Evolution vs. Creationism

[Ondoher]

When have you or any other person in all creation observed evolution at work?

But it has been observed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

If evolution is correct, and the process really did take millions or billions of years, HOW has that been observed?

Large scale changes can take a considerable time. Small changes can be observed, especially in species with short generational times.

It has not been repeated or tested either because the control evirionments to do such testing would also have to be run by beings who lived that long as well. It is simply not Possible.

You don't seem to understand how to test things in science. To test a scientific hypothesis, you need to deduce one or more things about the natural world that must be true, if your hypothesis is true. For instance, if common ancestry is true, then all species are related in one gigantic family tree (called a phylogeny). If that is true, then the phylogeny we can deduce from the anatomical evidence must be consistent from the phylogeny we deduce from the genetic evidence.

After generating these testable predictions, then they must be confirmed. Sometimes the prediction will lead to an experiment, sometimes it will lead to an analysis of data, and othertimes it will inform us about what future evidence should find. For instance, Darwin predicted, due to his principle of biogeography, that man's ancestors should be found in Africa.

Confirmation never ends after a single experiment or analysis, it is always being tested against new data.

Evolution is such a strong theory because it makes many such predictions, and they have held up against mountains of data collected over the last 100 years.

I also think this would be a good place to point out what renowned scientists have said at times about evolution - 2 good quotes

1. Dr. T.N. Tahmisian of the Atomic Energy Commission - "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and teh story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."

2. Well-known evolutionist D.M.S. Watson - "...the theory of evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logical coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative is special creation..."

I find it interesting that creationists quote mine so often. Even if these people meant what creationists quote miners imply they mean, it would not erase the evidence and arguments for evolution. Quote mining appears to be an attempt to distract from the facts. Regardless, here is a little bit on this last quote: http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie031.html.

Just something to think about.

 

[BurningHeart]

Evolutionists will admit that in order of "races" or sub-species to arise, a population must be split into smaller, isolated groups, leading to inbreeding. Evolution itslef has a hard time answering where the races came from, in fact, to date I know of no evolutionist theory which can explain the origin of the races. I find it somewhat amusing that evolution focuses on the origins of life, plants and animals, the universe, man, etc. but it remains baffled by what - by comparison should have been relatively easy to explain - the origin of the races. It should be easier because it doesn't have to explain something that happened millions of years ago, and is now extinct, and seen only through a fossiol record. ALL of the genetic evidence concerning the races is available on the street corner outside any major laboratory or doctor's office in the country, in the living breathing people walking by daily. If evolution is correct and true, then is should be a simple task to use evolution theory and peice together the genetic puzzle to find the answer. You would think that since evolution has a hard time explaining race origins when their sample group is the entire world population, that it would prove exceedingly difficult for creationists who are starting with a population of 2 - Adam and Eve. Consider the creation viewpoint, at birth the female human has in her ovaries a estimated 500,000 eggs. that is a potential 500,000 kids, that would each be different from the others, excepting twins. Adam and Eve had no race, and their children would have likely been seen with a mixture of genetic traits which could all produce various races. However, since the marriage mix was good, no particular genetic racial trais emerged to become a dominant trait. You would find similar results after the flood as Noah and his children began repopulation of the earth. Now, fast forward to the Tower of Babel. God split the human population of the earth into smaller groupd when He confused their languages. Naturally you will have a hard time developing a mating relationship with a female you cannot communicate with (except by force) so inbreeding among people groups began to occur in more abundance. In this, certain genetic traits began to take shape that produced "races" in subsequent breeding generations. Traits such as almond shaped eyes in the Asian areas, negroid features and dark skin types in negro populations, or fairer skin and lighter hair and eye colors in scandinavian regions. As I mentioned to begin with, even evolutionists will agree that in order for sub-species or "races" to occur the population whole must be split into smaller breeding groups for certain traits to emerge and become "dominant" features.

In this you see no contradictions between the scientific evidence supporting racial/sub-species development and the account of the Bible, while evolution still has no answer to how the races came to be.

Incedentally, "race" in an evolutionist idea and concept. The language of the Bible never mentions "race" but rather acknowledges only the HUMAN race. Something that I have found some evolutionists are starting to do themselves.

