PDA

View Full Version : I SEE DEAD PEOPLE....EVERYWHERE!!



johnnymk
07-07-2001, 08:13 AM
So You Want To Believe In Evolution...

THEN WHERE'S ALL THE PEOPLE??

Bible believing Christians maintain that man was created in God’s image and
likeness, therefore it is difficult to understand how this could include a
transition from apes. In fact, the clear teaching of the Bible states that
man was created fully mature about six thousand years ago. (Genesis 1)

PEOPLE OFTEN ASK HOW THE 6000 YEARS IS DETERMINED.

No one Bible scripture states this and perhaps this is because God knew that
man has been known to attempt to explain away any one particular scripture.
The 6000 years is determined by adding the total chronological time span of
the Biblical patriarchs to the date of established historical events such as
the birth of Christ.

Some say that the genealogy of the patriarchs contain gaps. They claim that
generations might be missing because each descendent listed in Genesis may
not have been a son but rather a grandson or great grandson etc. This
possibility is irrelevant because the time span between these births is
mathematically fixed no matter how many generations may have been missing.

All the time lines of the stated genealogies link together to form an
accurate continuous chronology.

Several textual discrepancies have arisen between the Greek Septuagint and
the Hebrew Masoretic texts. These only amount to several hundred years
therefore, the 6000 years+ recorded history of man stands. There is no
rational way to stretch this figure to millions of years!

Evolutionists, including those who teach at many Christian colleges, believe
that man is simply a higher form of ape who evolved by chance. According to
this popular theory, the genus "Homo" has been evolving for about 2,500,000
years.

Page 5
Now this hypothesis can be mathematically tested and compared with the
account of creation to establish which is more plausible. We need only
compare the quantity of physical remains of man found on the planet Earth
with the expected numbers which should remain as fossils or unfossilized
bones. After all, the evolutionists have assured us that fossils, in
general, have been preserved for hundreds of millions of years.
The equation for human population growth is:

P= poert

P = present human population
po = initial human population of 2 people
e = natural logarithm base (2.718)
r = annual growth rate
t = time in years

The current annual growth rate is 1.7%. However, examination of population
figures throughout recorded history, which takes into account plagues and
wars, indicate that the average growth rate is closer to .5%. Now let's be
extremely conservative and not even consider all the expected remains which
would have accumulated from Homo erectus and Homo habilis which supposedly
have been reproducing for several million years. We are also going to
severely limit the calculation to the expected number of graves which modern
man would have left, and then for ONLY 100,000 years instead of the 200,000
years proposed by many evolutionists. Going further, the population growth
rate will be reduced to .1%.

Using these extremely conservative numbers in the above equation yields the
Earth’s total population of Homo sapiens which would have lived and died :

5.3(10)43

This number is 5 with 43 zeros after it. This population is a whopping
incomprehensible,
astronomical number! Let me boil this down to the expected number of graves
(remains/fossils) per acre.
NUMBER OF ACRES ON THE EARTH
3.7(10)10

Each acre of ground should contain 1.44(10)33 bodies per acre

If the evolutionary scenario is even remotely true then:

Every time and every where a spade is put in the ground, it should come up
filled with modern human bones!

As a matter of fact, no matter how deep the excavation or how many miles you
probed the Earth with a test boring--you would come up with human remains.
Remember this does not even include the entire genus "Homo" whose remains
could not be contained in the entire globe of the Earth even if it were
hollow.

BIBLICAL SCENARIO:
We are now in a position to compare this unrealistic situation with the
clear teaching of the Bible.

Initial Population after the flood: 8 people
Growth rate : .428%
Time: 4750 years (since the Flood)

EXPECTED EARTH’S POPULATION:
5.38(10)9

As you can see, this figure agrees with the current population of our planet
(see graph). It is clear that the population growth figures are undeniably
in accord with the Biblical account of Noah’s flood as opposed to the utter
foolishness of evolution theory.

Credits: Mr. John Heffner
Chairman, Math Dept.,Kilgore H.S., Kilgore,Tx.

Sal Giardina and his wife, Pam have a very unique and informative ministry
of sharing truths regarding the Biblical creation. They are available for
seminars and travel to churches presenting many of these Biblical and
scientific facts to expose the lie of evolution. Sal is a geologist with the
knowledge to refute many modern day scientific theories that do not agree
with the Word of God. People of all ages would be blessed to hear this
entire presentation of these important truths. Sal can be contacted at his
email address below to schedule a seminar in your church or youth group.

