Creation Vs Evolution
-
At least the "out of Africa" theory lends support to the biblical account. Haha ..Originally posted by F Takumi:Archaeological and genetic evidence have traced the origin of modern human beings to Africa. Maybe Eden is in Ethiopia.
-
Ironically you are slowly drifting into the supernatural explanation. As we know, the day is defined in terms of the rising and setting of the sun, that's how our ancestors see it too. Now, as we are more advanced, we also know the rising and setting is due to the revolution of the Earth. Hence it is possible the sun already existed in day 1. But to believe this is to acknowledge indirectly that the author knows something about Earth revolution? After all, if he cannot see the sun in day 1 due to heavy clouds or something, how could he know the sun existed?
Who is the author ? It can't be adam or the animals isn't it ? It is supposedly "god" who tell people how he create the world in how many days isn't it ? Isn't tat wat the bible is about ? God inspired words ? So putting the author into the picture and saying it is the author problem is an error. The author is supposed to be "god" who is supposed to be able to know wat is day by probably living through many many days and setting the standard of "days" and who is able to see through thick clouds or cosmic gases or watever. He certainly knows the sun exists and he certainly put it down into words saying tat it was create simply meant in a "day". SO the time frame is still totally off when compared with science and the time taken for evolution. It is wrongAnyone interested can read the Talmud Chagigah on pre-Adam hominid
why don't u put it here so everyone will know wat it is about ?At least the "out of Africa" theory lends support to the biblical account. Haha ..
tat is probably a very very weak link tat support the bible
-
What is the time frame that is wrong?Originally posted by stupidissmart:why don't u put it here so everyone will know wat it is about ?
tat is probably a very very weak link tat support the bible
I'm not putting it here. Don't wish to cultivate a culture of spoonfeeding. If one is interested, he will go and find it.
A weak link that is, but at least never put the first humans in many places at once, or somewhere in China .. haha -
What is the time frame that is wrong?
Sigh... men and animals were not created in a day... In fact the whole galaxy was not created in days... U just totally ignore my previous points... tis it not making u look goodI'm not putting it here. Don't wish to cultivate a culture of spoonfeeding. If one is interested, he will go and find it.
It is for the convenience of the people here. If u do not care for productivity and welfare, then I guess u can continue just suggesting something but never explain it.A weak link that is, but at least never put the first humans in many places at once, or somewhere in China .. haha
Let me guess, u know wat all the wolves in the world originiate from the same place too ! In fact all animals we see now should have originate from the same place as well ! By evolution theory it should be as such isn't it -
My argument was those days are not the usual definition of day. I proceeded to show how absurd it would be to know of the sun before u can see it or for the ancients to know of Earth revolution.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Sigh... men and animals were not created in a day... In fact the whole galaxy was not created in days... U just totally ignore my previous points... tis it not making u look good
I also shown it is perfectly logical if those days were framed from a different perspective of time. You want to argue using Science so I use relativity theory, but you ignored my suggestion? -
My argument was those days are not the usual definition of day. I proceeded to show how absurd it would be to know of the sun before u can see it or for the ancients to know of Earth revolution.
Your argument was completely faulty since the definition of day was already stated clear and simple, the beginning of a new morning. It has nothing to do with earth revolution aroud the sun, tat is for season, but clearly any idiot and even norturnal animals know wat is morning and wat is night. Yet u don't know and u doubt god don't know ? And secondly, who says the sun cannot be seen ? The author is god and he is the one tat tells us he made sun and he made it in a day. He cannot see the sun he created ? All r argument have been answered before and u just totally ignore them.I also shown it is perfectly logical if those days were framed from a different perspective of time. You want to argue using Science so I use relativity theory, but you ignored my suggestion?
Tis point has again been countered before. Who ever tell u it is relative ?Inside genesis one itself it already clearly define wat is night, morning and day. U mean God don't know wat is morning ? He don't know how long the earth turn ? It is stated clearly in the bible already ! There is no relativity here ! It is matching against a standard ! A standard have been described and tis standard is used to describe the time taken to make the galaxy ! I am not ignoring your suggestion, u r ignoring my points ! -
Opps .. big mistake on my part .. I meant to say rotation of Earth, not revolution.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Your argument was completely faulty since the definition of day was already stated clear and simple, the beginning of a new morning. It has nothing to do with earth revolution aroud the sun, tat is for season, but clearly any idiot and even norturnal animals know wat is morning and wat is night.
Yet u don't know and u doubt god don't know ? And secondly, who says the sun cannot be seen ? The author is god and he is the one tat tells us he made sun and he made it in a day.
Haha .. the author is God? You seems to elevate the authorship to divine and yet you think it is fairy tale .. hahaHe cannot see the sun he created ?
The light may not be light from sun?He don't know how long the earth turn ? It is stated clearly in the bible already ! There is no relativity here ! It is matching against a standard !