 

[Ondoher]

Evolutionists will admit that in order of "races" or sub-species to arise, a population must be split into smaller, isolated groups, leading to inbreeding. Evolution itslef has a hard time answering where the races came from, in fact, to date I know of no evolutionist theory which can explain the origin of the races.

From a genetic sense race is an artifical construct. There is more variation within races than between them. The superficial racial differences are easily explained by semi isolation and natural seelction of beneficial traits such as skin color.

I find it somewhat amusing that evolution focuses on the origins of life, plants and animals, the universe, man, etc. but it remains baffled by what - by comparison should have been relatively easy to explain - the origin of the races.

It is no problem at all. Not sure why you thought it was a problem.

It should be easier because it doesn't have to explain something that happened millions of years ago, and is now extinct, and seen only through a fossiol record. ALL of the genetic evidence concerning the races is available on the street corner outside any major laboratory or doctor's office in the country, in the living breathing people walking by daily. If evolution is correct and true, then is should be a simple task to use evolution theory and peice together the genetic puzzle to find the answer. You would think that since evolution has a hard time explaining race origins when their sample group is the entire world population, that it would prove exceedingly difficult for creationists who are starting with a population of 2 - Adam and Eve. Consider the creation viewpoint, at birth the female human has in her ovaries a estimated 500,000 eggs. that is a potential 500,000 kids, that would each be different from the others, excepting twins. Adam and Eve had no race, and their children would have likely been seen with a mixture of genetic traits which could all produce various races.

One person can hold at most two version of any specific gene (called an allele). Ignoring the fact that Eve was a genetic clone of adam, with his X duplicated twice, that is at most four different alleles for every gene. Many genes have more than four alleles. Adam and Eve cannot account for the current genetic diversity.

However, since the marriage mix was good, no particular genetic racial trais emerged to become a dominant trait. You would find similar results after the flood as Noah and his children began repopulation of the earth. Now, fast forward to the Tower of Babel. God split the human population of the earth into smaller groupd when He confused their languages. Naturally you will have a hard time developing a mating relationship with a female you cannot communicate with (except by force) so inbreeding among people groups began to occur in more abundance. In this, certain genetic traits began to take shape that produced "races" in subsequent breeding generations. Traits such as almond shaped eyes in the Asian areas, negroid features and dark skin types in negro populations, or fairer skin and lighter hair and eye colors in scandinavian regions. As I mentioned to begin with, even evolutionists will agree that in order for sub-species or "races" to occur the population whole must be split into smaller breeding groups for certain traits to emerge and become "dominant" features.

Good, so you've answered your own question. now just lose all that mythology and you are on your way to understanding.

In this you see no contradictions between the scientific evidence supporting racial/sub-species development and the account of the Bible, while evolution still has no answer to how the races came to be.

Oddly enough, you already answered it. Semi-isolation and selection for beneficial traits.

Incedentally, "race" in an evolutionist idea and concept. The language of the Bible never mentions "race" but rather acknowledges only the HUMAN race. Something that I have found some evolutionists are starting to do themselves.

The idea of race has been around a lot longer than evolution.

 

[raphael_aa]

Evolutionists will admit that in order of "races" or sub-species to arise, a population must be split into smaller, isolated groups, leading to inbreeding. Evolution itslef has a hard time answering where the races came from, in fact, to date I know of no evolutionist theory which can explain the origin of the races. I find it somewhat amusing that evolution focuses on the origins of life, plants and animals, the universe, man, etc. but it remains baffled by what - by comparison should have been relatively easy to explain - the origin of the races. It should be easier because it doesn't have to explain something that happened millions of years ago, and is now extinct, and seen only through a fossiol record. ALL of the genetic evidence concerning the races is available on the street corner outside any major laboratory or doctor's office in the country, in the living breathing people walking by daily. If evolution is correct and true, then is should be a simple task to use evolution theory and peice together the genetic puzzle to find the answer. You would think that since evolution has a hard time explaining race origins when their sample group is the entire world population, that it would prove exceedingly difficult for creationists who are starting with a population of 2 - Adam and Eve. Consider the creation viewpoint, at birth the female human has in her ovaries a estimated 500,000 eggs. that is a potential 500,000 kids, that would each be different from the others, excepting twins. Adam and Eve had no race, and their children would have likely been seen with a mixture of genetic traits which could all produce various races. However, since the marriage mix was good, no particular genetic racial trais emerged to become a dominant trait. You would find similar results after the flood as Noah and his children began repopulation of the earth. Now, fast forward to the Tower of Babel. God split the human population of the earth into smaller groupd when He confused their languages. Naturally you will have a hard time developing a mating relationship with a female you cannot communicate with (except by force) so inbreeding among people groups began to occur in more abundance. In this, certain genetic traits began to take shape that produced "races" in subsequent breeding generations. Traits such as almond shaped eyes in the Asian areas, negroid features and dark skin types in negro populations, or fairer skin and lighter hair and eye colors in scandinavian regions. As I mentioned to begin with, even evolutionists will agree that in order for sub-species or "races" to occur the population whole must be split into smaller breeding groups for certain traits to emerge and become "dominant" features.