Sal Giardina email: [email protected]

Web Site Address: http://www.myhomepage.net/~sal_pam

TheLoneGunman
07-07-2001, 09:03 AM
You put dead people (and animals and plants) into your car every day.

It's called gas.

If bones didn't decay, then Matlock wouldn't have to be such a genius in court.

johnnymk
07-07-2001, 10:02 AM
Why didn't they change to Quaker State 10W40? After all, if evolution is always progressing to a higher state, then the refining process wouldn't even be required.
Wait long enough and a solar energy farm would naturally be built in your back yard, along with a really neat Lamborghini Diablo.

Burzhui
07-07-2001, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
You put dead people (and animals and plants) into your car every day.

It's called gas.

If bones didn't decay, then Matlock wouldn't have to be such a genius in court.

He he matlock he he, :(:( put gas into car everyday :(:(

pennypinch
07-07-2001, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by johnnymk
Why didn't they change to Quaker State 10W40? After all, if evolution is always progressing to a higher state, then the refining process wouldn't even be required.
Wait long enough and a solar energy farm would naturally be built in your back yard, along with a really neat Lamborghini Diablo.

a) fossils are only generated when carcasses are encased in some preservative state, be it amber, mud, or volcanic ash. It's why you don't find many "ordinary" Egyptian bodies, but only those preserved by mummification.

b) Last I checked, neither engines nor refineries nor Packards reproduced and were required to adapt to their environment. Do not pass go; do not collect $200.

Y2J
07-07-2001, 10:59 AM
That was too long. Instead of reading it, Ill just reply that I hate the damn kid in the 6th sense. I hope he stops making movies, and stops today

Luxykin007
07-07-2001, 11:12 AM
Here are a few more thoughts (and popular ideas) to build upon what jonnymk has said...

1. The're are a few cool things I'd like to add to what jonnymk already has said. One is about the age of the Bible and how it fit's with dinosaurs. In the book of Job, considered by most to be the oldest book, you will find in ch. 40 v. 15 God is speaking to Job about one of his creations He calls "behemoth." A few of the observations about "behemoth" are: he feeds on grass like an ox (v.15), his tais swings like a cedar (v.17), when the river rages, he is not alarmed; he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth. (v.23)

There is more cool stuff within that specific chapter of that book as well...

2. The law of probability is clearly in favor of the world existing as the Bible teaches vs. the creation of the world via evolution. As Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the world's leading astronomers and mathematicians once said before the British Academy of Science: "The probability of life arising by chance, is the same probability as throwing a 6 on a dice five million consecutive times." He then went on to add, "Let's be scientifically honest. We all know that life arising to greater and greater complexity and organization by chance through evolution is the same probability of having a tornado tear through a junkyard and form out the other end a Boeing 747 jetliner"


Ultametly it is an interest in looking for God that makes any sorts of facts in favor of biblical creationism have merit. If one is sold on the idea of simply following the teachings of man, than there is nothing anyone can say or do to change that. Personally I have considered evolution and it doesn't add up. And for the few things that do seem to make sense, I have found that knowing God has revealed a much more complete answer. And where there is no answer, I have learned to walk by faith, and allow God to make my life decisions for me. It makes things a whole lot easier...

stupidzbu
07-07-2001, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Luxykin007
Here are a few more thoughts (and popular ideas) to build upon what jonnymk has said...



i'm going to bash you a little... cause.. you seem to be full of it....

i mean... what you added .. sounded like a damn informertial!! i mean... what part of your addition was YOUR thought... and not something shoved down your throat by priests or what not?

you sound like a sheeple (copyright Talk2raffi 1999,2000,2001) ... desperatly awaiting his shephard...

let me put it to you like this... YOU have a mind.. YOU have the capacity to think... PROVE to me mathematically your claims of probability... SHOW ME THE PROOF of that claim.. and I will buy it... simply stating it has NO BEARING WHAT SO EVER! why you ask? because I can make my own stats too... all i need to do is be biased.. choose my randon sample of miniscule size that agrees with what I say... and POOF!! stats that are in my favor!

don't know what a random sample is? then LEARN!

please... humor me... what part of evolution doesn't add up?