The standard is this:
Psalms 90:4 - For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. (NIV)
2 Peter 3:8-9 - But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. (NIV)
-
So this discussion is about how long it takes for evolution against the few days it takes to create in Genesis huh....Originally posted by stupidissmart:Lets just the stipulated time frame tat the whole galaxy and human being made in a week is absurb. And they use the word "day" which was used repeatedly in the bible meaning as the usual 24 hours system we use
Actually, there are problems with evolution as well...the fossil records raise a number of difficult questions too, such as the so-called Cambian explosion. There is a sudden appearance of complex organisms in Cambrian Period, about 540 million years ago. Interestingly, within a 5-10 million year period (a relatively short period of time on evolutionary time scales, all but one of the animal phyla suddenly appear in the fossil record at the same time without any fossilized predecessors.
It is so difficult to explain that it has become quite popular to postulate that life on earth started from oragnisms transplanted from outer space by a meteorite.
So it seems the criticism against creationists is that a few days is too short and that against evolutionists is that 5-10 million years are not long enough. -
Opps .. big mistake on my part .. I meant to say rotation of Earth, not revolution.
well the argument still standsHaha .. the author is God? You seems to elevate the authorship to divine and yet you think it is fairy tale .. haha
Yes I think it is fairy tale but christian think it is divine. I am telling them if tat is wat u think, then something god being author makes sense.The light may not be light from sun?
I thought u say previously the light is the sun ?The standard is this:
Com'on, u know Psalm is like singing poetry. The meaning can simply means he is great bla bla bla and he is eternal and being with him seems long. It doesn't means literally he see a thousand years as a day. Tis is especially true since the person singing this song is not god himself, otherwise why use he ?
Psalms 90:4 - For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. (NIV)
2 Peter 3:8-9 - But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. (NIV)
Your second reference doesn't says he views BEING WITH GOD a day is a thousand years or vice versa. In fact it simply means being time with god seems especially long ro short. It never says god views a day a a thousand years or the writer is god himselfActually, there are problems with evolution as well...the fossil records raise a number of difficult questions too, such as the so-called Cambian explosion. There is a sudden appearance of complex organisms in Cambrian Period, about 540 million years ago. Interestingly, within a 5-10 million year period (a relatively short period of time on evolutionary time scales, all but one of the animal phyla suddenly appear in the fossil record at the same time without any fossilized predecessors.
U mean 5-10 million years is not long enough ? Structure was much simpler then so it is no wonder why within tis million of years organism begin to be seen. It still wasn't a day too isn't it ? Why don't u show me a website or anythign tat describe tis cambrian phenomenon ? A brief search doesn't show up anything u had said. -
Eg. http://www.grisda.org/origins/52003.htm
Loads of info on internet...you search google under Cambrian fossil and you get lots of material to read. 5-10 million years to get trolobites out of nothing? Quite impossible... -
Eg. http://www.grisda.org/origins/52003.htm
Frankly speaking I had went to yur website and guess wat... it is again a christian website... for the Seventh-day Adventists... Well, I have said tis many times and I guess i have to say it again... it is not convincing to give a christian website because they probably give one sided arguments and refuse to update the knowledge when new evidences occured. It is like goin to a website tat sells chicken rice and they claim their chicken rice is the best inthe world... If u wanna debate about science issue, I will very much prefer website tat were neutral, or purely science website
Loads of info on internet...you search google under Cambrian fossil and you get lots of material to read. 5-10 million years to get trolobites out of nothing? Quite impossible...
Anyway I also google about your cambrian fossils and I came out with a few sites worth reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
Summary of website above, newer evidence shows radiation of animal phyla started at 570 million years ago, and tis lengthen the number of years for the cambrian explosion to 40 million years.
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Cambrian/
The discovery of the fossils at 570 million hinted tat there is no real explosion at all. There is a long and gradual history of evolving. There is no special evolution mechanism etc in place
and since u include a christian website, well here is a website from the other side of the fence
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000). (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Fossil microorganisms have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004).
there r evidences of life at 3480 million years ago. There is no real explosion
Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).
Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record.
shows tat the result maybe greatly exaggerated
The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.
5 millions years is actually 1000 times longer than recorded human history. It is actually not short -
5 millions years is actually 1000 times longer than recorded human history. It is actually not short
5-10 million years is far too short for such complex organisms...4-5 million years ago we weren't even walking on two legs...here's a non-Christian reference: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566394/Human_Evolution.html
There is a huge gap in missing fossils between the unicellular organisms you mentioned and the trilobites. The appearance of such plentiful amounts of complex organisms in the fossil records is difficult to explain away within 5-10 million years. You will have to assume evolution speeded up like crazy for a time and then slow down to a halt.
