Creationism Science

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Originally Posted by Dalzi

True, no scriptures say when earth was created and how old it is. We have to find that out via examination and science. I have no idea where people get these ideas from. Where on earth is there anything in the scriptures that even hints towards earth being a baby?

Precisely, this idea of a 7 thousand year old earth is purely a human invention.

Originally Posted by Ashlen

Could be... could be... could be... Ok, tell us how scientific those "could be" are. and then I'll change my mind.
The universe as it exists was not produced by some cosmic accident! Do you think a mere accident could create such a wonderful world? The conditions of creation were intricately planned and considered. It is clear to everyone that the world was an Intentional Creation.
A mindless uncontrolled "big bang" would result in destruction and chaos, not the life and order we now see.
Geophysicist John R. Baumgardner notes: "In the face of such stunningly unfavorable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we observe in living systems? To do so, with conscious awareness of these numbers, in my opinion represents a serious breach of scientific integrity."

Excellent observation. That is one of the best arguments for Creationism. What brought about the big bang? Did all these uncontrolled random events bring about life? The laws of probability tell us the Big Bang and the events that followed could not possibly have been accidental and random. The question that the atheistic scientific community cannot answer is, what caused the Primeval atom to come into existence? What is a world without space, time, gravity...? The only way an atom can come out of nothing is if it was caused by an uncaused cause, an Intelligent being who was not caused himself, but is of an eternal nature, always was and always will be. I'll quote my college Stellar Astronomy Professor; I asked him once, how did the Primeval atom come about, and what existed before? His answer was, "science begins after the big bang, we leave religion to explain the unexplainable on how a universe can rise out of nothing."

Originally Posted by chafic

I don't really see where my mistake is. You were talking about the wrongness of basing archaeological studies on carbon dating because it can't go back in time. I was just saying that there are different sorts of radiometric dating.

We can disagree on the carbon dating methods, but we agree that this earth is much older than 6,000 years. What you posted was directed at "Young Earth Creationists", which I think is ridicolous and contradicted by scripture.

As for the two ages thing, I would qualify it with anything but clear. Actually, there's nothing clear about it, it could be interpreted in a zillion ways. The whole idea of two ages separated by a gap is not scientific at all. One could say that there is a new age for earth since electricity was invented, another one when humans landed on the moon, and another when Britney Spears issued her album "Baby One More Time"....A new age, in the sense you're using, would mean a reset to 0 of all ages, because everything takes off from a beginning; Having dated fossils to way more than 14k years old is certain proof of the fallacy of the two ages story. I really wouldn't want to elaborate more on this idea.

Actually, science backs up what I am saying. Approx. 14,000 years ago, the earth underwent a "Katabole"; there is evidence of a massive global flood which coincided with the end of the last ice age causing mass extinctions. I will also suggest that the age of civilization (which was sparked by agriculture) coincided with the Creation of Adam, who was formed to "till the ground."

Originally Posted by Abu Ruman

So essentially, based on this logic, its saying that you and your cousins are not really cousins but just have the 'same creator.'

My logic is if I share similar DNA sequences with a primate, a cat or my cousin; it's because we live under the same earthly conditions, not because I evolved from them.

Not really. Based on every study and examination, all indications point to the consensus that our 35,000 year old ancestors were anatomically modern humans.

Physical evidences: more vertical forehead, cranial capacity (slightly different from present humans).

Behavioral evidences: the ability to paint, invent deities, utilize tools for their habitat and well-being, etc.

I dont have the slightest clue as to how all of this converges to less-human and more animal-like behaviorisms.

Have you ever held a skull replica of Homo habilis or Neanderthal? They are very much apes. In regards to modern humans pre-dating 14,000 years, I believe based on flawed dating techniques coupled with the scientific and academic communities eagerness to discredit Intelligent Design thereby discrediting the idea of a Creator, as well as outright fraud, which I gave examples of, the notion that modern flesh man existed 35,000 years ago is questionable to say the least. Again, how do you explain the million year old fossils of "human ancestors" in South America? How did they get from Africa to South America? Something didn't fit, so in order to make it fit, Evolutionists came up with rafting. Is that explanation good enough for you?

