Origins

[Angry Lawyer]

Jesus christ...that sonnva'bitch ate my carrot. Also yea you're right AL about the 90% thingy...but I'm apart of that 10%!

But you don't argue. You just lay a beatdown.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Tr0n]

Awwww yea baby. I'm gonna lay the beatdown on you tonight...in bed. Who wants to join in?

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Awwww yea baby. I'm gonna lay the beatdown on you tonight...in bed. Who wants to join in?

Ohh yuss, you know it Tr0nny. I say we grab Short Recoil, Shens, Chris_D and Pi, and just go crazy.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Tr0n]

Short Recoil must have a big one...so big infact everytime he gets an erection he passes out. :O

 

[Ames]

I will not join in.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Short Recoil must have a big one...so big infact everytime he gets an erection everyone else passes out. :O

Corrected.

-Angry lawyer

 

[JCampbell]

I will not join in.

You should, as it seems everyone else has 'opted out.'

 

[Tr0n]

You can join to campbell.

 

[JCampbell]

You can join to campbell.

I don't follow. I started this thread with the intent of having an informative debate on the given subject. It looks like no-one else wants to.

 

[Absinthe]

Well, we basically have a topic on it already and it's been debated on at least a quad-yearly basis.

I would participate, but... meh. And I'd probably get lost in the nitty gritty details of biology.

 

[Tr0n]

Yea it's already been debated to death. Also shens was talking about the sex thing...noob.

 

[JCampbell]

Well, we basically have a topic on it already and it's been debated on at least a quad-yearly basis.

I would participate, but... meh. And I'd probably get lost in the nitty gritty details of biology.

Well, I've read the other debate threads and don't feel that the Creationist perspective was suffiently and accurately represented. I am trying to amend that.

Yea it's already been debated to death. Also shens was talking about the sex thing...noob.

Oh yes, a misunderstanding of a very ambiguous statement certainly makes worthy of the ultimate gamers insult.

 

[Tr0n]

No...it's not an insult. You ARE a noob. Look at post and join date.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Oh yes, a misunderstanding of a very ambiguous statement certainly makes worthy of the ultimate gamers insult.

Don't take it so seriously.

Basically, this is what I don't understand: what is the reason for arguing so strongly against the theory of evolution? And what is the evidence for Creationism, apart from the Bible? I mean, sum up the argument. I want to hear it from you. I'm not a scientist and nowhere near an expert on this subject, but reasons for believing the theory of evolution are:

- life exists in many forms now, but it did not in the past. Life has changed and it has diversified (what's the creationist argument? As far as I know, Genesis never claimed God might keep on creating new animals...)...the oldest fossil-bearing rocks display very few types of organisms with very simple structure...

- So there's variation between closely related species. Might not this variation continue until it's a new species?

- Australia and the new world. Completely seperated, animals have evolved entirely different characteristics; the platypus being a striking example.

- And as for missing links...I'm not a paleontologist. But archteopteryx...and the fact that many dinosaurs have extremely bird-like structures; the fact that a Quetzalcoatl (I think that's the bird) has almost identical skeleton to some species of dinosaur....


Like I said, I'm not an expert. I'm sure you can find counter-arguments to these. But what exactly is the creationist argument? What's it based on, apart from saying that evolution is wrong? Note that if I must I will trawl through that website but can't you sum it up?

 

[bliink]

the fact that a Quetzalcoatl (I think that's the bird) has almost identical skeleton to some species of dinosaur....

Isn't that an Incan god?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Also a bird and namesake of a species of Pterasaur!

 

[Tr0n]

I like chicken.

 

[CptStern]

As for your comment regarding the Bible being the limit of Creation Science's explanatory power, I will offer this analogy: Suppose you observe an event, and you write down what happened from your point of you (ie...aurora borealis). You state that there were bright colors banding across the sky. Now, say someone else comes along and takes your paper and offers a scientific explanation as to why this happened (ie...residual effects from solar flares). This does not invalidate your initial information, as you described within your knowledge. Similarly, the Bible is not meant to explain 'how' as much as it is meant to explain 'what,' just like any historical document. Evidence suggesting that this idea is true does not contradict what was written.