It might be more credible to believe that life started in Mars and got here on a meteorite[/code] -
Use punctuated equilibrium.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:There is a huge gap in missing fossils between the unicellular organisms you mentioned and the trilobites. The appearance of such plentiful amounts of complex organisms in the fossil records is difficult to explain away within 5-10 million years.[/code] -
5-10 million years is far too short for such complex organisms...4-5 million years ago we weren't even walking on two legs...here's a non-Christian reference: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566394/Human_Evolution.html
Then tis is very strange. 4 millions years ago we weren't walking on legs. Now we do. It is much lesser compared with 45 million years isn't it ? Wat is wrong ?There is a huge gap in missing fossils between the unicellular organisms you mentioned and the trilobites. The appearance of such plentiful amounts of complex organisms in the fossil records is difficult to explain away within 5-10 million years. You will have to assume evolution speeded up like crazy for a time and then slow down to a halt.
Where do u read tis ? It doesn't appear in the website u givenIt might be more credible to believe that life started in Mars and got here on a meteorite
I never read anything on tis opinion either. Who said tis ? -
I never read anything on tis opinion either. Who said tis ?
I said it...and I think my opinion based on what I have read is more convincing that alternative theories and hypothesis on this matter. Think you are trying to attack the biblical account to justify why you will not believe....but why bother? You can simply choose not to believe...
I think the study of evolution is riddled with far too many premises and hypothesis than real science. Not realy interested in this subject...just stumbled onto this thread earlier...I think starblue's forum more interesting. -
Haha .. so you are another of her fan?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:I think starblue's forum more interesting. -
I said it...and I think my opinion based on what I have read is more convincing that alternative theories and hypothesis on this matter. Think you are trying to attack the biblical account to justify why you will not believe....but why bother? You can simply choose not to believe...
If u ask me, we don't even find life in Mars, yet u believe tat we evolved from creatures from Mars who can survive the impact onto earth. Unless we get more evidences, tis theory is not convincing.
BTW I am attacking the bible account so others will not believe. I obviously had chosen not to believe easilyI think the study of evolution is riddled with far too many premises and hypothesis than real science. Not realy interested in this subject...just stumbled onto this thread earlier...I think starblue's forum more interesting.
If u study real sceince, u will find many theories to be equally having many premises and hypothesis than evolution. BTW evolution is not a hypothesis anymore, it is a theory.
Starblue's forum ? hmm.............. -
BTW I am attacking the bible account so others will not believe. I obviously had chosen not to believe easily
You are wasting your time....people become Christians not because they are impressed by the scientic accounts in the bible. You will not get them to lose their faith merely on some scientific theories that do not square with the biblical account, anymore than you can make one a christian by proving the bible is true on scientific grounds.
However, for the christians who are looking for ammunition to fight your arguments, try this website:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
It is a christian website but the articles are well-researched and based on papers in secular, international journals such as Nature, Science and Scientific American. One of our ex-NUS professors contributed articles to it as well...
Enjoy yourself...me spending more time in Starblue's heaven now.. -
Maybe those creatures we evolved from died liao and any remains of their life form migrated to Earth just in time. It is like you don't see any homo erectus today lor.Originally posted by stupidissmart:If u ask me, we don't even find life in Mars, yet u believe tat we evolved from creatures from Mars who can survive the impact onto earth.If u study real sceince, u will find many theories to be equally having many premises and hypothesis than evolution. BTW evolution is not a hypothesis anymore, it is a theory.
What are some of those theories you mentioned?
Aiya, the poster also never say evolution is hypothesis. He said evolution has many premises and hypothesis. -
You are wasting your time....people become Christians not because they are impressed by the scientic accounts in the bible. You will not get them to lose their faith merely on some scientific theories that do not square with the biblical account, anymore than you can make one a christian by proving the bible is true on scientific grounds.
But then again, the bible is supposed to tell the truth. Yet from looking at some accounts of bible, it does not fit any logic or scientific background. If tat is the case, it do points to the fact tat the bible is not perfect or right. If tat christian is really searching for answers and not just following blindly, tis may works for himIt is a christian website but the articles are well-researched and based on papers in secular, international journals such as Nature, Science and Scientific American. One of our ex-NUS professors contributed articles to it as well...
Chrtistian website ? enough saidMaybe those creatures we evolved from died liao and any remains of their life form migrated to Earth just in time. It is like you don't see any homo erectus today lor.
Tat is a possible scenario, but unless u find more evidence to support tat theory, it is just plain aristotle type guessingWhat are some of those theories you mentioned?
quantum ?
Aiya, the poster also never say evolution is hypothesis. He said evolution has many premises and hypothesis. -
Aiya if you don't like xtian website then read more secular sources, like Phillip Johnson's works.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Chrtistian website ? enough said -
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
By John Rennie
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.
Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.
To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom. -
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
"Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In a pioneering study of finches on the Galápagos Islands, Peter R. Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild [see his article "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches"; Scientific American, October 1991].
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances. -
3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.
It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.
4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.
Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.
Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously. -
5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.
Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists' comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements. Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution. (Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervals--which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.) Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould's voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution, and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs.
When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory.
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.