But before you answer that... WHY must dumb people like yourself consistantly assume that evolution walks a fine linear, upward line?! WHO THE HELL SAYS that evolution leads to an ultimatly BETTER creation!

example... Darwin says that the most fittest survives.... If the sun were to explode today... those who are hairy would have a better chance of surviving.. because the hairs all over their bodies would allow for heat retention... This is an advantage over those (mainly white people) who have NO BODY HAIR... does that mean that having more hair around your body makes you a better Homo Sapien? ONLY IF THE DAMN SUN EXPLODES!!!

evolution is a CHANGE according to the ENVIRONMENT... thats why black people are black.. white people are white.. and middle easterns are hairy... it is RELATIVE to where you live!

there is a KEY phrase in biology... IF YOU DON'T USE IT, YOU LOSE IT!

bats live in the dark... hence.. they are blind.. but their audio machinery is far more enhanced than ours.....

do you get it now?

how about this.. why don't u mount your bike... and go preach to some other people... those who DON'T have the capacity to think and reason.. like yourself!

topane
07-07-2001, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by stupidzbu
<SNIP>... WHY must dumb people like yourself <SNIP> Dude, relax! I don't agree with anything the guy said, either, but I'm not going to call him "dumb". Now that that's out of the way...
Um, johnnymk and Luxykin007, I do respect your beliefs, I really do, but I think you need to consider this: The Bible is not meant to be a literal document. It can be read metaphorically. And just because someone assembled (that's right, the Bible (and the Qu'ran as well)) a whole bunch of stories, writings, etc. and threw them into one big honkin' book, and gave it out on Sundays in the desert doesn't make it all true. Perhaps one "day" in the book of Genesis is a billion years. Wouldn't the concepts of "day" or "night" to an omnipotent and eternal being seem a little bit useless. Can you comprehend eternity? Well, I wonder if God's "day" spans eons.
Evolution is a theory, which is why it's called the "Theory of Evolution"; just like the "Big Bang" theory--none of us were there, so how could we know? Evolution has been shown on a smaller scale: Wildlife around the Chernobyl nuclear plant has "evolved" to radioactive-resistant generations at a very quick rate. I don't have the research right in front of me, but I'll be happy to dig it up.
As for dinosaurs being around in Biblical times, the National Enquirer reports stories of dinosaurs every day, so why not? :P Besides, there are still parts of the world we haven't seen, so maybe they're all hiding in those places. Maybe they're in my couch, I dunno. And as for the "chance" of life evolving on Earth: If the universe is vast and infinite, and has been around for an infinite amount of time, something like this was bound to happen by chance. I can't prove it was, but you can't prove it wasn't.

CarSmash
07-07-2001, 03:02 PM
Can someone please show me to the exit already?

Luxykin007
07-07-2001, 05:46 PM
I suppose I should be offended by your opinion, but I am not. I am sorry you feel that I don't think for myself and that I am a walking propaganda for the Christian Society. The fact is, I am a born-again Christian and proud of my beliefs. I also respect you and your beliefs, but I respectfully disagree. And yes, please don't believe what I say, that would make you dumb. I searched for what I have found opposed to eating the words regurgitated by some priest. If you are content with what science teaches you, and it answers ALL your questions, than I am happy for you. But that was not enough for me, I felt there was something more than random chance and chaotic death that led to my being here. I may seem like a close-minded fool to some of you, but don't believe for a second that there exists nothing beyond what you can see, feel and touch. Have you ever seen a million dollars? I haven't, but people talk about it all the time, I am pretty sure it exists somewhere. If you just for a second put behind the cruel feelings you have for Christianity and Christians, you may actually find a God that loves you and sent his Son to die on a cross for you. There could be a shouting match about what facts point where forever, but I am firm in my beliefs because of my own experience, not because it is "cool" to be a Christian. Believe me, if I wanted to be popular at all I wouldn't choose Christianity. Look at what happened to Jesus, he got jacked. But death was not the final chapter in his existance, and I believe that it won't be the final chapter to mine. I hope my expressing my opinions doesn't offend you, and I am truely sorry if I did.

Nija
07-07-2001, 05:59 PM
Smoke Crack,
And
Worship Satan

:-D

Y2J
07-07-2001, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by Nija
Smoke Crack,
And
Worship Satan

:-D

Can I get a hallelujah?

Nija
07-07-2001, 06:50 PM
Praise Jesus!
*look at my shirt*

" I *heart symbol* Satan"

TheLoneGunman
07-07-2001, 09:58 PM
Uhm, if humans were only around for 6000 years, how did we get 30,000 year old cave paintings???

http://news.excite.com/news/ap/010704/14/int-france-cave-engravings

They are radio-dating the skeletons they found nearby, but I think they will be more than 6000 years old.