I see what you're saying and that would be true if it were anything but the bible and creationism ...that's like saying you interpret the bible to fit a specific scientific theory to explain something that is both locically and physically impossible. Maybe it's because I was born catholic but to me the bible says what it says .."god said "let there be light" means to me: god made sun and the stars because that's always been the interpretation

Obviously, the first account isn't specific enough for today's scientist. So doesn't it make sense to examine the facts to see whether or not they fit within this idea?

...but it's the only account ..it's not like god made a "bible companion" or "creation supplemental vol 1" ..the bible says what it says.

This isn't a re-interpretation of the Bible. This is an interpretation of data available today to see whether or not it fits within the Creationist idea. I don't see how you come to the conclusion that any evidence pointing towards Creationism shouldn't be admissible because it somehow 'changes' the theory.

it is a re-interpretation ..according to some biblical scholars the bible puts the earth age at about 10,000 years ...even the most naive of laymen would tell you that's impossible. The bible says that god created the universe and on the 6th day he rested despite being completely illogical. Many creationists say "well how do you how long a day was?" You cant reintrepret the bible to say that the word "day" actually meant thousands of years or they would have used a different word

That's interesting, because it explains how various information within the fossil record, gene theory and other aspects fit within its model. I don't see how this 'doesn't explain much.'

I'm sorry but it really doesnt say anything:



"Some of the most vocal opponents of creationary thought, ostensibly repulsed by the work involved in objectively studying the technical details of an unfamiliar matter, persist in demanding something like a one- or two-sentence “theory of creation” [preferrably subservient to their naturalistic presuppositions]. Their insistence on such a simplistic approach to both evolution and creation has its reasons: Evolution appears more credible when essential technical details remain beyond scrutiny, whereas creation finds its most compelling substantiation in technical, detailed analyses of actual empirical data and scientifically sound principles vis-a-vis both perspectives.

While a simplistic “sound bite” approach to the origins issue may be fashionable by contemporary popular media standards, genuine science remains a matter of technical details, empirical data, and thorough analysis of the same. So what awaits those who sincerely seek an authentic theory of creation is not another sugar-coated pill, but a body of literature comprising a technical “second opinion” bringing into question the superficial diagnosis popularly embraced by a world reluctant to face the implications of a sovereign Creator who has spoken.

Whereas the landscape of popular media and selected “science” texts are peppered with simplistic allusions to evolutionary theory as fact, literature describing and explaining the creationary alternative, while not as plentiful as its dominant counterpart, is readily available to those who seriously want to study it. This is where the details of empirical science are brought to bear against both competing paradigms. [Sadly, the same cannot be said for the vast majority of evolutionary literature, which largely persists in treating the assumption of evolution as an immutable fact (and, on that basis, an inevitable conclusion), while heaping derision on heavily caricatured renderings of the creationary perspective.] "


3 paragraphs that basically says

"we know what creationism is but we cant give you a simple sypnosis so here's a list of books to read"


here's where it explains creationism:

What then is the Theory of Creation?

Table 2 (below) highlights a series of fundamental components of biblical young-earth creationism, providing a basic rendering of the creationary paradigm. To help illustrate its key points vis-à-vis the evolutionary model, they are presented side by side for comparison. This list is by no means exhaustive, and is likely to grow over time.


table:


Comparison of the Evolutionary & Creationary Origins Theories
Phenomenon/Condition Creation
Hypothesis
Evolution
Hypothesis

Predominant a priori Assumptions (i.e., Philosophical Basis) concerning the Nature, Source, and Limits of Knowledge[4]
As with all man’s endeavors, true science will inevitably honor the Creator and affirm the Bible as His true and accurate record, wherever it addresses the historical past
Man’s scientific endeavors will inevitably affirm man’s autonomy and independence in determining what is true and what is false

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Predominant approach
to the Bible[5]
The biblical record is accepted as a reliable historical basis of interpreting empirical data
The biblical record is rejected as a reliable historical basis, and replaced with strict philosophical naturalism as a basis of interpreting empirical data

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Ultimate Primal Cause of Time, Space, and Matter/Energy[6]
God Created...
Time, space, and matter are either eternal or self-created.

