[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] How can you not believe in Evolution?!

[RichardT]

The idea that all geological strata were produced by a single flood was rejected in 1837 by the Reverend William Buckland, the first professor of geology at Oxford University, who wrote:
Some have attempted to ascribe the formation of all the stratified rocks to the effects of the Mosaic Deluge; an opinion which is irreconcileable with the enormous thickness and almost infinite subdivisions of these strata, and with the numerous and regular successions which they contain of the remains of animals and vegetables, differing more and more widely from existing species, as the strata in which we find them are placed at greater depths. The fact that a large proportion of these remains belong to extinct genera, and almost all of them to extinct species, that lived and multiplied and died on or near the spots where they are now found, shows that the strata in which they occur were deposited slowly and gradually, during long periods of time, and at widely distant intervals.
(Buckland, Geology and Mineralogy Considered With Reference to Natural Theology, 1837) Although Buckland continued for a while to insist that some geological layers related to the Great Flood, he was forced to abandon this idea as the evidence increasingly indicated multiple inundations which occurred well before humans existed. He was convinced by the Swiss geologist Louis Agassiz that much of the evidence on which he relied was in fact the product of ancient ice ages, and became one of the foremost champions of Agassiz's theory of glaciations. Mainstream science gave up on the idea of flood geology, which required major deviations from known physical processes.

aw.. son of a *****...

 

[Jase]

We know speciation has been observed, does that prove the ToE? No... And bacteria adaptation fits very well with creationism...

That speciation and adaptation occurs means that evolution is true. I don't see the issue? The ToE will never be proven. Proof only exists in math. It's inaccurate to expect proof in science. By the same token, Gravity isn't proven either, and the Theory of Gravity has less evidentiary support than the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Uphill Battle]

honestly, i do want to be a christian but there are a lot of obstacles in my mind keeping me from having complete faith. First of all i don't understand how people can not believe in evolution and that god just plopped adam and eve down on the earth and that was the beginning of people. First of all Evolution is proven and i know it is hard for people to grasp that concept mostly because people do not have a full understanding of it. Many of my friends just say they can't possibly believe that we came directly from monkeys.. Well we didn't! we didn't come from monkeys! We came from the same branch that monkeys came from. I just believe that Evolution is something that people do not fully comprehend. Honestly the only partake in creating living organisms i think god did was planting down a piece of bacterium (bacterium is where everything came from). I'm just wondering does anyone agree with me here??

(sorry god)

Alica, don't withold faith in God over that reason. Believing in 6 day creation, to my understanding, is NOT a salvation issue. I myself believe in literal creation, but I don't think Christ will turn his back on you if you don't! Let him reveal himself to you.

 

[RichardT]

That speciation and adaptation occurs means that evolution is true. I don't see the issue? The ToE will never be proven. Proof only exists in math. It's inaccurate to expect proof in science. By the same token, Gravity isn't proven either, and the Theory of Gravity has less evidentiary support than the Theory of Evolution.

lol.. is this honestly why you stopped being a yec? That's really freaking funny...

 

[Jase]

lol.. is this honestly why you stopped being a yec?

No, I stopped being a YEC because the evidence against a 6,000 year old Earth and global flood is overwhelming. Technically I went from evolutionist, to YEC to Theistic evolutionist, as I accepted an old universe and evolution before I became a YEC fundamentalist.

 

[Skaloop]

It's very simple: We are the only animal in existence with free will, with cognitive abilities that allow us to overcome our emotions, our fears, our instincts, and all of the things that we would be without this abilities. If Evolution held true, then we wouldn't be the only species that evolved cognitive abilities like that. I know that there are the different ethnic backgrounds present, but genetics show that there is no genetic difference between Caucassians, Asians, and all other different kinds of humans.

Why must there be other cognitively advanced species? Every single species has unique traits, and every single species has shared traits. ToE in no way suggests that it should be otherwise.

Indeed, from my perspective, it's a greater leap of faith to believe in Evolution than it is to believe in Creationism and Intelligent Design.

Your perspective is warped.

 

[TheBear]

aw.. son of a *****...

That'll show 'em!

