can change itself at will. You're saying that diseases would become immune to our antibiotics even if we had not subjected them to them ? Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
-
Oh, man.... THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CREATION THEORY. What people call "creation theory" is just a lame-assed attempt to make the Biblical myth of creation seem reasonable. In other words, they started with the theory, then went in search of facts to supprt it, rather than the other way around (which is how the scientific method works.) All these jerks are doing is looking for holes in our explanation of teh univers and using them to justify their silly religious beliefs. What they don't understand is that real science does not claim to explain everything. It simply provides a way to learn what the explanations are. And it recognizes that this is an iterative process. Here's my 30-second rebuff of creationism: You're using a comnputer, right? This computer is build using transistors. Transistors are engineered devices that make use of our understanding of quantum physics... specifically, that electrons can only have certain energy levels. Another thing we learn from quantum physics is that light wavelengths are also quantized. Each element emits its own specific wavelength, which we see as color (for those elements that emit in the visible wavelengths, of course.) The wavelengths in between these quantized wavelengths simply can't be produced. When we look up at the stars, we see that all stars emit wavelenths that are just a little redder than the "possible" wavelengths. This indicates that these stars are moving away from us, at varying speeds. By measuring the difference in wavelengths, we can tell how fast the stars are mving.. and it turns out that, by extrapolating backwards, we can see that all of the starts were in the same place, approximately 15 billion years ago. So this leaves us with three possible conclusions: 1) The universe was created 15 billion years ago 2) The universe was created at some other time, and the stars were set moving in some supernatural way. Which seems more likely? I'd love to be able to respond to the stuff in your message, but my training is in electronics, not geology.
Jim A. Johnson wrote: What people call "creation theory" is just a lame-assed attempt to make the Biblical myth of creation seem reasonable. Ok, that whole paragraph was rather insulting, but i'll let it slide. I do suggest that you find a dictionary and read the entry for the word 'theory'. Jim A. Johnson wrote: Which seems more likely? Ah, well that's the rub though, isn't it? No matter how involved an explanation you come up with, it doesn't mean jack shit until someone believes it. In any case, how is when the Universe was created relevant?
Shog9 --
Maybe Java is kind of like God, it "works in mysterious ways". It seems like your apps are running slowly, because in the backgroud Java is solving world hunger, or finding the cure to cancer. - Ryan Johnston, Don't die java!
-
Oh, man.... THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CREATION THEORY. What people call "creation theory" is just a lame-assed attempt to make the Biblical myth of creation seem reasonable. In other words, they started with the theory, then went in search of facts to supprt it, rather than the other way around (which is how the scientific method works.) All these jerks are doing is looking for holes in our explanation of teh univers and using them to justify their silly religious beliefs. What they don't understand is that real science does not claim to explain everything. It simply provides a way to learn what the explanations are. And it recognizes that this is an iterative process. Here's my 30-second rebuff of creationism: You're using a comnputer, right? This computer is build using transistors. Transistors are engineered devices that make use of our understanding of quantum physics... specifically, that electrons can only have certain energy levels. Another thing we learn from quantum physics is that light wavelengths are also quantized. Each element emits its own specific wavelength, which we see as color (for those elements that emit in the visible wavelengths, of course.) The wavelengths in between these quantized wavelengths simply can't be produced. When we look up at the stars, we see that all stars emit wavelenths that are just a little redder than the "possible" wavelengths. This indicates that these stars are moving away from us, at varying speeds. By measuring the difference in wavelengths, we can tell how fast the stars are mving.. and it turns out that, by extrapolating backwards, we can see that all of the starts were in the same place, approximately 15 billion years ago. So this leaves us with three possible conclusions: 1) The universe was created 15 billion years ago 2) The universe was created at some other time, and the stars were set moving in some supernatural way. Which seems more likely? I'd love to be able to respond to the stuff in your message, but my training is in electronics, not geology.
then explain the blueshift phenomenon. Also the fact that in order for the big bang theory to work, angular momentum would have been required. if the big bang actually occured as you suggest, the particles form the big bang woudl have moved outward at a constant velocity and never combined to form stellar gas clouds of hydrogen and helium unless acted upon by angular momentum. It woudl have taken angular momentum to create the universe as we know it. Are the laws of physics supposed to simply stop working because the big bang said so??