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems[7]
Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection
Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information[8]
Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation
Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms[9]
Indicative of Creator’s prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms
Residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Billions of Organisms quickly Buried in sedimentary Rock Layers laid down by Water all over the Earth[10]
Global Flood & aftermath
Millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

The Ice Age[11]
Post-Flood climate compensation
Unknown

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics[12]
Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation
Contradicts, postulating mechanism-free constant increase in order, complexity, and genetic information

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Apparent Order or Sequence in Fossil Record[13]
General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected
Strict pattern of million-year depositions from “simple” to “complex”; variations (i.e., anomalies) problematic

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Erratic “Ages” given by Radiometric and various other Uniformitarian Processes[14]
Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood
Selective and dogmatic use of supportive “ages” & dismissal or disparagement of any conflicting indicators

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes







what the hell is that? maybe it's because I'm not an expert/scientist/theologian but that's not an explanation

 

[jverne]

so when was the bible written? 4000 BC? we have evidence that people lived during the last iceage (10000 BC) and even before! there were no books then, so how could someone in 4000 BC write how life was before 4000 BC?!? did god tell him, or adams great grand grand ........... son!? the bible was written by some guy!

damn, explaining creationism is too stupid...just like the people who belive in it!
the bible can't explain anything before it was written, darwins theory can!

i have been observing for the last few years and found that every year a new type of bug comes around but the next year it's gone and a new type comes!
example: 3 years ago there was a white cockroach like bug almost everywhere, after winter it was totaly gone and a new green like mosquito came and it's still here for 2 years, so i guess it survived the test! altough the ordinary mosquitos are still here which prove that they are well adapt!

and besides why do discuss only christian creationism...there's the jewis and hindui...muslim! there's only one darwins theory! another point which proves that religion is crap...there are just too many of them...which one is true?!

oh man!! this is just too stupid to discuss!!

 

[Llama]

Rofl 4,000 BC
You have got to be kidding me

 

[short recoil]

I was not created by a god, i was created by my parents.
Wether or not a god created life he did not create humans, no matter what the bible says.

and ffs, if god did create humans he must have made over 25 (i think thats the number) to avoid mutations caused by inbreeding.....
Adam and eves daughter and son going at it....man that's sick.

It's a load of tripe, give it a rest and accept that it is not any more right than evolution is.

 

[Sulkdodds]

and ffs, if god did create humans he must have made over 25 (i think thats the number) to avoid mutations caused by inbreeding.....
Adam and eves daughter and son going at it....man that's sick.

Maybe that's why the whole damn species is so ****ed up.

 

[Llama]

Maybe that's why the whole damn species is so ****ed up.

[SARCASM] That would explain a lot [/SARCASM]

 

[Ikerous]

and ffs, if god did create humans he must have made over 25 (i think thats the number) to avoid mutations caused by inbreeding.....
Adam and eves daughter and son going at it....man that's sick.

Why would god create people with genetic flaws?
The flaws only arose over time; originally our dna was perfect
(Which could imply that Eve was hella hot)
And if you lived to be 900, you'd have a lotta kids that didnt know each other
Thus making the imbreeding both safe and non-creepy

 

[Llama]

Yes, but why would / how could any person live to 900?
Am i missing your point?

 

[Ikerous]

Yes, but why would / how could any person live to 900?
Am i missing your point?

