Evolution or Creation

[bamthedoc]

Ah, interestingly put, a1ss. I do believe that GOD put me here. But I have seen some reasons why people can't believe it.

In any case, I don't believe I ever answered IK_Honor to his satisfaction. Maybe I have...but...

Why wouldn't a bacteria be able to change? That is one thing that can easily be proven. A bacteria changes because it's cyclic DNA nature allows for massive addaption. And they "mate" that addaption. If one bacteria finds itself surviving adverse conditions, it will form a bridge to other bacteria of the same (sometimes different) species. This transmits that info. Also, if a bacteria dies, and another finds it; that second one can absorb any and all DNA of the dead one. It doesn't change the bacteria, however. If you pay attention, adapted E.Coli are still E.Coli.

 

[Fyedor]

This is a very...delicate...subject for lack of a better term. Personally i agree in general with bamthedoc, and it is very hard for a person to toss away the obvious things in the world that could be shown as proof. If you take a look at everything around the world, the perfection, or what seems like perfection, of it its shocking and very difficult to disregard the creation theory. I know this lacks any scientific evidence but this is a part of my opinion and therefore, since a lot of what is said, even if they back it up with proof, is still just something that humanity has yet to answer.
Marks on you previous statement about half lives and such, would it be possible for things to have been created gradually, one at a time. Even if this is possible that is still something to be created in a relatively short amount of time. Just wondering

 

[bamthedoc]

Yes it is very delicate to say the least.

As for the "half-life" statement, there is evidence that all forms of radiodating is flawed. Yes, people will argue math is "definite", but that is an invalid arguement. If math cannot be exactly determined, it becomes flawed. Radiodating is based on theroy, contrary to popular belief.

Scentist love to though around "fact" where it doesn't belong, and you see that a lot. Now, I will say that I believe in evolution, but I also believe in Creation. I also will say that I do not believe that humans evolved from lower life-forms. What facts do I have? What evidence is there?

My evidence is the same as the best scentists (at times). If the Earth were to alter it's cirlce about Sol by a mere 3 degrees, life would cease as we know it. And that's 3 degrees in closer or further. Also, if are axis were to tilt by even 1 degree, life would have to drastically alter from what we know. All this is "coincidence" to sceintist and evolutionists, but it is not to Creationists and neo-Creationists. We see it as GOD's way of telling us HIS power.

Now, what have I said to improve my arguement? Nothing to a purist evolutionist. What have I said to others? Depends on veiwpoints of course. Anyway...my two cents again.

 

[MacMan]

Ok I'll jump in here, there are plenty of evoltion threads, but I'm always up for debate. I read what you posted. MarkS, on evolution being adaptation, which you can refer to bastardswords thread called questions for evolutionists for my replies. Or if you still want to call it "micro" evolution, we can go that way, too.

And bamthedoc, bacteria cannot mate with other species of bacteria, that's what a species IS, something that cannot mate with its ancestors. And I don't know what you're talking about with recombinant DNA, I've never heard that before. Sure a bacteria can eat a dead bacterias cytoplasm or DNA and whatnot, but if it "absorbed" any other DNA, it would not at all still remain the same bacteria.

 

[Tempest Storm]

Bam, I'm not really sure what a Neo-Creationist is, much less what they believe, so if you could, enlighten us on just what your beliefs are, that might help a little in your argueing.

Mark, I don't know enough about radiodating to tackle that yet, but I got a few hours to kill so I'll get back to you later on it.

And just so we're clear. I'm talking about Natural Selection. The process of organism adapting to their changing enviroments to best survive. And over millions of years, these species may, or may not evole into something completely different. Even Mark and many other Creationists have admitted that "adaption" is happening in our times. This "adaption" is what Darwin was talking about. Species evolving to survive longer and better, and for no other reason. Not evolution to perfection as many Creationists mistakenly believe.

 

[Renzokuken]

Well, i'm undecided, although i am a Christian...

 

[Tempest Storm]

Told ya I'ld get back to ya Mark.

"Countless [radioactive dating] determinations have been made by this method, but it was found that the premises on which the method rests are not valid for most uranium minerals. There is definite evidence of selective uranium leaching by acid waters, and it is now known that most radioactive minerals contained some lead when they were formed."—*Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology (1954), p. 282.

This next one, is pulled off a Creationist website.

There is a basic pattern that occurs in the decay of radioactive substances. In each of these disintegration systems, the "parent" or original radioactive substance, gradually decays into "daughter" substances and this process is irreversible. The theory asserts that by measuring the amount of parent and daughter elements in a given sample and knowing the decay rate, one might be able to calculate the time elapsed from its formation.

Several types of radiodating methods are used today, but when applied to the same sample, they give different dates. A very good example of how scientists interpret the results of their radiodating method is presented in reference. They select only the "most reasonable" dates, the ones that agree with the evolutionary theory of long ages and discard the ones that do not fit in. Well, this method is far from an objective and precise scientific approach!