Also, what about all the fossils and other things that clearly radio date back MILLIONS of years ago? I actually have a number of Dinosaur fossils myself.

Where did they come from? When did these creatures exist?

CluelessSi
07-09-2001, 07:45 AM
Well all in all many of these things are in assumption and also things have to be just believed in faith. For those who want a good agrument read "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" Josh McDowell. He was a scientist out in search to disprove the bible and christianity but in turn was re-born.

The chance of life created by chance is such a small possibility that it can be called Zero. cave paintings based on radioactive dating is just that, based on radioactive dating which is all probablilty and stats. half lifes are average decay but what prevents the atmosphere of early earth to have acted as a catalyst? Also who said God can't create the earth in a "future" form rather then building it up from scratch....


Evolution in small scale and in relativily minor details does happen, it is more of adaptaion. but in the large scheme evolution kinda does not hold. think about how many generations there has to be between apes and humans. where are the transitions? and what happen to them.... they say the higher forms eventually took over the lower forms... then why are apes still here?

A friend has went repeated to look at LUCY but it was always not avaliable because ti is undergoing further investigation. Media usually hype up recent discoveries without a thourough investigation.

Darwin himself in the "Origins of Life" repeatedly doubts his own theroy and many renouwn scientist states that the evolution of the human is a "miraculous" chance or probablity. Even the leading evolutionist Gauld (spelling?) was reparted as saying how it was a miracle. we don't have to think of human in the big form,. just a cell itself has so many things that can go wrong and so complex that without a genius behind it, it is impossible to create.

There are many many problems with the theory of evolution. you can read about them all over. I have seen and heard many lectures given by scientists on science vs. faith.


I don't really want to raise an arguement over this but I just encourage everyone to seek out more and understand more.

jase71
07-09-2001, 08:04 AM
We may not perfectly understand evolution yet. And we probably never will. Relying on a fossil record for evidence is a difficult thing to do. Not all species are represented, and not all stages are represented. So we have to piece together what we can.

How accurate a picture of God could you get if we tore a random dozen pages out of a Bible, and handed them to you? Could you easily recontruct the rest of the Bible flawlessly from those dozen pages?

Yet that's equivalent to the task for scientists studying evolution. Piecing together the whole story from a few bits that were left over.

Is evolution flawless? No... but it's the theory that best fits the entire body of evidence we've amassed.

Creationism requires us to selectively ignore or discard too much science and research, and to make up or assume too much other information for it to fit. It's more of a patchwork than evolution. Ultimately Creationism's flaws are defended as "Because God made it that way." If that's true, why bother to study it? And why bother with the pseudo-science?

Perhaps someday someone will come up with a better theory. I'd be interested in hearing it. Until they do, evolution stands as the best fit for the data and evidence.

But for now, we've already seen evidence that evolution works in shorter timeframes. Why is it so hard to believe that it does the same thing, with even greater changes, over longer periods of time?

CluelessSi
07-09-2001, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by jase71


Is evolution flawless? No... but it's the theory that best fits the entire body of evidence we've amassed.

...

But for now, we've already seen evidence that evolution works in shorter timeframes. Why is it so hard to believe that it does the same thing, with even greater changes, over longer periods of time?



That is one of the problems with relying on evolution too much. The leading evolutionist was quoted in admiting (forgot exact quote) - out of all the world's fossil collected thus far, only a handful are good.


Evolution in smaller time frames are not the same thing. we use the term evolution too loosely. The reason for hard to believe in longer timeframes to have same affect as smaller ones is because the changes are much more drastic. even to the point where the species can't reproduce with one another... so how did they multiply? The smaller timeframe ones are merely adaptaion. I evolution the lower of the kind will not be able to fight off the better delevoped kind so they start to die off... then how come we have lower species still? I guess both creation and evolution is hard to defend... there are holes in both so go seek and learn more about both.

[Edited by CluelessSi on 07-09-2001 at 08:35 AM]

jase71
07-09-2001, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by CluelessSi


That is one of the problems with relying on evolution too much. The leading evolutionist was quoted in admiting (forgot exact quote) - out of all the world's fossil collected thus far, only a handful are good.

Sure... most fossils are fragments. Or not particularly clear. Conditions have to be nearly perfect for fossils to form. It's actually surprising we have as many as we do.

But does the fact that we don't have a complete fossil record mean all of them are worthless?

The existence of ANY fossils argues against Creationism, purely because of the time frame involved in first creating them, and then time it takes to cover them with the layers up layers of sediments.