In this you see no contradictions between the scientific evidence supporting racial/sub-species development and the account of the Bible, while evolution still has no answer to how the races came to be.

Incedentally, "race" in an evolutionist idea and concept. The language of the Bible never mentions "race" but rather acknowledges only the HUMAN race. Something that I have found some evolutionists are starting to do themselves.

So there's no such thing as race and evolution fails to explain this non-existant thing and therefore must be false. On the other hand, The Bible can explain the origin of the races even though races are an evolutionary concept and therefore false.

My head hurts now.

 

[Arikay]

1) I noticed you skipped over Ondoher's post, does that mean you accept his explanations?

2) I find it amusing that you think evolution has anything to do with the origin of life or the universe (Hint, It doesn't.)

3) Race has been a very big issue debated by scientists, and many books have been written about it. Matter of fact, I even believe some recent Scientific American and National geographic issues have talked about this. To claim that evolution can't explain races seems to ignore all the information about it. But since you are still working with a fake version of evolution (see #2) I guess I can understand why.

4) A question to you, without using evolutionary ideas (adaption) can you explain why the darker skinned genes just happend to appear in populations that get large amounts of sun, and drops off as people get less and less sun?

 

[BurningHeart]

But it has been observed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Large scale changes can take a considerable time. Small changes can be observed, especially in species with short generational times.

You don't seem to understand how to test things in science. To test a scientific hypothesis, you need to deduce one or more things about the natural world that must be true, if your hypothesis is true. For instance, if common ancestry is true, then all species are related in one gigantic family tree (called a phylogeny). If that is true, then the phylogeny we can deduce from the anatomical evidence must be consistent from the phylogeny we deduce from the genetic evidence.

After generating these testable predictions, then they must be confirmed. Sometimes the prediction will lead to an experiment, sometimes it will lead to an analysis of data, and othertimes it will inform us about what future evidence should find. For instance, Darwin predicted, due to his principle of biogeography, that man's ancestors should be found in Africa.

Confirmation never ends after a single experiment or analysis, it is always being tested against new data.

Evolution is such a strong theory because it makes many such predictions, and they have held up against mountains of data collected over the last 100 years.

I find it interesting that creationists quote mine so often. Even if these people meant what creationists quote miners imply they mean, it would not erase the evidence and arguments for evolution. Quote mining appears to be an attempt to distract from the facts. Regardless, here is a little bit on this last quote: http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie031.html.

You are speaking about species fixity, an idea that creationists rejected years ago. All that has happened is a bridging between two existing species, there is no support or evidence for new genes, let alone for biological diversification or mega-evolution. Having the same underlying genetic material any two species of created kinds SHOULD be able to hybridize with each other upon regaining contact unless subsequent mutations have prevented that potential. They evolutionists push these points because they try to extrapolate this to mean that Mega-evolution (the origin of life and phyla separated by immense genetic differences (a reptile into a bird for instance)) is true. This extrapolation cannot be made based on these cases, they are doing what they were created to do, reproducing, "each after its own kind".

 

[BurningHeart]

1) I noticed you skipped over Ondoher's post, does that mean you accept his explanations?

2) I find it amusing that you think evolution has anything to do with the origin of life or the universe (Hint, It doesn't.)

3) Race has been a very big issue debated by scientists, and many books have been written about it. Matter of fact, I even believe some recent Scientific American and National geographic issues have talked about this. To claim that evolution can't explain races seems to ignore all the information about it. But since you are still working with a fake version of evolution (see #2) I guess I can understand why.