These special dating methods are seriously flawed: too many assumptions are made without any factual evidence. We can easily show the problems arising from the disregard of the following:

The parent and daughter products could easily have been contaminated during their long decay process underground. For the results to be accurate, the systems had to be closed during the decay process, but this doesn't happen in nature.
Nobody was there at the beginning to make sure that no daughter products were present in a certain rock, whereas the radiodating method assumes exactly this. It is impossible to know what had initially been in a given piece of radioactive mineral.
The decay rate is not constant. Many environmental factors, such as pressure, changes in cosmic radiation level, nearby radioactive materials, high temperatures influence it. In one of their studies, Westinghouse Laboratories have been able to change the decay rates simply by placing inactive iron next to radioactive lead.

Part of the radioactive substances could have been leached out. Experiments show that even distilled water and weak acids can do this.

Rocks could have been altered by sediment displacements.

A few examples of the accuracy of this method:

Hawaiian lava flows known to be less than two centuries old have been dated at up to 3 BILLION years old!

Laboratories that "date" rocks insist on knowing in advance the "evolutionary age" of the strata from which the samples were taken—this way, they know which dates to accept as "reasonable" and which to ignore.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not dating methods, but a study in confusion:

1 - No rock in the world is a closed system. They all can be, and probably have been, contaminated

2 - Decay rates could have been different in the past. Under varying conditions, we have already found evidence of change in the present—and Joly found changes in the past

3 - Daughter products could easily have been present in the beginning. An original intermingling of such products would nullify present attempts to date by daughter products

4 - Unknown changes in our past environment could ruin the narrowly drawn assumptions. There is no way of knowing exactly what each local past environment was like

5 - High energy particles, nearby radioactive minerals or contact with certain chemicals could earlier have significantly altered decay rates

6 - Earlier changes in the atmosphere would have greatly affected decay rates. No one knows whether the earlier atmosphere was identically like our present one

7 - The decay clocks did not have to start at the beginning of their chains. Daughter products could have been present in the beginning

8 - Lead could originally have been mixed in with the uranium or thorium. It is only an assumption that all the lead could only be an end-product

9 - Common Lead 9 (PB-209) could have been mixed in. This would also seriously affect the dating

10 - Leaching could easily have occurred in past time. Passing solutions could have carried away portions of daughter products

11 - Comparisons of lead ratios could be inaccurately made. This could damage test results in five ways

12 - Any earlier change in the Van Allen belt would have decidedly affected decay rates. —And we have only known of this high-atmospheric belt since 1959

13 - Free neutrons could be captured from neighboring lead 206. Most radiogenic lead on earth could have been produced by neutron capture

14 - If the earth had originally been molten, this would have resulted in wide variations of rock settings. Intense heat damages radiodating clock settings

15 - Uranium dates, thorium dates, and all the other dating methods always disagree with one another. This itself is strong evidence of the unreliability of the various methods

16 - Some of the daughter products (such as argon) are gases which easily migrate out of the rocks. Why then are these daughter products relied on for dating purposes?

 

[Cert]

ok im too lazy to read all of the previous posts cuz its 5:13 am here... but here are my thoughts on religion. Sorry if i sound high or something... but my mind gets a little bit odd when im tired, kidda a natural high.

All religion is made up. Way back when cavemen didnt understand stuff, so they made beliefs that there is an omnipresent being or beings out there. This belief branched out many different ways, too ppl believing that the go is a kind, gentle god. Some believed it was a cruel, merciless god. Some thought that humans were merly playthings for the gods. Some ppl believed that their ancestors are gods. But if u actually think about it, religion is bullshit. a lot that is said in the bible has been proven wrong. Sure there might have been a guy Jesus in the year 0, but rumors could have spread from him beening the son of god. The 7 days of creation, bull. Science has proven that we have evolved over millions of years from star dust to clumps of matter to planets and stars. You can 'see' this happening if you go to a star image forum and look at deleloping galexies and solar systems.
Ok if religion is real, where is it today? I dont see any signs of god(s) on earth. There is no god or satan. Obviously there is no heaven. There could be a hell tho :/ since we havnt proven its non-existant, j//k that isnt real out there either. There arnt any gods up on top of Mount Olympus. Our dead ancestors are dead and dont give a **** about us. Sure, it would be nice to think that your dead grandfather is looking down at you, watching what you are doing, but the idea of heaven was made up thousands of years ago, cuz ppl need something to look forward to after they die. What if you believed that after you die, ur done. No light at the end of the tunnel. Nothing. Pretty depressing after you lived your life believing that there is a heaven. (crap there is a really good quote from FFX pertaining to this... Lady Yunalesca says it... I cant think of it though. It pertains to how we need hope of something. You FFX guys know what im talking about) I dont believe in a god or satan or ghosts any or crap like that. We die, we die. Our cells in our body start to die, and our body returns to the earth from whence it came, just to be replaced by another lifeform. Your 'soul'... lost forever.