My point was just that creationists have an answer to the problem he proposed
since the Bible does say that Adam lived to be 900 and something
(or some other high number around there)

The argument for why he lived that long has a couple factors
Some of which are increased oxygen levels and increased atmospheric pressure
(Similar to a hyperberic chamber)
Theres proof for both of those, im just far too lazy to cite them
(Especially since i don't believe in creationism)

 

[Beerdude26]

Do they have proof both of those things happened when Adam and Eve lived?

 

[Ikerous]

Do they have proof both of those things happened when Adam and Eve lived?

The evidence that i was shown was tree sap with air bubbles in them from that time
The air bubbles displayed both qualities

Hey Campbell, you seem fairly well versed in the bible, could you answer a question i've had for a long time?
Can you explain why God would have commanded the slaughtering of infants (And everyone else obviously) at Jericho?
(You have no idea how long this question has plagued me, lol)

 

[Solaris]

Inbreeding is nessacary for evolution.

 

[JCampbell]

Don't take it so seriously.

I'll try not to, and realize now the spirit was in jest.

Basically, this is what I don't understand: what is the reason for arguing so strongly against the theory of evolution? And what is the evidence for Creationism, apart from the Bible? I mean, sum up the argument. I want to hear it from you. I'm not a scientist and nowhere near an expert on this subject, but reasons for believing the theory of evolution are:

It's impossible to sum up the argument, but I can answer specific questions regarding it. As to the general theory, it goes like this:
Life as we know it was created approximately 6000 years ago by God. This is documented in Genesis. That is my basic platform, but it does not mean that studying for evidence of this event should be limited to the Bible (as CptStern suggests). As I said, proof in the form of answering questions would be the best method of information conveyance.

As for your points:

- life exists in many forms now, but it did not in the past. Life has changed and it has diversified (what's the creationist argument? As far as I know, Genesis never claimed God might keep on creating new animals...)

You're right. Life has diversified. Obviously, this is microevolution as you are describing it. It does not, however, allow for the spontaneous arising of new species via 'random' mutations. It's not possible. (well to be fair, it technically is possible, but even giving the generous age of the universe to be 16 billion years, there still hasn't been enough time)

...the oldest fossil-bearing rocks display very few types of organisms with very simple structure...

While this may fit inside the evolutionary framework, it does not mean it fits exclusively to it. Consider the possibility of a global flood. Would the rapid burial of ecological zones account for the "layers" of the fossil record? I think it does. This apparent 'order' that you speak of where simpler organisms are in older rocks etc...is also significantly flawed. The amount of anomolies that have been "adjusted" and "re-dated" to fit within the evolutionary framework is very large.

- So there's variation between closely related species. Might not this variation continue until it's a new species?

In a word, no. And the lack of any transitional forms further proves my point.

- Australia and the new world. Completely seperated, animals have evolved entirely different characteristics; the platypus being a striking example.

Habitat adaptation. While they may have different characteristics, they still are the same animal. And many evolutionists don't believe that the platypus evolved from a common ancestor, so it is actually an anomole.

- And as for missing links...I'm not a paleontologist. But archteopteryx...and the fact that many dinosaurs have extremely bird-like structures; the fact that a Quetzalcoatl (I think that's the bird) has almost identical skeleton to some species of dinosaur....

Here in an interesting article on the dinosaur/bird ancestral link:
http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevo.asp
I know it's long, but it's very informative and gives a bit of a history to the subject.

Like I said, I'm not an expert. I'm sure you can find counter-arguments to these. But what exactly is the creationist argument? What's it based on, apart from saying that evolution is wrong? Note that if I must I will trawl through that website but can't you sum it up?

It is essentially as stated above. But how it accounts for fossils, genetic similarities between species, and other topics is mainly what I'm trying to bring up in this thread.