Unless you fall back on the "God put them there to confuse us" argument. And that just doesn't wash. If God is intentionally confusing us with fossils, how could we trust the Bible? Maybe IT's made to confuse us too... God wouldn't work like that.

jase71
07-09-2001, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by CluelessSi


Evolution in smaller time frames are not the same thing. we use the term evolution too loosely. The reason for hard to believe in longer timeframes to have same affect as smaller ones is because the changes are much more drastic. even to the point where the species can't reproduce with one another... so how did they multiply? The smaller timeframe ones are merely adaptaion. I evolution the lower of the kind will not be able to fight off the better delevoped kind so they start to die off... then how come we have lower species still? I guess both creation and evolution is hard to defend... there are holes in both so go seek and learn more about both.

[Edited by CluelessSi on 07-09-2001 at 08:35 AM]

All evolution is is adaptation over time. Small changes in short time frames multiplied over millions of years equals large changes.

Take a species. Divide the number in half. Put half in one valley, a cool wet one. Put the other half in a different valley. A hot dry one. Over tens, hundreds, and thousands of generations, each of those groups will evolve to better survive in their environments. Unless they are allowed to migrate and intermingle, they will evolve in different directions, eventually to a point where they would not or could not breed with each other.

As for higher species and lower species both evolving, there's no problem with that. If they are not in direct competition for the same resource, both can survive. If they ARE in direct competition, the one that competes better will either force the other to leave, or to adapt, or to be eliminated.

No conflict there...

Again, evolution is not flawless. But it has fewer holes, and better fits the evidence than Creationism, at least at this point. Who knows what tomorrow may bring?

CluelessSi
07-09-2001, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by jase71

Originally posted by CluelessSi


That is one of the problems with relying on evolution too much. The leading evolutionist was quoted in admiting (forgot exact quote) - out of all the world's fossil collected thus far, only a handful are good.

Sure... most fossils are fragments. Or not particularly clear. Conditions have to be nearly perfect for fossils to form. It's actually surprising we have as many as we do.

But does the fact that we don't have a complete fossil record mean all of them are worthless?

The existence of ANY fossils argues against Creationism, purely because of the time frame involved in first creating them, and then time it takes to cover them with the layers up layers of sediments.

Unless you fall back on the "God put them there to confuse us" argument. And that just doesn't wash. If God is intentionally confusing us with fossils, how could we trust the Bible? Maybe IT's made to confuse us too... God wouldn't work like that.


Layers are agurable and also how are you dating it? the dating methods so far are not that great. Carbon dating is pretty accurate but too bad it does not date so far back. layers of rock can be formed not just with long periods of time, can be many other ways such as a disturbance...

CluelessSi
07-09-2001, 09:38 AM
dividing and stuff i can't agure cause it is true but they are still part of the same species... meaning they can mate and produce fertile offspring....

also they will almost always be competting for the same thing since they slowly "evolved" from one form to the other, they will still be eating and loiving off the same things... so in that case apes should have been long gone by now..

[Edited by CluelessSi on 07-09-2001 at 10:20 AM]

jase71
07-09-2001, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by CluelessSi


Layers are agurable and also how are you dating it? the dating methods so far are not that great. Carbon dating is pretty accurate but too bad it does not date so far back. layers of rock can be formed not just with long periods of time, can be many other ways such as a disturbance...

Carbon Dating has an extreme range of about 50,000 years. As you approach that range, it becomes somewhat more dicey.
If you spend enough money testing, you can take a shot at even a little farther back.

So carbon dating would easily outrange the ~6,000 years that Creationists say is the age of the Earth.

As for layers, there are a few ways to date them.

For more recent layers, often you can carbon date materials contained within the layer.

You can also use layers that can be tied to known events. If a volcano left an ash deposit layer, and you can determine when the volcano erupted, you can use that as a reference for other layers in the region. The same can be done with sedimentary beds for areas that used to be under water.

Layers of rock CAN form over very different timetables. HOwever, the TYPE of layer can tell you how long it may have taken for the layer to form. A 3 inch layer of sediment would have taken much longer to form than a 12 inch layer of volcanic rock created from a lava flow. Type will often tell you more than just thickness.

There are also other methods of dating, similar to carbon dating, but using other elements such as U235. A material with a longer halflife will allow you to reach back farther than carbon dating. It won't be as precise as carbon dating, but will cover a much longer timeframe.

There are other methods as well... but I'm not a geologist, and I'm not even going to try and explain them, because they get more technical than I can comfortably follow, much less explain.