4) A question to you, without using evolutionary ideas (adaption) can you explain why the darker skinned genes just happend to appear in populations that get large amounts of sun, and drops off as people get less and less sun?

I didn't skip his point, it's just 3:45 and I'm about to go to bed, gotta make a living in order to keep discussion on the interent going by paying the bills.

In answer to your question, Yes, mutational micro-evolution. The problem many people have in approaching creationists is that they assume creationism plans and holds to species fixity. YEC actually depends on new species development, it is the only way to explain the earth's repopulation after the flood. Adaptation (micro-evolution) occurs all the time, YEC (or informed ones anyway) do not debate that fact. Mutational adaptation is responsible for darker skin tones in people groups from areas of more heat and sun, to deny this is simply bad science. However, Mutational adaptation cannot explain diversity of Phyla. There is no way that common ancestry could have produced the variety of life on earth.

 

[yossarian]

This extrapolation cannot be made based on these cases, they are doing what they were created to do, reproducing, "each after its own kind".

and creating new "kinds" through the process of evolution and speciation

 

[yossarian]

However, Mutational adaptation cannot explain diversity of Phyla. There is no way that common ancestry could have produced the variety of life on earth.

why not?

 

[BurningHeart]

It's been fun and I hope to talk to you more later as I just posted, I gotta get up early. I work retail and tomorrow's (today's) a Saturday. I'll be back thogh and hopefully we can continue this. Peace out and talk to you Later.

In Christ Alone,

BurningHeart

 

[Arikay]

Yes, I do know that creationists accept micro evolution and speciation(scientifically macro evolution, but not to creationists, but that is a different debate).

The reason for asking was, that is what evolutionists say as well. So I don't see evolution having any problem with races. There is a debate about whether races even exist, that we all may be so close genetically that the lack of environmental boundaries has brought the human species back together as one.

I didn't skip his point, it's just 3:45 and I'm about to go to bed, gotta make a living in order to keep discussion on the interent going by paying the bills.

In answer to your question, Yes, mutational micro-evolution. The problem many people have in approaching creationists is that they assume creationism plans and holds to species fixity. YEC actually depends on new species development, it is the only way to explain the earth's repopulation after the flood. Adaptation (micro-evolution) occurs all the time, YEC (or informed ones anyway) do not debate that fact. Mutational adaptation is responsible for darker skin tones in people groups from areas of more heat and sun, to deny this is simply bad science. However, Mutational adaptation cannot explain diversity of Phyla. There is no way that common ancestry could have produced the variety of life on earth.

 

[USincognito]

Well, the races are a good place to start. Evolution has a hard time explaining the origin of races itself, as it stands. But, I'll point out the idea of the origin of the races from a Creationistic standpoint.

Actually I was more interested in the animals for one thing, but human races are easily explained by evolutionary theory.

Local populations naturally selected for those individuals who were best adapted to survive in their environment.
- In Africa that meant having dark skin and thick curley hair to deal with the heat.
- In Europe, Southerners were exposed to lots of sun so they developed olive colored skin and thick curley hair. It could still get cold though so they tended to retain more body hair.
- In Northern Europe, a body that didn't waste precious resources placing unneeded pigment into skin or hair produced fair skinned blondes.
- In the Arctic regions, a shorter, squater body was better for retaining heat and that was what was selected for.

Maybe even let me backtrack a little. Darwin's Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life...

Darwin is referring to Species again when he uses Races. Origin doesn't delve into human races.

...had an introduction written by Dr. Harrison Matthews. Matthews stated in his introduction, "Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither, has been capable of proof."

I'm going to call shenannigans on this quote until someone provides me with a photocopy of the 1971 edition. A Google shows it's an oft mined quote which is a siren and klaxon telling me it's Creationist lore.

This is a good place to begin this debate, Since accorrding to Scientific Method, neither side can present their case as "Fact". Both Evolution and Creation are not Observable, Testable, or Repeatable. That being said, let me proceed with what I can.

Ugh. Look, the real scientific method should not be confused with the creationist straw man of it. There have been observed instances of speciation, but even if we didn't observe dinosaurs developing into birds directly, we can make observations like what we find in the fossil record and DNA clues.

Do you watch CSI? No one but the criminal is there to directly observe the crime and yet somehow Grissom and his team get a confession nearly every time. Are you trying to tell me the CSIs aren't doing science?

