Creationism vs Evolutionism

[otseng]

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

[Corvus]

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).

Very interesting. There may be some things we (or I) don't know about fossilisation. I checked the site, however, and two of the fossils are from the Green River formation. The site has this to say about it.

The unusually excellent preservation of the Green River fish fossils is usually attributed to a combination of two factors: 1) a cold period during the Eocene that would have caused dead fish to sink faster due to a less inflated swim bladder; and 2) the great depth of the lakes and the consequent anoxic conditions that would have often prevented scavengers from disturbing the carcasses.

I also believe ice plays a role in creating well-preserved fossils. I'm researching it now.

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.

I'm not sure I follow you. What's oil got to do with anything? And are you saying God placed those fossils there?

[otseng]

In the CM, in one fell swoop, it explains:
- how fossils were formed
- how oil was formed
- how coal was formed
- extinction of the dinosaurs
- massive change in the earth's atmosphere
- formation of the all the mountain ranges in the world

All this was caused by a cataclysmic worldwide flood.

Prior to the flood, the earth's atmosphere was like a greenhouse. Temperature was fairly uniform and tropical conditions. This was ideal for growing things on a huge scale. That is why we see large animals and plants in the fossil record and we don't see any dinosaurs now.

There were no oceans at that time. Perhaps there were some seas.

Underneath the earth's crust, several miles down, was a reservoir of water that the crust was sitting on. There was tremendous pressure on this water since the crust was sitting on top of it. Something triggered a massive split in the crust and it got split. This split was on the mid-Atlantic ridge (the largest mountain range in the world).



Water gushed up from the split releasing massive amounts of water and dirt into the sky and falling all over the earth. This caused quick and instantaneous burial of everything. Thus forming fossils, oil deposits, and coal deposits.

I'm leaving out a lot of details, but this is the gist of it.

I know this all sounds quite unbelievable. It was for me when I first heard it. But there are many things about this theory that makes a lot of sense in which other theories can't explain.

[Corvus]

Water gushed up from the split releasing massive amounts of water and dirt into the sky and falling all over the earth. This caused quick and instantaneous burial of everything

Well, obviously not everything. Noah survived, as well as a few thousand different species of birds, plants and animals.

No real proof exists of a worldwide flood. A scientist has this to say about that particular theory:

Creation scientists" attribute most of the rock record, especially the fossiliferous Phanerozoic sediments, to the "great flood" (Whitcomb & Morris, 1961, p. 258, 265, 327; Morris, 1985, p. 117, 118, 123; Gish, 1995, p. 49; Brow n, 1996, p. 84-86). Their descriptions of the "great flood" leave no doubt that the magnitude, intensity, current velocities, and sediment transport capabilities of the "great flood" would certainly have included the coarsest known sediment. Empirically and experimentally, we can demonstrate that as current velocity decreases during waning flow, the largest sediment particles are deposited first, followed by progressively smaller particles until finally clay settles out of essentially quiet water. We can also demonstrate empirically and experimentally the types of sedimentary structures that form under various current velocities and water depths. Therefore, a worldwide, "great flood" should deposit some very distinctive sediments.

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/evolution.htm


Talkorigins also explained away the hydroplate theory, firstly by saying that the rock which makes up the earth's layer does not float, thus the water would long ago be forced to the surface.

Secondly, the earth, even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot. Coupled with the energy gathered when the water was released and traveled through the air, Noah would have suffered burns.

Thirdly, the water would have eroded the sides of the fissures as it escaped and created certain deposits that would have been noticeable, but are not in evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH420.html


That, coupled with the fact that humans living with dinosaurs sounds absolutely absurd... I'll keep my scepticism.

[otseng]

Well, obviously not everything. Noah survived, as well as a few thousand different species of birds, plants and animals.

Everything in the ark survived. As well as some marine animals and plants.

Creation scientists" attribute most of the rock record, especially the fossiliferous Phanerozoic sediments, to the "great flood" (Whitcomb & Morris, 1961, p. 258, 265, 327; Morris, 1985, p. 117, 118, 123; Gish, 1995, p. 49; Brow n, 1996, p. 84-86).