 

[RichardT]

That'll show 'em!

Maybe back then YEC wasn't as advanced as it is now.. And radioactive decay probably wasn't explained back then, they didn't have as many answers as we do now..

 

[RichardT]

i'm waiting untill one of my posts get on FSTDT, lol..

 

[Tiphereth]

Greetings and Salutations,

This is my favorite bit of evidence: Can creationists please explain how multiple identical endogenous retroviral insertions in identical corresponding sites in human and chimp genomes factors into Creationism? Can you also explain why 98.5% of our entire 3.2 billion nucleotide base genome consists of pseudogenes, noncoding DNA, and endogenous retroviruses?

 

[RichardT]

Greetings and Salutations,

This is my favorite bit of evidence: Can creationists please explain how multiple identical endogenous retroviral insertions in identical corresponding sites in human and chimp genomes factors into Creationism? Can you also explain why 98.5% of our entire 3.2 billion nucleotide base genome consists of pseudogenes, noncoding DNA, and endogenous retroviruses?

common designer...

 

[Jase]

Maybe back then YEC wasn't as advanced as it is now.. And radioactive decay probably wasn't explained back then, they didn't have as many answers as we do now..

Science has only gotten more accurate since then. The fact that a creationist discovered there was no global flood almost 200 years ago shows that it really had no evidentiary support to begin with, even without modern technology and scientific advancement. Science only improves, it doesn't typically go backwards. In 200 years, we have only gained further accuracy about what the Reverend Buckland discovered.

YEC isn't science. It doesn't advance. It's a theological position. Creationists have been using the same arguments since YEC started. And the YEC movement is a modern invention, as is Biblical literalism.

 

[Tiphereth]

common designer...

Greetings and Salutations,

That's exactly what I love about this argument - you can't use the common design argument otherwise you'd be claiming that the Designer is an idiot for leaving 98.5% of our entire genome virtually useless.

Look here for more.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

 

[Jase]

i'm waiting untill one of my posts get on FSTDT, lol..

I have 6 pages of quotes on FSTDT when I was a YEC fundamentalist.

And you actually are already there. In fact one of your posts in this thread is there.

 

[Soldier_For_Christ]

Why must there be other cognitively advanced species? Every single species has unique traits, and every single species has shared traits. ToE in no way suggests that it should be otherwise.

Are you sure? I don't know, it seems to me that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was based on observations of genetically different birds (not just birds, but that's what I understand about it), trying to explain why some birds had some traits and how they'd come to acquire those traits, which is actually the part of the theory that I see as a real possibility. I mean, bacteria attacking a human body obtain a genetic immunity to the antibiotics we use is believable.

However, if Evolution is a true (at least, the part where humans come from a tiny bacteria) why aren't bacteria evolving into more complex beings within our bodies? Why aren't people in Industrialized countries evolving into more complex beings, since we are the ones surviving and thrivng? Why don't people obtain immunities to allergies, the common cold, flu?

My brother said this once: In genetic mutations and even minor cases of natural selection, the number of genes in the affected creature doesn't increase. Mutations and evolution only change what's already present or degrade what is present; if it were otherwise, why aren't people with cancer evolving into stronger beings instead of just dieing?

Your perspective is warped.[/quote]

 

[RichardT]

I have 6 pages of quotes on FSTDT when I was a YEC fundamentalist.

And you actually are already there. In fact one of your posts in this thread is there.

well that's what I was waiting for...

 

[Jase]

well that's what I was waiting for...

Don't worry, you'll probably get plenty of more quotes posted there. Think you have about 10 right now. You may even beat my total, and considering most of my fundamentalist days were spent on the largest atheist board on the net, I got put on there a lot.

 

[Chalnoth]

um, isochron dating is explained by YECs...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/radioactive.asp

I'm sorry, but this is full of errors. For example, this site states the following assumptions about radioactive dating:

1. the initial conditions are known;
2. the system has been closed; and
3. the radioactive decay rate has remained constant.