Dating, like evolution, may not be a perfect science. But I suspect it's more accurate than counting back the generations of "begats" listed in the bible, and guessing at the Earth's age based on that.

Again, it's not a perfect science, but it's currently the best alternative we've got.

CluelessSi
07-09-2001, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by jase71

Originally posted by CluelessSi


Layers are agurable and also how are you dating it? the dating methods so far are not that great. Carbon dating is pretty accurate but too bad it does not date so far back. layers of rock can be formed not just with long periods of time, can be many other ways such as a disturbance...

Carbon Dating has an extreme range of about 50,000 years. As you approach that range, it becomes somewhat more dicey.
If you spend enough money testing, you can take a shot at even a little farther back.

So carbon dating would easily outrange the ~6,000 years that Creationists say is the age of the Earth.

As for layers, there are a few ways to date them.

For more recent layers, often you can carbon date materials contained within the layer.

You can also use layers that can be tied to known events. If a volcano left an ash deposit layer, and you can determine when the volcano erupted, you can use that as a reference for other layers in the region. The same can be done with sedimentary beds for areas that used to be under water.

Layers of rock CAN form over very different timetables. HOwever, the TYPE of layer can tell you how long it may have taken for the layer to form. A 3 inch layer of sediment would have taken much longer to form than a 12 inch layer of volcanic rock created from a lava flow. Type will often tell you more than just thickness.

There are also other methods of dating, similar to carbon dating, but using other elements such as U235. A material with a longer halflife will allow you to reach back farther than carbon dating. It won't be as precise as carbon dating, but will cover a much longer timeframe.

There are other methods as well... but I'm not a geologist, and I'm not even going to try and explain them, because they get more technical than I can comfortably follow, much less explain.

Dating, like evolution, may not be a perfect science. But I suspect it's more accurate than counting back the generations of "begats" listed in the bible, and guessing at the Earth's age based on that.

Again, it's not a perfect science, but it's currently the best alternative we've got.




Are you assuming that the carbon found are from the original fragment? most don't have enough to date. when you say how the layers are formed are all assumed that it happened that way. I am more of a scientist so I don't know all the agurments for Creation but I know that there are many well known scientist out there with book explaining these things. As you said, things are not perfect so why can't creation be a possiblilty since there are a lot of things science can't explain and so many holes in theories...

I am in the process of learning more about it. I am a recent Christian so most of my thinking is still based on science but science has a lot of contraversial evidence... I just heard a speaker a few weeks ago on this topic and he was able to produce pretty good agrguements against evolution. He is by the way a well known scientist with well over 380 published papers on various topics. Science itself is great. but sometimes things like evolution tell people in mor laymans terms as to not confuse us but if you read deeply into it, many evolution documents have disclaimer like notes saying the possiblilty is somewhat of a miracle..



maybe if I am able to get notes or more material on this topic I can present some more facts.

Personally I love Science and everything about it is facinating. We may never know the answer to these questions. I guess all we can do is keep searching.... haha sounds like X-files :P



[Edited by CluelessSi on 07-09-2001 at 10:51 AM]

Luxykin007
07-09-2001, 10:55 AM
I heard a story once about carbon dating. I can't even remember much of the basic facts about this story, but it is one of theose things you definatley remember not very well. Anyway, I was about some scientists that found some bones of a person and carbon dated them to like 50,000 years old. Later on they found they were like 5 years old or something. Again, I just remember hearing about it and thinking if something could be that far off in one instance, I wouldn't trust any form of evidence based on it. Something else that I thought was cool in regerds to those who feel that the incident of creation could have been like 6 periods of a million years or what have you. I was thinking about what it says in Genesis when it is describing the creation of the universe. One of the things that scientists use to determine the age of our planet, and ultametly (sp?) the age of our universe, is the distance of starts away from us, i.e. the time it takes the light from certain stars to reach earth. First, the Bible says that that God said "let there be light." Gad saw that the light was good, and He seperated the light from darkness. The He called the light "day" and the darkness "night." Then the Bible says, there was morning and evening - the first day. I think basically what the bible is saying here, is that a "day" consists of one period of day, and one period of light... kinda like how we still look at a day as being. So how then would one refute the fact that stars being so far away, it would take millions of years for us to see their light? Well the bible says (talking about God) Gen 1:16 ...He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light to the earth... So it doesn't say that he wanted them to start shining on earth when the light would naturally arrive, but immediatly so that they could v.18 "govern the day and night and seperate light from darkness" So God didn't just create the stars, but the light between them and the earth as well.