Almost all of the sediments would've been created by the flood. Here's a question about the rock stratas. Why are they all parallel to each other? The evolutionary answer is that layers got built up over thousands, millions of years. But exactly parallel to the layer under it? We don't see this at all happening now. Even in a desert, an entire desert covered with exactly 1 inch of dirt everywhere? A global flood could easily explain why the rock stratas are parallel.

which makes up the earth's layer does not float, thus the water would long ago be forced to the surface.

Of cource rocks don't "float". But, if the entire crust of the earth was sitting on water that enclosed the whole earth, then it can be possible.

Secondly, the earth, even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot. Coupled with the energy gathered when the water was released and traveled through the air, Noah would have suffered burns.

Noah was inside the ark.

Thirdly, the water would have eroded the sides of the fissures as it escaped and created certain deposits that would have been noticeable, but are not in evidence.

Ah, but there is evidence. The western part of Europe/Africa matches exactly the eastern part of the Americas. Exactly running right between them is the Atlantic ridge. The fissure is the continental shelf. As water gushed up from the subterranean water, the two continents slid away from each other. Water gushing up formed the Atlantic ridge. The continental shelf was where the two plates were once touching.

That, coupled with the fact that humans living with dinosaurs sounds absolutely absurd... I'll keep my scepticism.

Why is it absurd?

[Corvus]

Creation scientists" attribute most of the rock record, especially the fossiliferous Phanerozoic sediments, to the "great flood" (Whitcomb & Morris, 1961, p. 258, 265, 327; Morris, 1985, p. 117, 118, 123; Gish, 1995, p. 49; Brow n, 1996, p. 84-86).

Almost all of the sediments would've been created by the flood. Here's a question about the rock stratas. Why are they all parallel to each other? The evolutionary answer is that layers got built up over thousands, millions of years. But exactly parallel to the layer under it? We don't see this at all happening now. Even in a desert, an entire desert covered with exactly 1 inch of dirt everywhere? A global flood could easily explain why the rock stratas are parallel.

Er.. but we still get stratas in recent times that are parallel to each other. I remember this from when I studied ancient history at highschool, and researched the uncovering of Troy. There were layers of earth and clay, all parallel to each other, and each was usually a different incarnation of the city.

Secondly, the earth, even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot. Coupled with the energy gathered when the water was released and traveled through the air, Noah would have suffered burns.

Noah was inside the ark.

Then we would have been poached. The waters underneath the earth's surface would have been superheated.

Thirdly, the water would have eroded the sides of the fissures as it escaped and created certain deposits that would have been noticeable, but are not in evidence.

Ah, but there is evidence. The western part of Europe/Africa matches exactly the eastern part of the Americas. Exactly running right between them is the Atlantic ridge. The fissure is the continental shelf. As water gushed up from the subterranean water, the two continents slid away from each other. Water gushing up formed the Atlantic ridge. The continental shelf was where the two plates were once touching.

And the sediments that don't exist?

The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.

I'm guessing you don't believe in continental drift, otseng. Here's a link showing the former positions of the continents: http://www.scotese.com/pangeanim.htm Nothing to read. It's just a Java animation.

EDIT: No, I see now that you believe in plate tectonics... but only between the Americas and Europe/Africa and through the catalyst of the water under the earth. What about the other continents?

That, coupled with the fact that humans living with dinosaurs sounds absolutely absurd... I'll keep my scepticism.

Why is it absurd?

You said it yourself that it's hard to swallow. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest it either. Not even a footprint. Yes, this hyrdoplate theory is better than that ridiculous water canopy theory... but it's still very much unsupported.

[otseng]

BTW, I found a picture of a fish swallowing another fish. The only way this can happen is a rapid burial.

[otseng]

Er.. but we still get stratas in recent times that are parallel to each other. I remember this from when I studied ancient history at highschool, and researched the uncovering of Troy. There were layers of earth and clay, all parallel to each other, and each was usually a different incarnation of the city.

What about non-cities? For ancient cities, things get torn down and new buildings are constructed. These "stratas" are manmade. Again, the question is why do we see parallel stratas everywhere?

Then we would have been poached. The waters underneath the earth's surface would have been superheated.