Actually, no. The cranial capacity of our late ancestors was larger than ours and considered a great progressive leap in our evolutionary line. The frontal lobes have expanded and developed greater figure, per our transition into human evolution.

Take Neanderthal as an example, I realize according to Evolution he is not our ancestor; but you're right, he had a large cranial capacity, but he also had a larger and bulkier body than humans, and his frontal lobes were small severely limiting intelligence. Just look at a replica, and you can see how the forhead is sloped. Everything else we know about how they lived suggests that they were very much ape-like with ape-like intelligence.

But there are many calibration methods, to amend possible errors. One method involves measuring the results against the age of the rings in trees (which obviously is a good source of invariance).

Why rely so heavily on current carbon dating methods if there is an obvious flaw?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Originally Posted by maroon1

Let us say that creationism is true

Then how did god create animals like rabbit, cats, dogs ? From where did those animals came from ? Did they just fell down from the Sky to the Earth ?

Some people here claim that evolution is illogical and magical ! But what about creationism ? To me it seems that creationism is by far much more illogical and by far much more magical than evolution (that if we assume that evolution is magical in the first place)

Ok Mr. Logic, then please explain: Did this universe come about by accident? Where did the building blocks come from, just rose out of the black hole in your mind?

[chafic]

Originally Posted by Gaius Julius Caesar

Ok Mr. Logic, then please explain: Did this universe come about by accident? Where did the building blocks come from, just rose out of the black hole in your mind?

Gaius Julius Caesar,

as I replied to Ashlen already, and that is very important, the theory of evolution takes off from the point at which there was a universe and a life, at its most simple form. How the universe came to existence is a whole different subject, that the theory of evolution doesn't tackle or pretend giving an answer for.

Of course, evolution strongly contradicts all creationist claims, in the field of evolution of life on earth; And, for a creationist, whose main argument is based on a perfect intelligent design, blowing one part of the story is blowing all, and I think that's what evolution theory, which is scientific and sustained by overwhelming evidents, did.

[Abu Ruman]

Originally Posted by Gaius Julius Caesar

My logic is if I share similar DNA sequences with a primate, a cat or my cousin; it's because we live under the same earthly conditions, not because I evolved from them.

My logic is very simple: I share a common grandfather with my cousins, just as I share a common ancestor with chimps.

Have you ever held a skull replica of Homo habilis or Neanderthal? They are very much apes.

I wish you would be more specific. Are you talking about apes, in particular? Chimps? Because the argument goes that humans and chimps are closely related. And its more redundant, than you make it seem.

Homo Habilis had a brain volume which was about 90% greater than that of chimps, but closer to apes, yet not symmetrical with apes. The internal structure of an ape's brain differs greatly from Homo Habilis, where the latter's shape and ridge, for example, is more akin to human's.

Neanderthals on the other hand had a very similar brain volume, to modern humans - to be precise, an entire order of magnitude larger than that of apes and chimps (which is a big leap). I'm still a bit staggered as to how you relate this as being closer to primates, than humans.

In regards to modern humans pre-dating 14,000 years, I believe based on flawed dating techniques coupled with the scientific and academic communities eagerness to discredit Intelligent Design thereby discrediting the idea of a Creator, as well as outright fraud, which I gave examples of, the notion that modern flesh man existed 35,000 years ago is questionable to say the least.

I cannot refute such a subjective claim.

Again, how do you explain the million year old fossils of "human ancestors" in South America? How did they get from Africa to South America? Something didn't fit, so in order to make it fit, Evolutionists came up with rafting. Is that explanation good enough for you?

Would you be kind enough to tell me which class of species, you're referring to exactly?

Take Neanderthal as an example, I realize according to Evolution he is not our ancestor; but you're right, he had a large cranial capacity, but he also had a larger and bulkier body than humans, and his frontal lobes were small severely limiting intelligence. Just look at a replica, and you can see how the forhead is sloped. Everything else we know about how they lived suggests that they were very much ape-like with ape-like intelligence.

As I already explained, the Neanderthal brain size was significantly larger than that of primates, to the point where no room for ambiguity remains. The shape of the frontal lobe is very much more congruent with modern humans; the prefrontal dimensions involved in complex input/output, are just like that of humans.