Luxykin007
07-09-2001, 10:56 AM
Gad... lol

CluelessSi
07-09-2001, 11:08 AM
in any case, there are good arguements for both evolution vs. creation. I would not swaet over it too much though. modern science is more important and faith is just as impostant. We can leave it up to those oldbies to figure out sence in this life while we observe and go forth on our own journey in seeking the truth. I will just listen and learn from both sides of the argument..

jase71
07-09-2001, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by CluelessSi
Are you assuming that the carbon found are from the original fragment? most don't have enough to date.

Depends on what you find, and what layer it's in. Some things you'll be able to date well. Some you won't.

Again, there are other methods of dating than carbon dating as well.



when you say how the layers are formed are all assumed that it happened that way.

Not sure I follow this...



I am more of a scientist so I don't know all the agurments for Creation but I know that there are many well known scientist out there with book explaining these things. As you said, things are not perfect so why can't creation be a possiblilty since there are a lot of things science can't explain and so many holes in theories...

Creation can be a possibility. It IS a possibility.
Realistically, you can't disprove it completely.

But for me, when I stack up the evidence for both, I find fewer flaws on the side of evolution. I see evolution as requiring fewer leaps of logic, and as having fewer holes.
Not that it's perfect. But it's closer to providing a rational explanation than Creationism.



I am in the process of learning more about it. I am a recent Christian so most of my thinking is still based on science but science has a lot of contraversial evidence... I just heard a speaker a few weeks ago on this topic and he was able to produce pretty good agrguements against evolution. He is by the way a well known scientist with well over 380 published papers on various topics. Science itself is great. but sometimes things like evolution tell people in mor laymans terms as to not confuse us but if you read deeply into it, many evolution documents have disclaimer like notes saying the possiblilty is somewhat of a miracle..

Anyone who claims to have all the answers, on either side, is full of #%$^.

It's reasonably easy to poke holes in either theory. In fact, it seems the greatest proponents of Creationism don't spend a lot of time arguing FOR Creationism. Instead, they spend most of their time shooting down Evolution. Now that's fine in some sense. All theories need to be examined closely. But even if you could disprove Evolution, that does not PROVE Creationism, as some seem to think. It's not an either/or choice. There could be another correct theory we haven't thought of. It could be that NEITHER side is anywhere near the truth.

It all comes down to who you believe. I tend to think that the evolution side is closer to the unvarnished/unbiased truth. I see them as following proper procedure more often.
I see scientists as trying to evolve a theory to fit the evidence. I see Creationists as trying to make the evidence fit their theory.

Personal preference. By all means, check out all the information you can. It NEVER hurts to have more information.

Just keep in mind the scientific principle when you review the information. Weigh them both, and see who objectively makes the better case. And whatever your decision, be prepared to re-evaluate it if new evidence comes out.

That's all anyone can honestly do.

johnnymk
07-09-2001, 11:36 AM
The following will show that if you leave a 386 computer out in the blinding sun near Mount Vesuvius that in one million years it will not turn into a Pentium 5000 GHZ computer all by itself: ( And whatever you want to compare mechanically or chemically to your amazing body, which is a million times more complex )

Second Law of Thermodynamics - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution?

Evolution versus a basic law of nature:
Scores of distinguished scientists have carefully examined the most basic laws of nature to see if Evolution is physically possible - given enough time and opportunity. The conclusion of many is that Evolution is simply not feasible. One major problem is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust. Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law. The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe.
Each year, vast sums are spent to counteract the relentless effects of this law (maintenance, painting, medical bills, etc.). Ultimately, everything in nature is obedient to its unchanging laws.


2nd law of thermodynamics: Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.


It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. Outside forces can increase order for a time (through the expenditure of relatively large amounts of energy, and through the input of design). However, such reversal cannot last forever. Once the force is released, processes return to their natural direction - greater disorder. Their energy is transformed into lower levels of availability for further work. The natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time.

Evolutionism claims that over billions of years everything is basically developing UPWARD, becoming more orderly and complex. However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) says the opposite. The pressure is DOWNWARD, toward simplification and disorder.

Thus, in the long term, there is an overall downward trend throughout the universe. Ultimately, when all the energy of the cosmos has been degraded, all molecules will move randomly, and the entire universe will be cold and without order. To put it simply: In the real world, the long-term overall flow is downhill, not uphill. All experimental and physical observation appears to confirm that the Law is indeed universal, affecting all natural processes in the long run.

Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements. Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.

However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.

jase71
07-09-2001, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Luxykin007
I heard a story once about carbon dating. I can't even remember much of the basic facts about this story, but it is one of theose things you definatley remember not very well. Anyway, I was about some scientists that found some bones of a person and carbon dated them to like 50,000 years old. Later on they found they were like 5 years old or something.

Carbon dating anything newer than about 1950-1960 is almost impossible, and will give you wildly inaccurate readings.

Carbon dating is based on the half life of Carbon14.

However, with all the atomic testing we've done in this century, we've all got modified amounts of Carbon14 in us, which throws off the scale.

If we had been doing atomic testing for the last 50,000 years, carbon dating would be effectively worthless.

Even for other things, there are circumstances which can cause carbon dating to be wildly off. It's a tool. It's not 100% accurate. It needs to be judged in context. Age should never be judged SOLELY by carbon dating. You need to have corroborating evidence to support or oppose the carbon 14 data.

It's a little like guessing your yearly income based on how much money you spent last week. If I multiplied what you spent last week by 52, would I come close to your yearly income? Most weeks, probably yes. But what about the week you bought a house? Or a car? It would skew the numbers wildly. Carbon dating works like that. It's usually pretty close to the mark, but sometimes things can throw it wildly off.

ProMinx
07-09-2001, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by stupidzbu

Originally posted by Luxykin007
Here are a few more thoughts (and popular ideas) to build upon what jonnymk has said...



example... Darwin says that the most fittest survives.... If the sun were to explode today... those who are hairy would have a better chance of surviving.. because the hairs all over their bodies would allow for heat retention... This is an advantage over those (mainly white people) who have NO BODY HAIR... does that mean that having more hair around your body makes you a better Homo Sapien? ONLY IF THE DAMN SUN EXPLODES!!!

evolution is a CHANGE according to the ENVIRONMENT... thats why black people are black.. white people are white.. and middle easterns are hairy... it is RELATIVE to where you live!

there is a KEY phrase in biology... IF YOU DON'T USE IT, YOU LOSE IT!

bats live in the dark... hence.. they are blind.. but their audio machinery is far more enhanced than ours.....


hey stupidbzu...shut the fuck up, you insipid reject. Your points are all baseless bullshit. First off, if the sun exploded...we're all up that creek anyway. The only way that your little [whiny little voice] "need more body hair"[/whiny little voice] is if we were slingshotted out of the solar system by a near collision with some large planetary or astronomical body.

Besides, you just had your comments on how hairyness would only help with heat retention in cold climates...and then immediately yuo go on to mention the thick hair on middle-easterners. Maybe you noticed that very rarely do you hear about the subzero temperatures in Iraq. "You don't use it, you lose it" my left nut... Thank you though, you made it simple for me to pick apart two of your points with one paragraph.

Biology is not an exact science. It is a human attempt to understand or apply hypotheses to the world. Don't get me wrong; astronomy (my major) is the same thing (on a larger scale), but we're not so arrogant or idiotic as to ever state "this is the only way!" Maybe looking at the stars night after night reminds us of our diminutive statures, while you inject a lab rat and consider yourselves gods. If an astronomer ever says "the big bang is the only way that the universe could have been created", then you know that this astronomer is a target of much ridicule, even if it is the prevailing theory.

Next point, the theory of evolution does not lend itself to the idea of making creatures more complex. Evolution is intended to make the species more survivable through slight occasional changes. This increase in survivability is rarely a step in the direction of complexity. Single celled organisms are more versatile than we are, and it would be difficult to argue that they are the more complex organism. It would take trillions of years to have a one in a trillion chance (obviously not a mathematical calculation) that evolution (without an overseeing god or entity) could produce something as complex as a human being or a bird. You think hollow bones is a step toward survivability?

Just shut your mouth until you have something constructive to say on this point. And while I'm at it, go stand in the corner and put on this hat...

ProMinx

jase71
07-09-2001, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by johnnymk


Second Law of Thermodynamics - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution?

This argument has been discussed and disproven years and years ago.

Order comes from chaos all the time. Snowflakes form from water vapor. Crystals form from solutions. Trees grow from seed. Embryos form.

Not to mention is misapplied in your argument. 2nd law holds true in a CLOSED SYSTEM. The earth is not a closed system. We have a constant supply of incoming energy from the sun, more than enough to make up the difference required. Read the links below and they'll explain it far better than I can.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo



[Edited by jase71 on 07-09-2001 at 01:49 PM]