Yes, but the superheated water also lost a lot of energy by going into the atmosphere. Plus it was mixed with lot of dirt.

The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.

All these deposits form most of the rock stratas we see today.

I'm guessing you don't believe in continental drift, otseng. Here's a link showing the former positions of the continents: http://www.scotese.com/pangeanim.htm Nothing to read. It's just a Java animation.

EDIT: No, I see now that you believe in plate tectonics... but only between the Americas and Europe/Africa and through the catalyst of the water under the earth. What about the other continents?

I have no problems with continental drift. But I do have a problem with it explaining the shapes of the continents. I can't believe that continents can move so far over millions of years and maintain their shape so perfectly. The friction coefficient would be so great that there would be a huge loss in shape. Unless there was some "lubricant" underneath.

You said it yourself that it's hard to swallow. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest it either. Not even a footprint. Yes, this hyrdoplate theory is better than that ridiculous water canopy theory... but it's still very much unsupported.

Here's some dinosaur and human footprints.

It might be hard to swallow, but the EM is even harder to swallow.

[Corvus]

BTW, I found a picture of a fish swallowing another fish. The only way this can happen is a rapid burial.

Another fossil from the Green River Formation? I've mentioned what the site says about the Green River Formation. Cold waters result in quick sinking of the corpse, and thus a quick burial. It's important to note that this site doesn't believe the fish died whilst feeding... but that the fish died from feeding!
A fish swallowing another fish, fossil from Green River, Wyoming. Rarely are fossils found that indicate how the animal died.

I have no problems with continental drift. But I do have a problem with it explaining the shapes of the continents. I can't believe that continents can move so far over millions of years and maintain their shape so perfectly. The friction coefficient would be so great that there would be a huge loss in shape. Unless there was some "lubricant" underneath.

There's lubricant, but it's not water. You have to understand that they don't move very fast, and massive sections of coastline are still thoroughly eroded. I very much doubt they'd fit perfectly nowadays, though they do retain their basic former shape. It's easy to look at a diagram and say they haven't changed much, but in reality, I think it's a different matter.

Also, I thought you were a young earth creationist?

Here's some dinosaur and human footprints.

And here is a list refuting most of them, backed up with references. Human footprints never stand the test of close scientific scrutiny.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/mantrack.html Hell, check the site for the tracks individually, and you'll find that even creationist scientists refute some (like the Taylor Trail). I also have to wonder why so many of those tracks are found in Texas, home of the craziest bunch of people on earth.

If the evidence was really conclusive, then scientists would revise their theories. So far, nothing has been proven. Up until recently, the theory of plate tectonics was thought to be absurd. It has so far been proven true.

It might be hard to swallow, but the EM is even harder to swallow.

Not really. We have plenty of evidence for transitional fossil forms. They published fairly often in National Geographic. We have fossils of creatures with only slight differences between them. I don't see why God would want to be so redundant, or why he would have created them if he knew they'd die anyway.

[otseng]

Another fossil from the Green River Formation? I've mentioned what the site says about the Green River Formation. Cold waters result in quick sinking of the corpse, and thus a quick burial. It's important to note that this site doesn't believe the fish died whilst feeding... but that the fish died from feeding!

Died from feeding??? That's sounds incredible to me. They both happen to float to the bottom from cold water. (Which I don't understand how that's possible) And it's also supposed to have some sort of anaerobic conditions at the bottom. And then be perfectly preserved until enough sediments can be deposited on it until it becomes fossilized. Seems like more of a stretch to me than a rapid burial.

There's lubricant, but it's not water. You have to understand that they don't move very fast, and massive sections of coastline are still thoroughly eroded. I very much doubt they'd fit perfectly nowadays, though they do retain their basic former shape. It's easy to look at a diagram and say they haven't changed much, but in reality, I think it's a different matter.

The continents don't exactly match on the shoreline. But, if you take the continental shelves, it matches almost perfectly. And if it moves very slowly, even more reason why it would lose it's shape.

Also, I thought you were a young earth creationist?

Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. Actually, it's all relative.

If the evidence was really conclusive, then scientists would revise their theories. So far, nothing has been proven. Up until recently, the theory of plate tectonics was thought to be absurd. It has so far been proven true.