This is all responsible for the archaic religious rituals (e.g. burying the dead, recognizing death and beyond, etc.), inception of culture, utility of tools and any other human-like activities and behaviorisms which they practiced.

I dont like making superficial analyses, but here is a comparison between the Neanderthal and modern human:

Why rely so heavily on current carbon dating methods if there is an obvious flaw?

Because it works. Please dont confuse truth with tools. The dating method is a tool, with minor flaws, which can be adjusted (as I have already pointed out).

Its a convenient method which gives us accurate information about time and age.

[Ashlen]

I have already told you chafic but you keep insisting!
Science means to know and it is derived from observation and study. As you know, it is based on observation and experimentation. The thing is that Evolutionists don't know anything about man's origins... They guess, they suppose, but they don't "know." Honest scientists have become embarrassed at the confusing and contradictory theories that often passes as Science. They have watched their colleagues rushing to protect Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests!

Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...." There are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like creature to man!!
Neanderthal Man was simply a man with arthritis and ricket, and not the your much desired "ape man."
The world known Swiss Wilder-Smith who was considered to be an expert by the United Nations, confessed after seeing the fossilized dinosaur tracks and men prints "...all this makes evolution impossible."

You also forget to remind that Darwin (and his followers) were racists. They believed that black people were closer to the alleged ape men than white people.

Gaius Julius Caesar;728216]Ashlen, do you believe Adam & Eve were the first humans?

:) Gaius Caesar hi!
I happen to believe that Adam was the FIRST man to exist on planet earth, and EVE was the first woman. Science will prove that we ALL come from that one woman ancestry.

About the Age of Earth:

* I love this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZR022_GbzU

I have to say the Children of God always have such great Humor!

[Dalzi]

Originally Posted by Zouxi

the ex MP of HA Moussaoui (as jumblat said)...lolllllllll

Cousin Joe...

[chafic]

Originally Posted by Ashlen

I have already told you chafic but you keep insisting!
Science means to know and it is derived from observation and study. As you know, it is based on observation and experimentation. The thing is that Evolutionists don't know anything about man's origins... They guess, they suppose, but they don't "know." Honest scientists have become embarrassed at the confusing and contradictory theories that often passes as Science. They have watched their colleagues rushing to protect Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests!

Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...." There are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like creature to man!!
Neanderthal Man was simply a man with arthritis and ricket, and not the your much desired "ape man."
The world known Swiss Wilder-Smith who was considered to be an expert by the United Nations, confessed after seeing the fossilized dinosaur tracks and men prints "...all this makes evolution impossible."

You also forget to remind that Darwin (and his followers) were racists. They believed that black people were closer to the alleged ape men than white people.

Actually, after having replied to different points you mentioned (which are plain fallacies), you keep coming up with new ones. I don't think that's a fair game . It seems we're not heading anywhere.
But just in case, you might want to check Abu Ruman's posts; They are quite valuable and informative.

[Ashlen]

Originally Posted by maroon1

Let us say that creationism is true

Then how did god create animals like rabbit, cats, dogs ? From where did those animals came from ? Did they just fell down from the Sky to the Earth ?

Some people here claim that evolution is illogical and magical ! But what about creationism ? To me it seems that creationism is by far much more illogical and by far much more magical than evolution (that if we assume that evolution is magical in the first place)

Frankly, marron1!
I read some of your posts and quite frankly you are enough smart and cultured to ask a thing like that!
So you want the Bible to list each and every thing (rabbits, cats, dogs, horses, birds, mosquitos, etc) God created? You wouldn't be able to fit a book like that in the library of American Congress!
God created everything. What happened on it was part of His perfect plan, but he does not say "new bacteria now!", or "voila... welcome aboard, rabbits!". All the things in the Bible are there for a reason, if He wanted us to know the complete history of the world, He would have put it in there. The Bible is silent about many parts of the Creation. I believe it was held back for our good.
The curiosity killed the cat, marron.

