PROVE EVOLUTION

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Erm, I thought Carbon-14 (used for Carbon dating) was an isotope?

Yes. It is.

There is no difference in the principle between carbon dating and any other isotopic dating.

Mirror also needs to understand that carbon dating is not used on fossils because it dates original organic matter, not organic matter that has been replaced with minerals.

Don't you think the first step in destroying established science would be to actually have a firm understanding of it in the first place?

 

[lucaspa]

Yes. It is.

There is no difference in the principle between carbon dating and any other isotopic dating.

Mirror also needs to understand that carbon dating is not used on fossils because it dates original organic matter, not organic matter that has been replaced with minerals.

Don't you think the first step in destroying established science would be to actually have a firm understanding of it in the first place?

I think Mirror got the point. That's why he switched to the Grand Canyon.

This is one area where I get very upset at the professional creationists. Here it seems they have deliberately misled people like Mirror about C14. I can't think that people like Ham, Hovind, Gish, etc. are ignorant of C14 and it's limitations. Certainly if they were ignorant, they have been told enough times what the real situation is and could have checked it out for themselves. Yet they never correct their websites.

 

[MOKUSO]

Hello everyone, was just looking around internet and found this discussion, hope you don't mind if I jump in halfway.

I DARE YOU TRY AND PROVE THAT BY SOME CHANCE ACCIDENT THE EARTH WAS CREATED. PROVE THAT WE CAME FROM MONKEYS. ILL BE DARNED IF I CAME FROM A MONKEY. WHY ARENT MONKEY STILL MUTATING?

The theory that we "came from monkeys" is more realistic than the traditional Adam and Eve sunday school story. How is it possible that the entire population of the modern world can be traced back to only two people?

Who did their children breed with?

How can such an exclusive gene pool produce the many existing variations of cultures and races?

Evolution is the most practical way to explain why people appear physically different to each other. For example, an Eskimo and a Kalahari Bushman are both human beings but look completely different. This is because over time their ancestors have adapted to survive in their respective environments.

 

[lucaspa]

How is it possible that the entire population of the modern world can be traced back to only two people?

Who did their children breed with?

How can such an exclusive gene pool produce the many existing variations of cultures and races?

By evolution. Ever hear of founder events? This is where basically 2 of a species are isolated in a new environment. All the Drosophila species in the Hawaiian Islands are the descendents of a male and female Drosophila originally stranded on the islands.

It turns out that, on average, any two individuals of a species have about 75% of the genetic variation of that species. So, having only two original people is not a problem from an evolutionary standpoint. What is the problem is having those two people instantaneously zapped into existence in their present form instead of evolving from a previous species.

Evolution is the most practical way to explain why people appear physically different to each other. For example, an Eskimo and a Kalahari Bushman are both human beings but look completely different. This is because over time their ancestors have adapted to survive in their respective environments.

And you will find that this is how creationists explain the diversity of people. They lump this under "microevolution". What they deny is that humans as a separate species evolved from a previous species.

The quote you used objected to H. sapiens evolving from "monkeys". Not that the present populations of humans evolved to be diverse.

 

[MOKUSO]

Spanish Monkey say urrrgggghhhh??

Yes I agree with you dude, I try to mention what I thinking about people evolving from monkeys vs humans starting from Adam and Eve and remaining same until now. That is what I think of when talking Evolution vs Creationism, correct or not I don't know.

I not good with typing my words how I mean them and I talk with my hands LOL

Don't worry you will get used to me in time.

 

[lucaspa]

Mokuso, there were two different sets of claims in your post:

1. Evolution is true.

2. The diversity of the human species could not arise from 2 original people -- Adam and Eve. You were using this one as an argument against creationism.

It turns out that the argument doesn't hold because the diversity of a species has come from just two founder individuals. So yes, starting with just Adam and Eve there is enough genetic diversity within just two people to give the various populations of humans today. Not in the time frame of YEC, but yes, it would work.

While creationism is false, not all arguments against creationism are valid. And we have to evaluate the arguments one at a time. If it is wrong, it is just as wrong if it seems to help evolution as if it seems to help creationism. Do you see?

 

[Mirror]

animals have only basic instict. if man and ape came from a comon ancester it was because that ancester had a need to evolve. so Y in the world evolve into an ape?