Let's just say that if anything was conclusive, this debate wouldn't even occur.

To get right down to it, there is really no conclusive evidence either way for EM or CM. What gets me mad is that people assume EM is not just a theory but a fact. And that CM is just some quack religious nonsense. They are both theories. And they both have equal weight. Isn't that what the Scopes trial was all about? OK, enough ranting.

Not really. We have plenty of evidence for transitional fossil forms. They published fairly often in National Geographic. We have fossils of creatures with only slight differences between them. I don't see why God would want to be so redundant, or why he would have created them if he knew they'd die anyway.

On to transitional fossils. Let's take about some of the most famous transitional fossils.

Piltdown man was supposed to be a "missing link". Turned out to be a deliberate hoax.
Nebraska man was another missing link. Turned out it was just a tooth of a pig.
Java man was just a gibbon.

Also, since the mechanism for evolution is genetic variation and survival of the fittest, we would assume that the fossil record would be full of animals in the process of evolving to be another animal. Reptiles trying to develop feathers. Marine animals trying to be land animals. And on and on. It would seem like there should even be more transitional life forms than regular life forms. But the transitional life in fossils is very sparse, if any.

Also, let me throw in the law of genetics (Menel's laws). These basically state that the characteristics of offsprings are a result of combinations of genes inherited from parents. Macroevolution flies in the face of the law of genetics.

[Paul]

I am the new kid on the block. I am nearly 70 years old and conscious that it will not be too long before whether or not the Bible is true will be more than an academic question for me.

According to the dictionary an agnostic is someone who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists.

I am, according to that definition, an agnostic. I also believe that there can be no proof that God does not exist. Since I believe that God exists and believe that Jesus is the promised messiah I suppose that makes me a Christian agnostic.

I have followed the debate and will comment on a few things but do not the time to get heavily involved.

Scientists like everyone else are not impartial and usually have religious convictions that color their scientific efforts. Also like the rest of us they can be jealous and may treat other scientist unfairly and falsify results to fit their own selfish interests. Galileo and Newton were Christian. Newton probably published more articles on theology than mathematics and physics. Galileo treated Kepler, the greatest astronomer of his time badly. Newton's treatment of Leibniz and Flamsteed was shameful. Stephen Hawking seems to believe that man will shortly know everything and this belief is a religion for him and he pushes it in books aimed at the general public.

I don't think the entropy argument against evolution is valid since the earth is not a closed system. It might be applied to the universe if it is finite. I personally think it is infinite. The better the telescope the bigger it gets. Then there is the question if it is finite what's at the boundary.

There is good evidence that the earth may have flipped on its' axis at least once in recorded history. Possibly caused by an encounter with Venus. There are drawings of the sky in caves that are for the northern hemisphere that are in caves in the southern hemisphere. Reference 1

There are such things as self-organizing systems. The thrust of the book referenced is the author's concern that robots will eventually replace all human workers. Reference 2

People take too many things in science as absolutely true when in fact they may not be. For example ask anyone if it true that electrons orbit the nucleus of the atom? They will probably say yes. But how do they know that. Why aren't the electrons just stationary? Did someone look at the electrons spinning in their orbits with a microscope? No! The reason it is accepted that they are not stationary is based on electrostatic field theory. You can prove that there cannot be a stable configuration of static electric charges. To understand what a stability problem is get some permanent magnets and try to arrange some of them to float one. That there cannot be a stable configuration of static electric charges is proven mathematically in sophomore physics and gives you a warm fuzzy feeling that this is absolutely true until you discover ball lightning. Approximately every third lightning strike produces what appears to be a glowing ball of charged particles that can persist for a number of seconds before discharging in apparent violation of the laws of electrostatics.

I have several questions for Corvus.

How do you define life or how do you decide whether something is living or not?

How do you define thought or thinking?

Do you accept the statement "I think therefore I exist" as valid?

I must go and do work in animal husbandry (when a wife leaves her husband to care for two horses, two cats and a dog).


Reference 1 Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky

Reference 2 Cybernetics, or the Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine Second Edition: by Norbert Wiener