[Abu Ruman]

Originally Posted by Ashlen

Science means to know and it is derived from observation and study. As you know, it is based on observation and experimentation. The thing is that Evolutionists don't know anything about man's origins... They guess, they suppose, but they don't "know." Honest scientists have become embarrassed at the confusing and contradictory theories that often passes as Science. They have watched their colleagues rushing to protect Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests!

Whatever steams your rice...

Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...." There are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like creature to man!!

First of all, it is evident from your posts that your issue is not just with the ape-man question, but with evolution itself. So, if you are asking for transitionary forms just in general (for any species) then the science is unequivocal.

Dozens of transitionary fossils have been found, for a broad range of species. We have catalogued evidences for fish, reptiles, amphibians, etc. The trend is staggering:



The question of chimp to man, is actually not that complicated - only people make it so.

For example, the brain size of Homo Habilis is in-between Homo Erectus and Australopithecus, as well as the apparent use of stone tools. Australopithecus itself was more chimp-like (although not chimp, obviously) while Habilis was more human-like. Then, some half a million years later after H. Habilis, a more modern hominid appeared with a larger brain than H. Habilis, but still smaller than H. Erectus.

As you can see, these are not very polarized features. They are quite transitionary and evolutionary. Even if we find this hypothetical 'missing link' there will still always be a smaller gap and creationists will exploit it for their own ideological ends. Even if we dont find """it""", how can you ignore these other fossils? It is obvious that they are not unevolved chimps and it is just as obvious that they are not fully evolved humans, yet they posess morphological characteristics of the evolutionary medium:



For you to say that over the stretch of the past 6 million years there is 'no transitionary evidence', is a quite - I'm sorry to say - ignorant statement.

Neanderthal Man was simply a man with arthritis and ricket, and not the your much desired "ape man."

I dare you to say this to a doctor, without getting a humorous response.

You seriously cannot expect to discuss these matters, with such an overly-simplified outlook, do you?

The evidence is clear: Neanderthal was a primitive human being in comparison to the anatomically modern humans (who are our ancestors). They were two different species.

The world known Swiss Wilder-Smith who was considered to be an expert by the United Nations, confessed after seeing the fossilized dinosaur tracks and men prints "...all this makes evolution impossible."

It would be nice if you would quit quoting creationists, because I can employ the same scheme with atheists. But for the sake of keeping this discussion as academic as possible, I am not doing that.

The only valid sources to be quoted are academic works.

You also forget to remind that Darwin (and his followers) were racists. They believed that black people were closer to the alleged ape men than white people.

First of all, who wasnt racist back then? Darwin was not a preacher or prophet from God, but just a man of his time. Its not important who he is, but what he delivered us. Einstein was a horrible husband and an incompetent father, who abandoned his family for fame, science, and mistresses. But does that mean his beautiful theory he discovered (which could have been just as easily stumbled upon by any other human being) is invalid?

Second of all, any evolutionary explanation for the phenotypical differences among modern-day organisms can be twisted by idealogues for whatever reason impelling them. Would it make me misogynist to say that, on average, there are some elementary physical differences between men and women? No, of course not. Thats simply an academic-scientific analysis of the human and female body. Any doctor or anatomist can tell you that.

I hope you get my point.

[Ashlen]

Originally Posted by Abu Ruman

First of all, who wasnt racist back then? Darwin was not a preacher or prophet from God, but just a man of his time. Its not important who he is, but what he delivered us. Einstein was a horrible husband and an incompetent father, who abandoned his family for fame, science, and mistresses. But does that mean his beautiful theory he discovered (which could have been just as easily stumbled upon by any other human being) is invalid?

Yeah everyone was racist, I agree, but you cannot compare different situations, Abu Raman. Listen, Einstein didn't make a theory about family. So if he was a bad husband that's his wife's problem, not ours. Darwin made a theory saying that blacks are closer to ape men than whites. If this part of his theory is wrong, then the rest can be too.

Evolution has been, for almost a century, trying to find a fish skeleton changing into a dog or some animal between the change from one form of life to another but only found dirt and bones that prove the Creation account of each kind of animal being made seperately.

When people came up with these weird theories, they had no idea how complicated life is especially on the microscopic level... Today they can manipulate DNA that already exists, but they can't create DNA even in the most advanced labs! Yet they persist in saying life began in a mud puddle!