 

[TheSleepWalker]

animals have only basic instict. if man and ape came from a comon ancester it was because that ancester had a need to evolve. so Y in the world evolve into an ape?

Because apes are well adapted to thier environement. Some of our far ancestors evolved into apes because it was the most practical form to avoid predators or find food in their specific environement. Our big brain is not the ultimate goal for any species.

 

[Mirror]

so what need did our ancestor have to become a H.Sapien?

 

[Bushido216]

so what need did our ancestor have to become a H.Sapien?

Actually, they didn't need to "become" anything. H. Sapien is merely a result. Humans in our current form are a collection of minor adaptations collected throughout geological time, not a felt need.

 

[MOKUSO]

OK lucaspa that makes sense to me now, Cheers!

Main reason I doubt Adam and Eve story though is because in Bible at start it say beasts made before man...

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Then soon after it say man made before beast...

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Am I reading wrong maybe? Or is animal created before and after man? Maybe half of modern humans exist from Adam and Eve and other half "evolve from monkeys" to become same like other people so they can co exist and live same way. I don't know maybe just my silly thinking.

 

[lucaspa]

OK lucaspa that makes sense to me now, Cheers!

Main reason I doubt Adam and Eve story though is because in Bible at start it say beasts made before man...


Then soon after it say man made before beast...


Am I reading wrong maybe? Or is animal created before and after man? Maybe half of modern humans exist from Adam and Eve and other half "evolve from monkeys" to become same like other people so they can co exist and live same way. I don't know maybe just my silly thinking.

Nope. You've got it correct. The order of creation is indeed different between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Notice also in Genesis 2:4 (where the second creation story starts) that it says the heavens and the earth are created "in the day". That is, within one day. But Genesis 1 just told us it took six days. Also, if you go to the Hebrew, the name for God changes between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. In Genesis 1 the name is "elohim" (which is actually plural for "god", i.e. gods) and in Genesis 2 is is Yahweh (or yhwh since Hebrew has no vowels).

All this, and more, has led Biblical scholars to conclude that we have two separate creation stories that were put together by the Editor that made Genesis as we see it today. That probably happened about the time of Ezra.

Genesis 1 belongs to the P tradition. Genesis 2 to the J tradition.

This is all part of the wider theory of the Documentary Hypothesis. You can read about it here:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jepd.html
http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/netcours/hb/dh/index.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/~downejm/hypothesis.html

 

[MOKUSO]

Big Cheers to you lucaspa!! I ask many peoples this question and having different answer to this one. Maybe simple thoughts for smart people like youself but make sense now to me more now, I am happy.

Thanks God for Internet!

 

[Mirror]

hey hey hey. there is no difference. what it say is that man was created after beast in chapter 1. in chapter2 it say that adam was going t name them all not that they were made.

yes Mokuso you read it wrong.

 

[MOKUSO]

Gen 1:25 God make all beasts
Gen 1:26 God make man in same image

Gen 2:18 God say man should not be by self, so it mean man is already existence but no beast there because he alone
Gen 2:19 saying And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them

In Gen 2:19 God make beast after man created then he show Adam who give all beast name he choosing

Gen 1:25 and 1:26 saying God make all beast then man

Gen 2:18 and 2:19 saying God make man and then all beasts that he showing Adam so give a names

That how I understanding when I read it. I still reading 3 web sights lucaspa showing to me, number 2 and 3 I like but 1st one not working for me.

 

[Mirror]

youre still not geting it. when it says that Adam was alone it mean that there were no other humans with him. not that he was literaly alone.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

youre still not geting it. when it says that Adam was alone it mean that there were no other humans with him. not that he was literaly alone.

Mirror,

Which literal do you want.

The literal 'alone' or your interpretation of 'alone'.

This is the problem of literalism - yours and mine may differ.

You are interpreting your way and I shall interpret mine.

I could justifiably argue that you are ADDING to Scripture with the 'humans' comment whereas I could say that alone means alone.

 

[Mirror]

if your out in the dessert and there is nobody around for miles its safe to say youre alone. even if there are animals your still alone.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Mirror,

If you are in the 'dessert' is that chocolate pudding or custard tart you are alone in. Plus if it is miles in extent that is one big pudding.

 

[Mirror]

oops! Desert*. you know what i meant.