I'll address these one at a time:
1. The initial conditions do not need to be known for isochron dating, because isochron dating allows one to test if the initial conditions were as expected (when performing isochron dating, one takes a series of data points: if the initial assumptions are correct, the data points will lie along a line, so as long as there are enough data points, one can be sure of the correctness of the method).

In addition, some radiometric dating techniques operate such that they exist within a crystal structure, where the element which they decay to cannot form in the place of the original element. This is the case of U238 in Zircon, for instance. U238 can form within the crystal, but its decay product, Pb208, cannot (this is easily verified in the lab). Thus, one doesn't need to know anything about how much Uranium was initially within the Zircon crystal, one just measures the total amount of U238, and the total amount of Pb208.

2. This is another testable assumption. It is easily-testable because every separate material that is dated would react differently with its environment. Thus contamination of the materials would result in different results from different dating methods. Whenever possible, paleontologists use multiple dating methods to ensure their analysis is correct.

3. One can test the constancy of nuclear decays through astrophysical observations. The properties of supernovae are highly dependent upon the strong and weak nuclear forces, and as such one would expect to see the properties of supernovae change over time (and since looking far into the distance is looking back in time, far away supernovae are a direct measure of the properties of these forces long ago). There is as yet no evidence of time-dependent changes in supernovae. Astronomers have detected thousands of supernovae to date, and rigorously analyzed a few hundred of them (only a few supernovae are easy to analyze).

Theoretically, it is very difficult for there to be any change in fundamental forces over time that would have an effect on nuclear decay rates. But whichever way you slice it, no change in the nuclear decay rates could possibly be fast. That is to say, it might change our measurements of the age of the earth by a few hundred million years out of the measured ~4.5 billion, but it won't change the age from 4.5 billion to 6,000 years.

Thus one is forced to accept that either the Earth is old, or God is a great deceiver to have placed this obvious evidence that the Earth is so old. Basically, we have so many independent dating methods to make use of that the consistency of our measurements becomes powerful evidence to the robustness of the methods.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

never mind already addressed

 

[RichardT]

I'm sorry, but this is full of errors. For example, this site states the following assumptions about radioactive dating:
[/list]I'll address these one at a time:
1. The initial conditions do not need to be known for isochron dating, because isochron dating allows one to test if the initial conditions were as expected (when performing isochron dating, one takes a series of data points: if the initial assumptions are correct, the data points will lie along a line, so as long as there are enough data points, one can be sure of the correctness of the method).

In addition, some radiometric dating techniques operate such that they exist within a crystal structure, where the element which they decay to cannot form in the place of the original element. This is the case of U238 in Zircon, for instance. U238 can form within the crystal, but its decay product, Pb208, cannot (this is easily verified in the lab). Thus, one doesn't need to know anything about how much Uranium was initially within the Zircon crystal, one just measures the total amount of U238, and the total amount of Pb208.

2. This is another testable assumption. It is easily-testable because every separate material that is dated would react differently with its environment. Thus contamination of the materials would result in different results from different dating methods. Whenever possible, paleontologists use multiple dating methods to ensure their analysis is correct.

3. One can test the constancy of nuclear decays through astrophysical observations. The properties of supernovae are highly dependent upon the strong and weak nuclear forces, and as such one would expect to see the properties of supernovae change over time (and since looking far into the distance is looking back in time, far away supernovae are a direct measure of the properties of these forces long ago). There is as yet no evidence of time-dependent changes in supernovae. Astronomers have detected thousands of supernovae to date, and rigorously analyzed a few hundred of them (only a few supernovae are easy to analyze).

Theoretically, it is very difficult for there to be any change in fundamental forces over time that would have an effect on nuclear decay rates. But whichever way you slice it, no change in the nuclear decay rates could possibly be fast. That is to say, it might change our measurements of the age of the earth by a few hundred million years out of the measured ~4.5 billion, but it won't change the age from 4.5 billion to 6,000 years.

Thus one is forced to accept that either the Earth is old, or God is a great deceiver to have placed this obvious evidence that the Earth is so old. Basically, we have so many independent dating methods to make use of that the consistency of our measurements becomes powerful evidence to the robustness of the methods.

So when scientists date a rock using different types of dating methods, they are usually always accurate and consistant with each other?