It's good to see kids turning their minds to wholesum activities such as programming, instead of wasting their lives in the hedonistic disciplines of Sex, Drugs, & Rock & Roll... or Sex with Drugs, or Sex with Rocks while Rolling in Drugs, or whatever new-fangled perversions you little monsters have thought up now... [Shog9 on Kid Programmers]
-
Brit wrote: The genetic evidence alone gives Evolution enough strength to stand on its own. You mean the evidence of code reuse on the part of our programmer ? It proves nothing either way as far as I am concerned. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
I'm not talking purely about genes found in one species are found in another, but rather, silent mutations which appear only appear in one branch (which can only be explained by saying God created each species from another existing species with some modification), by broken genes which appear in one branch of life, but not another. And when species are separated by distance, they form completely different methods to accomplish the same task (what? God doesn't reuse genes now?). For example, fish near the north pole and south pole use completely different genes to form "antifreeze" which prevents their bodies from freezing in the water. When you look at the evidence for a chromosome fusion event between chimps an humans, you quickly conclude that either God did some quirky things while making human chromosomes or God never made them at all. Or the fact that 98% of a human's DNA is never used. It's junk. If you were a "master programmer" you would never create humans with all the crap DNA that is there. ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
-
Oh, man.... THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CREATION THEORY. What people call "creation theory" is just a lame-assed attempt to make the Biblical myth of creation seem reasonable. In other words, they started with the theory, then went in search of facts to supprt it, rather than the other way around (which is how the scientific method works.) All these jerks are doing is looking for holes in our explanation of teh univers and using them to justify their silly religious beliefs. What they don't understand is that real science does not claim to explain everything. It simply provides a way to learn what the explanations are. And it recognizes that this is an iterative process. Here's my 30-second rebuff of creationism: You're using a comnputer, right? This computer is build using transistors. Transistors are engineered devices that make use of our understanding of quantum physics... specifically, that electrons can only have certain energy levels. Another thing we learn from quantum physics is that light wavelengths are also quantized. Each element emits its own specific wavelength, which we see as color (for those elements that emit in the visible wavelengths, of course.) The wavelengths in between these quantized wavelengths simply can't be produced. When we look up at the stars, we see that all stars emit wavelenths that are just a little redder than the "possible" wavelengths. This indicates that these stars are moving away from us, at varying speeds. By measuring the difference in wavelengths, we can tell how fast the stars are mving.. and it turns out that, by extrapolating backwards, we can see that all of the starts were in the same place, approximately 15 billion years ago. So this leaves us with three possible conclusions: 1) The universe was created 15 billion years ago 2) The universe was created at some other time, and the stars were set moving in some supernatural way. Which seems more likely? I'd love to be able to respond to the stuff in your message, but my training is in electronics, not geology.
But what if God simply created everything in an expanding state - mid flight, with the starlight from the receeding galaxies already distributed as we observe it, with the correct doppler shifted wavelength and everything? "Human imagination has been sculpted by the universe within which it was born" Hmmmm...
-
right. since our life span is ~70 years, evolution cannot be real. -c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917If Evolution is not a faith, why are people so irrational when discussing it ? I did not say that makes it untrue, I said that makes it unobservable. That is true if it is a correct theory or not. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
-
I'm not talking purely about genes found in one species are found in another, but rather, silent mutations which appear only appear in one branch (which can only be explained by saying God created each species from another existing species with some modification), by broken genes which appear in one branch of life, but not another. And when species are separated by distance, they form completely different methods to accomplish the same task (what? God doesn't reuse genes now?). For example, fish near the north pole and south pole use completely different genes to form "antifreeze" which prevents their bodies from freezing in the water. When you look at the evidence for a chromosome fusion event between chimps an humans, you quickly conclude that either God did some quirky things while making human chromosomes or God never made them at all. Or the fact that 98% of a human's DNA is never used. It's junk. If you were a "master programmer" you would never create humans with all the crap DNA that is there. ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
Brit wrote: If you were a "master programmer" you would never create humans with all the crap DNA that is there. *ahem* Those are the comments...
Shog9 --
Maybe Java is kind of like God, it "works in mysterious ways". It seems like your apps are running slowly, because in the backgroud Java is solving world hunger, or finding the cure to cancer. - Ryan Johnston, Don't die java!
-
Christian Graus wrote: That doesn't remotely relate to the eye example. The eye example is simply evolution over a much much longer span of time. It isn't like the eye just appeared one day.
Exactly. That's a hell of a complex thing to just come from no-where, especially as it had no use and no idea of it's function until it was finished. Why would nature favour a being with half an eye, when it did nothing ? Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002