Creationism vs Evolutionism

[otseng]

OK, give me reasons why evolutionism or creationism is right or wrong.

[Corvus]

Also, what evidence do you have that proves we are becoming more disordered, Otseng?

[otseng]

In that case, I have to ask, "Who created God?"

That would be another thread topic.

Why can't the earth have always existed?

Because it's impossible. Again, according to the laws of thermo. When I refer to disorder, I'm a little incorrect, it's actually entropy (non-useful energy). Anytime work is performed (work being defined as anytime energy is used), entropy increases. Given sufficient time, no available useful energy is available. This will even happen to the entire universe (given enough time). If the earth has always existed (there was no beginning in time), then we wouldn't be discussing this. We'd have all already experienced the "heat-death" in which no useful energy would be available. This is why no scientists now believe that the universe has always existed. There must've been some point in time in which our universe came into being.

Regardless, the law of thermodynamics can be likened to a battery. It runs out of juice after a while . But our sun supplies all the juice we need, so the argument fails.

A battery is useless without a circuit. So what if it provides all the juice it needs? Someone still has to design the circuit. Energy by itself again is not sufficient. I set fire to a dump doesn't mean it'll turn into a Wal-mart.

[Corvus]

A battery is useless without a circuit. So what if it provides all the juice it needs? Someone still has to design the circuit. Energy by itself again is not sufficient. I set fire to a dump doesn't mean it'll turn into a Wal-mart.

The circuit exists through the earth orbiting the sun. Yes, the conditions have to be just right for evolution to occur, but you knew that. It's why the other planets in our solar system that move around the sun don't appear to have developed life.

Why are we talking about the laws of thermodynamics anyway? Thermodynamics has to do with the behaviour of energy, not the progress of life.

Anytime work is performed (work being defined as anytime energy is used), entropy increases. Given sufficient time, no available useful energy is available.

True enough. And we eat to replenish our energy. What do we eat? Animals. Animals get their energy from other animals and also plants. Plants get most of their energy from the sun. Then there's the energy coming from our core. Both energy sources will eventually expire, but it takes some time. We're obviously not dying from an icy death right now.

I know what you're saying is that nothing becomes more complicated by itself, but you have to recognise that life doesn't necessarily become more complicated, but better adapted to its environment. Devolution - losing traits- has also been noted.

Energy is not the only thing needed to create order. Energy has to be harnessed to produce something with greater order. Simply adding energy from the sun is not sufficient to create higher degrees of order. Some directive force to channel energy is needed to use the energy in a constructive way.

Fair enough. I don't think scientists know exactly what the trigger was. If the conditions are right, the eart would have been like a row of dominoes ready for energy to be applied appropriated to start the chain reaction. It could have been anything from lightning striking water, to the impact of a meteor. It also could have been god who begun the chain reaction. Belief in evolution doesn't preclude the existence of a god.

I actually know very little about this sort of stuff, I'm just trying to keep the debate flowing until someone who actually knows what they're talking about comes along.

Why is macro-evolution a fallacy? Cause it has never been observed, duplicated, or even seen in the fossil record.

Neither have elephants been seen living 150 million years ago, or dinosaurs living 6000 years ago. Why is that, Otseng?

It's a completely unsupportable assumption made by evolutionists in order to support their theory.

Transitional forms, for your edification.

[otseng]

Also, what evidence do you have that proves we are becoming more disordered, Otseng?

As you have stated, there is evidence that animals have devolved. But, there is no evidence that animals have macro-evolved. Species are becoming extinct, but no new species are arising. Thus as a whole, everything is devolving, not evolving.

Even us humans have devolved. One example is our wisdom teeth. For most people, the only purpose of it now is to provide a regular income for dental surgeons.

Take a look at our environment. Man, even with his knowledge and sophistication, speeds up the destruction of the environment. In 1000 years, the only hope for humanity would be to colonize other planets since all our lands would just simply be garbage dumps.

[Corvus]

And what about the other questions, otseng? Why don't we find fossils of cows that grazed beside the dinosaurs a few million years ago?

As you have stated, there is evidence that animals have devolved. But, there is no evidence that animals have macro-evolved

I beg to differ. Just click on what I linked to and you'll find plenty of evidence for macro-evolution. Be sure to click on the other things it links to, like the transitional forms of reptile-birds and check the links to the land mammal-to-whale fossil intermediates.