 

[JCampbell]

I see what you're saying and that would be true if it were anything but the bible and creationism ...that's like saying you interpret the bible to fit a specific scientific theory to explain something that is both locically and physically impossible. Maybe it's because I was born catholic but to me the bible says what it says .."god said "let there be light" means to me: god made sun and the stars because that's always been the interpretation

I will be honest. It is pretty much impossible to separate Creationism from the Bible. The ideal method would be do study the behaviour of the universe, and determine if it indeeds points towards a Creator. This can be done in a number of ways, but it would be fruitless to mention every one without a specific inquiry on your part. The fact that the Bible documents creation as a 6 day even does not mean that we need to reinterpret the Bible in order to compare it to the available evidence. I'm assuming that you are saying that it is scientifically and logically improbable because it contradicts what you've been taught about evolution and the big bang? Correct me if I'm wrong.

...but it's the only account ..it's not like god made a "bible companion" or "creation supplemental vol 1" ..the bible says what it says.

You're right. Look at it this way. If a witness gives a testimony and a court, how would one determine if what they were saying was true. Obviously, lie detectors are out of the question because it's historical. So what we do is go by what exists today, and see if this eyewitness account is plausible. I hope that makes sense.

it is a re-interpretation ..according to some biblical scholars the bible puts the earth age at about 10,000 years ...even the most naive of laymen would tell you that's impossible. The bible says that god created the universe and on the 6th day he rested despite being completely illogical. Many creationists say "well how do you how long a day was?" You cant reintrepret the bible to say that the word "day" actually meant thousands of years or they would have used a different word

Impossible? According to what evolution and radiocarbon dating predict? As for your comment about day, I agree completely. There were many words that could have been used instead but the original Hebrew translation was a word that specifically referred to a 'day' as we know it today.

I'm sorry but it really doesnt say anything:



...<paragraphs from trueorigins>...

3 paragraphs that basically says

"we know what creationism is but we cant give you a simple sypnosis so here's a list of books to read"

Hardly. It stated why there is significantly lesser content readily available for Creation as there is for Evolution.

here's where it explains creationism:

...<trueorigins creation theory table>...


what the hell is that? maybe it's because I'm not an expert/scientist/theologian but that's not an explanation

If that doesn't explain how creationists feel towards:
-the true purporse of life's existance
-interpretation of the Bible
-ultimate cause of life's existance
-large quantities of genetic information
-genetic and morphological similarities
-fossil record
-Ice Age
-Laws of Thermodynamics
then I don't know what will. What exactly do you want as a theory?

 

[JCampbell]

so when was the bible written? 4000 BC? we have evidence that people lived during the last iceage (10000 BC) and even before! there were no books then, so how could someone in 4000 BC write how life was before 4000 BC?!? did god tell him, or adams great grand grand ........... son!? the bible was written by some guy!

damn, explaining creationism is too stupid...just like the people who belive in it!
the bible can't explain anything before it was written, darwins theory can!

i have been observing for the last few years and found that every year a new type of bug comes around but the next year it's gone and a new type comes!
example: 3 years ago there was a white cockroach like bug almost everywhere, after winter it was totaly gone and a new green like mosquito came and it's still here for 2 years, so i guess it survived the test! altough the ordinary mosquitos are still here which prove that they are well adapt!

and besides why do discuss only christian creationism...there's the jewis and hindui...muslim! there's only one darwins theory! another point which proves that religion is crap...there are just too many of them...which one is true?!

oh man!! this is just too stupid to discuss!!

You'd better leave then. Mudslinging is hardly an effective form of debating.

 

[JCampbell]

I was not created by a god, i was created by my parents.
Wether or not a god created life he did not create humans, no matter what the bible says.

and ffs, if god did create humans he must have made over 25 (i think thats the number) to avoid mutations caused by inbreeding.....
Adam and eves daughter and son going at it....man that's sick.

It's a load of tripe, give it a rest and accept that it is not any more right than evolution is.

Do you know why it is illegal for close relatives to marry? It's because of genetic defects. People with similar DNA will tend to have similar defects, so the chance of one being carried over if two people in the same family had sex is very likely. However, if two people from very different genetic "trees" breed, the chance of the two errors "canceling" each other out is far greater. Obviously, inbreeding wouldn't have been a problem if we were created perfect (as well as soon after), as no genetic defects would have existed (or not enough to be as much of a threat as they are today).