As to testing. We test the evidence all the time. Every time we unearth a whale fossil, all we have to do is find one with 2 fins, 2 working legs and a tail fluke. That will falsify a lot we think we know about evolution. If we dig up a Allosaurus with a human being in it's stomach, that would falsifiy most of what we think we know about evolution.

Repeatability is the same as the testing because what we're looking for is falsification as well as evidence supporting the prediction. For instance in a prediction on biogeography, we would expect to find our hominid ancestors in Africa and Eurasia, not in the Western Hemisphere. Continued excavations have repeatedly found more fossils in the proper locations, while none in North or South America have been found to falsify it.

I suggest you spend some time reading this essay on Macroevolution it'll help clear up some misconceptions about evolution and the scientific method that you seem to have.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

evolution having any problem with races. There is a debate about whether races even exist

That's a good one because at the mellennia old heart of it is the master race concept.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

CHARTER SCHOOLS ADVOCACY ALLIANCE:
The Eugenics Internationale

Here are a few quick quotes on the background of the alive and well Master Race concept of conspirators Helen Sanger (Planned Parenthood), Charles Darwin (Evolution), Council on Foreign Relations, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Malthusian Eugenics, Nazis, Rockefellers, Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner, and numerous others and their plot to control population by 'weeding out' the "inferior" races.

For those interested the full read is HERE.

The CFR and RIIA were creations of the Cecil Rhodes’ Round Table groups, whose stated objective was the federation, expansion and consolidation of the British Empire. What Cecil Rhodes and Alfred Milner really had in mind was the restructuring of civilization based upon the principles of Malthusian Eugenics. Eugenics is the philosophy of depopulation through the reduction of inferior races –“human weeds,” if you will – and the selective breeding of “a race of thoroughbreds” as flaunted early in this century by the Rockefeller-funded, founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. When Thomas Malthus’ theory of population was coupled with Charles Darwin’s evolutionary model, the result was known as Social Darwinism -- the ethical fallacy that social policy should allow the weak and unfit to fail and die, and that this is not only good policy but morally right.

“The combination of Malthusian population control, which included the deliberate neglect of populations and indirect methods of killing off populations, with Darwinism, produced National Socialism (Germany), International Socialism (Marxist Russia) and International Corporate Capitalism (Global Socialism, headquartered in the United States), and these forms of social conduct have constituted the main reason for the unequal distribution of planetary resources, famines, planned biological warfare, environmental poisoning, suppression of knowledge, suppression of inventions, dependence on backward technology for the population, planned wars to kill off populations and general planetary disorder. The problem is in the Social Darwin-Malthus paradigm, which has now been combined with the pseudo-sciences of behaviorism and genetics in the attempt to assert even tighter control over the planetary population, yielding forms of Neo-Darwinism being perpetrated by a host of post-Atlantean re-treads, per a 1947 Princeton consensus.” 4.

“For all the voluminously documented crimes of the Nazis, the fact is, leading British circles were the earliest proponents and developers of eugenics, a pseudo-science that these British influentials––including Charles Darwin’s cousin Sir Francis Galton and various sons of Darwin, members of the Huxley family, International Monetary Fund founder John Maynard Keynes, and others––concocted to promote the reduction in numbers, if not the eventual elimination, of categories of people whose existence was undesired by them. Such undesirables were, in the earliest years of the history of the Eugenics Education Society (the name of the group at the time of its founding in 1907), referred to dismissively as ‘the residuum’ and later as ‘the paupers’ in order to study them, the eugenics mob sponsored so-called ‘Pauper Pedigree Projects,’ to reinforce the notion of ‘social class biologically defined.’ Eventually, the name ‘social problem group’ was used, to describe what is today often termed ‘the underclass.’