Thus as a whole, everything is devolving, not evolving.
Even us humans have devolved. One example is our wisdom teeth. For most people, the only purpose of it now is to provide a regular income for dental surgeons.

As I stated, evolution has to do with adapting to one's environment. It may be that we had formerly required the wisdom, but now it's no longer required.

I don't see how possessing a few vestigial parts means that on the whole we're devolving. I expect that most creatures, and most of their ancestors too, would have a host of vestigial organs.

Take a look at our environment. Man, even with his knowledge and sophistication, speeds up the destruction of the environment. In 1000 years, the only hope for humanity would be to colonize other planets since all our lands would just simply be garbage dumps.

I wouldn't go quite that far. Why aren't animals macro-evolving to compensate for the loss of environment? Well, we see that macro-evolution usually has to do with climate and habitat change. I'm not sure how animals can evolve to avoid being crushed by felled trees, but there's still the possibility it could happen. Remember, marco-evolution doesn't mean a reaction to change that's instant. It means a larger evolution through the inheritence of new traits.

We're constantly finding previously undiscovered species of insects in the Amazonian rainforest. Why such a large concentration of different species in one area?

[otseng]

And what about the other questions, otseng? Why don't we find fossils of cows that grazed beside the dinosaurs a few million years ago?

Because of the mechanism of how they were fossilized. Which brings up an entirely interesting area. Why do we see any fossils at all?

I beg to differ. Just click on what I linked to and you'll find plenty of evidence for macro-evolution. Be sure to click on the other things it links to, like the transitional forms of reptile-birds and check the links to the land mammal-to-whale fossil intermediates.

As a debate style, I'd rather not go off-site to read another person's opinions. That is, off-site material can be used as a reference, but not to simply say, here's a website, go read up what they have to say. I'd rather hear straight from debators here.

It'd be rather easy for me to list a whole bunch of creationist websites and articles and just say, here go read up on this. I doubt anyone would do that.

We're constantly finding previously undiscovered species of insects in the Amazonian rainforest. Why such a large concentration of different species in one area?

But that doesn't mean that animals are macro-evolving in the Amazon. It could just simply mean that they have already been there and we just haven't discovered them yet.

[Corvus]

Why do we see any fossils at all?

Yes, it has to do with the conditions of the death, but isn't it strange how mammals are so scarce in the earliest stratas? They do sprout up every now and then later on, but do you really think cows grazed beside dinosaurs?

This is from that macro-evolution faq:

The first and most major reason for gaps is "stratigraphic discontinuities", meaning that fossil-bearing strata are not at all continuous. There are often large time breaks from one stratum to the next, and there are even some times for which no fossil strata have been found. For instance, the Aalenian (mid-Jurassic) has shown no known tetrapod fossils anywhere in the world, and other stratigraphic stages in the Carboniferous, Jurassic, and Cretaceous have produced only a few mangled tetrapods. Most other strata have produced at least one fossil from between 50% and 100% of the vertebrate families that we know had already arisen by then (Benton, 1989) -- so the vertebrate record at the family level is only about 75% complete, and much less complete at the genus or species level. (One study estimated that we may have fossils from as little as 3% of the species that existed in the Eocene!) This, obviously, is the major reason for a break in a general lineage. To further complicate the picture, certain types of animals tend not to get fossilized -- terrestrial animals, small animals, fragile animals, and forest-dwellers are worst. And finally, fossils from very early times just don't survive the passage of eons very well, what with all the folding, crushing, and melting that goes on. Due to these facts of life and death, there will always be some major breaks in the fossil record.

It's not as easy as many people believe, this business of finding fossils.

As a debate style, I'd rather not go off-site to read another person's opinions. That is, off-site material can be used as a reference, but not to simply say, here's a website, go read up what they have to say. I'd rather hear straight from debators here.

It'd be rather easy for me to list a whole bunch of creationist websites and articles and just say, here go read up on this. I doubt anyone would do that.

Well, it's a page of all sorts of transitional fossil forms. It has overwhelming evidence. There's no real opinions. I'll quote choice segments.