 

[JCampbell]

The evidence that i was shown was tree sap with air bubbles in them from that time
The air bubbles displayed both qualities

Hey Campbell, you seem fairly well versed in the bible, could you answer a question i've had for a long time?
Can you explain why God would have commanded the slaughtering of infants (And everyone else obviously) at Jericho?
(You have no idea how long this question has plagued me, lol)

You're referring to the march around the city right? Honestly, I don't possess the explanation you require (you flatter me though). I will do some research though, and ask my dad, who's a pastor. So I'll get back to you on that. In the meantime, look it up on the web. There are plenty of sites devoted to explaining the Bible. Try and find a more reputable one.

 

[Stigmata]

<snip>

So essentially, your method of proving your argument is to disprove its antithesis. Nice.

The reason you're not getting much support on the issue is that you're not providing any evidence that directly proves the theory (read: hypothesis) of Creationism. Everything you've mentioned so far to try and disprove the theory of Evolution is based on:
a) misinformation
b) completely circumstantial "evidence"
c) what seems to be a fairly huge lack of understanding of the evolutionary theory.

If you want to prove something, you cannot assume that there are only two solutions to a given problem. Saying the theory of Evolution is wrong does NOT, under ANY circumstances prove the theory of Creationism.

Think of how you would solve the problem of, say, fixing your car engine. You might think to yourself "Hey, maybe the spark plugs need to be replaced." And along comes your friend, let's call him Bob. Bob, though he may be no more of an expert on the subject than you, suggests that your gas tank is empty.

Now, to decide which one of you is right, what would you do? To make this an ideal metaphor, I'll tell you what you WOULDN'T do:

Fill the gas tank, find the engine still doesn't work, and declare that faulty spark plugs are to blame.

That's just faulty logic. Obviously, there's more than two solutions to the problem, so assuming that yours is right because someone else's is wrong is, well... It's just plain stupid. Just like with the Evolution/Creationism debate: Just because one is "wrong" doesn't make the other right.

And I'll point out right now that I believe evolution is, right now, a far more accurate deduction than Creationism is, based on the evidence given.

 

[Ikerous]

You're referring to the march around the city right? Honestly, I don't possess the explanation you require (you flatter me though). I will do some research though, and ask my dad, who's a pastor. So I'll get back to you on that. In the meantime, look it up on the web. There are plenty of sites devoted to explaining the Bible. Try and find a more reputable one.

The internet was the first place i tried to look for an answer
I was never capable of finding one though

I appreciate you asking and look forward to a response ^_^

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Stigmata just about summed everything up.
I could prove George Bush wrong any day of the week. That is NOT proof of my theory that Sasquatch is simply an undiagnosable mental illness.

I'd just like to go the extra mile and point out that there are plenty of 'transitory' forms.

Birds with feathers are just the most dramatic example. There are at least three species of dinosaur with full-blown bird feathers on their front limbs. Scientists have also recently discovered that many predatory dinosaurs formerly thought to be naked had feathers, although without the capacity for flight.

So we have three animals with similar shape, anatomy and behaviour.
The first has feathers. The second has feathers that provide short flight. The third is able to use its feathers to stay aloft for long periods of time.
So, either it's the world's biggest coincidence or it's evolution.
And the idea of transitory forms is a slippery slope. If I show you a pigeon, an archeopteryx and a compsognathus, all feathered, you'll invariably ask for the form between each. Then you'll ask for the gaps between those five. Then those nine.
It's exponential growth of ignorance.

I also call bullshit on saying "Oh but short-term evolution is real, but long term is impossible!"
Small-scale evolution has to compound into larger changes over time. It's simple logic, wheras there's no logical reason whatsoever why it wouldn't/couldn't.

Let's say a species of fish evolves horns over the short term. Then, in the short term, it evolves glowing skin. Then short-term little fish-fingers. Then gills that function as lungs, etc.
If singular small changes happen, then they must eventually add up to greater overall change. By saying you believe in small-scale evolution, you must either support the idea of large scale evolution or be wrong.