“According to Mazumdar, ‘from its beginning in Britain, eugenics spread to many other countries,’ creating a kind of ‘eugenics international.’ It was the British eugenists who, years before the Nazis existed, synthesized the philosophical ravings of the late 19th century’s Friedrich Nietzsche about the {Ubermensch} (‘Superman’ or ‘Over-Man’ in English) into a coherent thouatrix, to justify measures against what Nietzsche labeled ‘the inferior race.’ It was they who, starting about 1930, together with the Rockefeller Foundation and related circles in the United States, promoted the work of the notorious German race scientist Ernst Rudin, including into the 1933 period when Rudin’s work provided the basis for the Nazis’ compulsory sterilization law, and then used his work to promote eugenics measures in Britain. Beginning in 1929, the same individuals launched the institutions of the neo-malthusian population control movement. It was Sir Francis Galton, the proponent of ‘hereditarianism,’ who declared in 1883 that the ‘Age of Eugenics’ had begun (the name of the Eugenics Society today is the Galton Institute). 5.

 

[Tenacious-D]

Er, fundamental Christianity has at least as dubious a history when it comes to racism.

 

[ProtestantDan]

You are employing a negative definition of eugenics that has been used by YECs and other groups to make evolution and eugenics seem evil. Eugenics can be used to remove specific traits that can make life better. Some examples:

Crouzon's Disease
Cliedocranial Dysostosis
Familial Hypercholesterolemia
Neurofibromatosis
Progeria
Cryptophthalmos
Hurler's Syndrome
Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome

Scientists know where the genes for these diseases are located and can remove them, but it would have to be at the embrionic level. Now if we could remove these and eliminate the diseases, wouldn't that be good for the human race?

Eugenics has gotten a bad rap from World War II when many people misinterpreted it and misidentified it. Undoubtedly people can apply eugenics to areas that can be detrimental, but overall the uses of it can be quite positive. Modern eugenecists seek not to destroy life but to improve it by removing traits that cause disease, etc.

Both religious fundamentalists and so-called "mad" scientists have been guilty of perverting eugenics and twisting it to create "master race" concepts. It's not an idea that's exclusive to practitioners of science, and not all scientists want to use it to create "master" races.

 

[Rat_bytes]

This is all true, but then you have to wonder whether people wouldn't start pigeonholing their unborn children into the lives they chose for them. If you screw around with people's genes, that's playing God, so to speak.

If you've seen the movie Gattaca then you'd have some idea of where i'm coming from.

On the same subject, here in sport-obsessed australia we're seeing children being gene-tested to judge their potentials for different sports, such as swimming, running, football, etc. This seems fairly innocent in itself, but how long before they're gene testing them for success potential in different careers?

 

[ProtestantDan]

You present a valid point. I think strict laws need to be enacted for it and which things are deemed OK and which things are not. I admit that legislation won't stop everyone. Just take the US anti-Cloning laws. There are people that go on the news who say they have been proceeding with it. I agree that there is a "slippery slope." The main part of my previous post was to denounce the claim that all eugenics are evil and seek to create a master race. In actuality, the eugenicists I know of seek to make everyone better off.

 

[Rat_bytes]

Who decides what's okay and what's not? What if the US government decides it can make a tidy profit out of that sort of thing?

 

[Juman]

I am at this point a Christian Old Earth Creationist, and I have been searching extensively on this topic for a while. Here is a summary of the fors and againsts I have found so far. I still find new ones for each side every day.
Any creationist, or evolutionist for that matter, that thinks it is clear cut either way, has another thing coming. This debate is about as grey as you can get. The only way to prove it in my mind, would be with a time machine.
That said, at this point, I'm still leaning more towards creationism.

To me a lot of the problem is interpretation of data. As we are reconstructing events that happened 10s of thousands, millions or even billions of years ago.

I will start off with the things that both evolutionists and creationists have to agree on.

FACT: There are a number of fossils in layers of rock, that appear and dissapear from the fossil record, ranging from deep sea creatures, to dinosaurs to mammals. (notice I didn't say less to more complex.. as this is a theory)
FACT: Carbon 14 Relies on a few assumptions:
1. The Earths atmosphere has the same amount of Carbon 14 now as it did when the object being dated was still alive.
2. After the object or creature died, it was not submerged for any significant period of time in the

ocean.
3. The sample tested was not contaminated.
4. If these are not wrong, it is thought to be very accurate.

FACT: Carbon 14 is fully decayed after 40-50 thousand years.
FACT: Isocron Dating is irrelivant for anything younger than 10 million years.
FACT: When a flood occurs, sediment is rappidly taken from one place, and moved to another, and laid down

with gravity seperation obvious.