People are ignorant

 

[Lilu]

i guess im a creationist...i believe wat the bible says....God created the earth and all its contents...but im sure over time...animals, humans and plants etc...are mutations of what use to be...somthing like that!! haha
:fwink

 

[Renzokuken]

That's exactly what i'm leaning on. Well, that's the only kinda theory my mind wants to believe at the moment. And it makes sense to me.

God created all...then the processes of evolution took over from there (in changing the landscape and animals that were already there).

 

[Lilu]

yup....i mean...over time there is always change...i think its kinda naive to think that we stayed the same since creation...yea..:fwink

 

[Renzokuken]

Bingo! Great minds think alike

But, obviously you don't believe in the big bang occuring? Do you ever think God created the big bang? (Hey, it's a possibility)

 

[Lilu]

maybe thats how he created things on each day...'bang' and it appeared....i dunno hehe..cute theory though!

 

[Renzokuken]

It's possible, but is it legitimate towards the Bible? So far, i think it's ok. (NB: I obviously havent read that thick thing...yet )

 

[Tempest Storm]

Originally posted by Renzokuken
God created all...then the processes of evolution took over from there (in changing the landscape and animals that were already there).

That what Deists, such as myself, believe. The only point we can't agree on is the timeline.

 

[MacMan]

Tempest, I don't have time to read your whole post on RA dating, but I did see that the first quote was from the mid 50's, I think you'd agree that techniques have had room to improve. Anyways, errors in dating are always factored in, and all true tests are done with a second method that could confirm no large errors. I.E. errosion of earth around the area, coral deposits around the area, ice layers around the area, sediment around the area, plate techtonic movements, magnetic field reversal, even the rotation of the Earth can be used to measure something. Chemists also use samples from the cores of objects, to prevent contamination, and multiple "cores" are tested at multiple labs.

 

[bamthedoc]

Okay, MacMan, I didn't say bacteria "mate" persay. What they do is form a "binary" bridge with living bacteria to "improve" themselves. From research that I've seen, bacteria can and will absorb and use DNA from dead bacteria to "improve" themselves. I might need to get a better resource for you sometime.

Tempest Storm Okay, I guess I should enlighten you to the neo-Creationists.

>We believe that GOD created all in the beginning.
>We believe that the Bible is the Truth and Word.
>We believe that evolution occurs under GOD's and man's control (less control from man...).
>We don't like Darwin; he was a sexist and a racist.
>We believe in giving the choices that have to be made in life.
>We believe man did not evolve from lower life forms.
>We believe homosexuality and abortion are wrong.
>We believe that GOD loves everyone and hates noone.
>We believe science to be a gift from GOD.
>We believe that it is neccessary to understand ourself and reach our potential.

<>Essentially a "communion" of evolutionary and creationist theory.
<>Please don't ask me to go into details into certians ones. It can get...difficult.
<>Does that help any?

 

[Tempest Storm]

Originally posted by bamthedoc
Tempest Storm Okay, I guess I should enlighten you to the neo-Creationists.

>We believe that GOD created all in the beginning.
>We believe that the Bible is the Truth and Word.
>We believe that evolution occurs under GOD's and man's control (less control from man...).
>We don't like Darwin; he was a sexist and a racist.
>We believe in giving the choices that have to be made in life.
>We believe man did not evolve from lower life forms.
>We believe homosexuality and abortion are wrong.
>We believe that GOD loves everyone and hates noone.
>We believe science to be a gift from GOD.
>We believe that it is neccessary to understand ourself and reach our potential.

Don't worry, I don't think further explaination will be neccisary. But that all sounds a good deal like plain 'ol Creationism and Christianity to me. Evolution is adaption to one's habitat. Without this we would have died off a long time ago. Even Mark, who is not a neo-Creationist has admitted that adaption is real.

And how was Darwin sexist and racist?

And Macman, I was merely trying to discredit Marks post, which talked only about radiodating. His article didn't mention anything about those results being confirmed by another method.

And Pamma, next time you spam another topic with your crap, I'll be having a little chat with Cort about a nice little vacation for you, got it?

 

[bamthedoc]

Oh boy...we got another one...

As for the difference between Creationists and neo-Creationsists, true Creationists generally don't believe evolution occurs.

Do I have to quote Darwin...? I really don't want to use that quote from "The Origin of Species" again...

 

[Tempest Storm]

Originally posted by bamthedoc
Oh boy...we got another one...

As for the difference between Creationists and neo-Creationsists, true Creationists generally don't believe evolution occurs.

Do I have to quote Darwin...? I really don't want to use that quote from "The Origin of Species" again...

So then Mark could be classified as a neo-Creationist?

And just why do you hate Darwin so much?