"But we've never seen a species turn into another!!!"
The lines between species are more or less an arbitrary human creation. The change from one to another is so fluid that you cannot draw a line. The current system of classification is simply there as a way of reducing the complexity of an impossibly complex process.
Just as we say '2' and '3', when, in between, there are an infinite number of decimals. Notice the similarity to the above example of the impossible comprehensive list of transitory forms?
The entire idea of transitory forms is an oversimplification to the point of fallacy.


Also: Holy shit, quintupple poster. :O

 

[short recoil]

Stigmata, Mechagodzilla, nicely said.
I don't think i need to add anything to either of these posts.
And no it's not me being bias, it's just about looking at things realistically.

 

[JCampbell]

So essentially, your method of proving your argument is to disprove its antithesis. Nice.

Well, since you "snipped" whatever evidence you have to support this accusation you have made against me, I say you're wrong. I never did say that, although I would be interested to know what could be misunderstood as that.

The reason you're not getting much support on the issue is that you're not providing any evidence that directly proves the theory (read: hypothesis) of Creationism. Everything you've mentioned so far to try and disprove the theory of Evolution is based on:
a) misinformation
b) completely circumstantial "evidence"
c) what seems to be a fairly huge lack of understanding of the evolutionary theory.

Think about it. I have the exact same evidence as you. But since you want direct proof that could point towards a young earth, I would say that these 10:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
are pretty profound.

If you want to prove something, you cannot assume that there are only two solutions to a given problem. Saying the theory of Evolution is wrong does NOT, under ANY circumstances prove the theory of Creationism.

I never said this.

Think of how you would solve the problem of, say, fixing your car engine. You might think to yourself "Hey, maybe the spark plugs need to be replaced." And along comes your friend, let's call him Bob. Bob, though he may be no more of an expert on the subject than you, suggests that your gas tank is empty.

A perfect example of how someone more qualified can bring light to a complicated and misunderstood situation. For most of my claims (not all, as my writing would be a mess), I have provided links by qualified scientists or articles peer-reviewed by qualified scientists to support them.

Now, to decide which one of you is right, what would you do? To make this an ideal metaphor, I'll tell you what you WOULDN'T do:

Fill the gas tank, find the engine still doesn't work, and declare that faulty spark plugs are to blame.

You're still going on the assumption that I think that because evolution is wrong, creation must be right. Keep in mind, however, that these are the most dominant theories and as such are the subject of many debates.

That's just faulty logic. Obviously, there's more than two solutions to the problem, so assuming that yours is right because someone else's is wrong is, well... It's just plain stupid. Just like with the Evolution/Creationism debate: Just because one is "wrong" doesn't make the other right.

Again, I never said this.

And I'll point out right now that I believe evolution is, right now, a far more accurate deduction than Creationism is, based on the evidence given.

Thanks, but you haven't provided any evidence to back up your claim, other than trying to undermind mine by accusing me of saying it's the only other option, so it has to be true.

 

[short recoil]

Think about it. I have the exact same evidence as you. But since you want direct proof that could point towards a young earth, I would say that these 10:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
are pretty profound.

I have to say, that "profound evidence" for a young world is a load of rubbish.
It makes so many presumptions and "snips".

And also did god create the rest of the solar system billions of years before he created earth?
Because if you look at the crater impacts on the moon (number of divided by impact frequency) you will see it has been there a very long time.
it has been shown that the location of these strikes has been effected by the earth, so the earth must have been there for a very long time as well.

There is so much evidence to state that earth has been around for billions upon billions of years (i don't know the supposed number, can't be assed to look)
Trying to state it is a much younger "creation" with tiny half truths against a mountain of evidence is idiocy.

And btw it's also idiocy splitting up someones post and replying with a comment of the same context under each bit, it's just annoying to read and makes you look like you are struggling to provide a weighty argument.