FACT: no one knows how the cell goes from DNA to creature.
FACT: There are 50,000 years worth of season lines in a core sample of ice in Greenland
FACT: There are 250,000 years worth of season lines in a core sample of ice from the arctic, at which

point the lines get fuzzy.
FACT: all coal deposits in the world have traces of carbon 14
FACT: a set of bones with large joints and a flater but larger skull was found in 1856. It was interpreted 3 times: 1st time: pre-darwinism - dude with a vitiman D deficiency and a fractured skull. 2nd time: the missing link (gave rise to the text book ape human/transition).


For Evolution (Athestic or theistic)

- rest is irrelivant for an infinite creative being. So the First book of the bible is written symbolically, and evolution can be made to fit it.

- an infinite being could have created the first cell with a tendancy to evolve.

- At face value, and prior to mapping the gnome and understanding the gnome, every carbon based lifeform appears to have a similar DNA strand loyout. Particularly apes and humans. And it is possible to form a line from more complex to less complex creatures, and create a geneology, that in some way relates the the layers of fossils.

- iscocron dating methods seem to point to the earth being 4.5 Billion years old, which could possibly give time for the improbable events of evolution to occur.

- Adam, means either the name "adam" or "man", so the bible may mean, god created man and then man multiplied

- the scientific comunitiy supports it

- there is no proof of humans living to 900 years old as the biblical account suggests

- the 7,000 year old earth timeline held by the church for the last 100 or so years, in almost undoubtedly innacurate given the ice core samples. (Iceland has 50,000 years of ice, and antarctica has 200,000+ years of ice)

- an amino acid was created randomly for a few microseconds in a lab. DNA is built by over 35,000 amino acids strung together in perfect harmony. This is kinda lame proof, bit like saying because I have an arm, it proves I killed president Kennedy. Probablity cancels this one out for all but the strongest
anti-skeptics (i.e. science doesn't even pay this one).

- retroviruses stored in DNA.

For Christian Creation

- it is a mathematical impossibility for the single cell to appear from nowhere.

- no one knows how a cell uses the DNA to create a creature.

- it is yet to be proven that creatures DNA is very similar (the genome has not been mapped accurately for the human yet, let alone every other animal).

- Even if all creatures were proven to be similar, this could be used to prove a creator just as effectively, as a creator would reuse and modify the same design in many different ways, so the creatures could interact.
For example, if a Zebra was a silicon based life form, the lion could not live off the protiens in its body. Same goes with Kelp and whales, same with Sheep and grass (and the bacteria in their stomach that they live off).
So in essence, it is vital for everything to be compatable, for the entire eco system to work.


- Earth could be 4.5Billion years old, as Genisis is vague on the matter.

- Flood and human timeline is not certain

- the 7 Days may or may not have been literal, the language is symbolic, but given the description of the all powerful creator, it is still possible that it was created in 6 days.

- An infinite being would have no need to refine his design over millions of years.

- assuming God was an infinite being, he/she/it would have the desire to create an infinite number of creatures, although, it is uncertain if this word is appropriate for a god.

- The world wide biblical flood is written about in some form or another in most cultures, which would mean, either it happened or everyone came from the same place where there was a massive flood.

- Carbon dating has many possibilites of failure, so it doesn't really help with anything that is no at least in recorded history timescale.

- evolution came into the world at a time when the church was very negative to science, bashing it as heresy everytime it came up with a new thing (as it still does now it seems), so there is a great psychological need to disprove god, and prove self sufficiency, so people could do what they wanted without ridicule.
- all coal deposits in the world have traces of carbon 14, which means anything over 40,000 years old has negligable amounts of carbon 14... meaning all coal deposits are at maximum 40,000 years old.

- neanderthal man (the so called missing link), had a larger brain, the same voice box, and lived alongside modern man... from the bones it could be concluded that they where just muscle bound versions of modern day humans. In otherwords, they are no different to us.

- the grand canyon looks very much like it was caused by a world wide flood (or at least a very large one)

-The type of fossils found seems to be mostly marine (particularly deep sea), which are either not visible to most people (we don't go down there) therefore thought to be very old or not complex. Most of the "ancient" creatures, still live at the bottom of the ocean.

- The dinosaurs, are very likely to have been hunted out by man, or killed off by a change in climate after the flood.

Thats it.
I can't list my sources, as this site doesn't allow me to link to an external site yet.
If you want some, just ppm me.