Seacows (manatees and dugongs) are fully aquatic mammals with flippers for forelimbs and no hindlimbs. Evolutionary theory predicts that seacows evolved from terrestrial ancestors with legs, and that thus we could find seacow intermediates with legs. Recently, a new transitional fossil has been found in Jamaica, a seacow with four legs (Domning 2001).

Here are a collection of fossilised hominid skulls from the Smithsonian institute. Not the flattening of the brow ridge and the way the jaws become less protrusive.

Here is a page of whale intermediate fossils. http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

Two of the whale's ancestors.





One needs to read the text. The thing is very dry, though, and long, so I can understand if you don't.

[otseng]

Why do we see any fossils at all?

Yes, it has to do with the conditions of the death, but isn't it strange how mammals are so scarce in the earliest stratas? They do sprout up every now and then later on, but do you really think cows grazed beside dinosaurs?

Too much to debate on, so let me hold off on transitional life for now and stick with how thing fossilize.

For something to fossilize, it requires rapid burial, together with tremendous pressure. The process has to complete quickly before the plant or animal can decompose. So obviously for this to happen, it would have to be quite a rare occurence.

Now, how can dinosaurs, which can be quite large, get fossilized at all? I haven't heard a good explanation from evolutionists. Some say they fall into tar pits. Come on, a tar pit? Dinosaurs can step into tar pits and get fossiled? Plus we have rather remarkable fossils where fish are eating other fish. Birds with their wings spread out. Mastodons with food in their mouth.

So, in order to understand what we see in the fossil record, we have to understand how they got there in the first place.

[Corvus]

Why do we see any fossils at all?

Yes, it has to do with the conditions of the death, but isn't it strange how mammals are so scarce in the earliest stratas? They do sprout up every now and then later on, but do you really think cows grazed beside dinosaurs?

Too much to debate on, so let me hold off on transitional life for now and stick with how thing fossilize.

For something to fossilize, it requires rapid burial, together with tremendous pressure. The process has to complete quickly before the plant or animal can decompose. So obviously for this to happen, it would have to be quite a rare occurence.

Well, the dinosaur could be buried/sinking in mud, a tar pit, or being covered in a sandstorm. After that, depending on the climate, more and more sediment will cover the remains, and eventually (although the flesh will rot, the bones will be covered in the sediment, and the bone will start becoming more like a rock.

Yes, it's rare, but one has to take into account the massive period of time that elapses before the dinosaurs die out. I'm sure over such an expansive amount of time, a lot of this would occur.

Now, how can dinosaurs, which can be quite large, get fossilized at all? I haven't heard a good explanation from evolutionists. Some say they fall into tar pits. Come on, a tar pit? Dinosaurs can step into tar pits and get fossiled? Plus we have rather remarkable fossils where fish are eating other fish. Birds with their wings spread out. Mastodons with food in their mouth.

Could you please supply sources, otseng? I tried researching it, but I couldn't find anything about such fossils.

So, in order to understand what we see in the fossil record, we have to understand how they got there in the first place.

How does this cast doubt on transitional fossils? It just casts doubt on our understanding (or my understanding. I'm no expert) of the fossilization process. What exactly are you implying, otseng? The reason we don't find modern animals in the bellies of dinosaurs is because we don't understand the fossilization process properly?

[otseng]

Well, the dinosaur could be buried/sinking in mud, a tar pit, or being covered in a sandstorm. After that, depending on the climate, more and more sediment will cover the remains, and eventually (although the flesh will rot, the bones will be covered in the sediment, and the bone will start becoming more like a rock.

Fossilization has to happen rapidly enough for it not to decompose, including the bones. Also a lot of material should be placed on it to prevent any oxygen to allow decompostion. So, how does a lot of dirt get quickly thrown on an animal for it to become fossilized? The CM answers this (which I'll talk about later.)

Also, sometimes fossils are in perfect condition. Simply throwing a little dirt on these guys won't cause these.

Could you please supply sources, otseng? I tried researching it, but I couldn't find anything about such fossils.

I've got some in my books at home, I'll have to dig those up (no pun intended).

What exactly are you implying, otseng? The reason we don't find modern animals in the bellies of dinosaurs is because we don't understand the fossilization process properly?

What I'm implying is the the CM of how fossils were created explains a lot of things.

For instance, the CM also explains the creation of our huge oil and coal deposits as well as the fossil record.