Jump to content
Science Forums

What makes Creationism so hard to believe in, and evolution so easy?


eMTee

Recommended Posts

You all can simply explain in sciebtific form, all of the ways evolution works in the big picture. But are you not boggled at the small things when in great detail they are so put togeather with hundreds, thousands or maybe even millions of vital parts? Consider the human eye for only one example. you look at the Earth and you see just a glimps of what it is, the further you look, the more detailed and complex it is.

Amazing, isn't it?

 

don't you like a life with no complications?

Doesn't matter much what I or anyone else wants.

 

you cannot get it here on Earth...and you choose evolution...it is so complicated, and gets even more so with every look you take...and just to think, it all happened by chance....How much of a chance will you have that you find a ancient 400 AD cell phone in the findings you find?

No, evolution is not a theory of sheer chance. If it was, would we be here? Sure, random mutations do have a role, but natural selection is not random.

 

To believe in creation...it seems more likely, because it does not have so much scientific complications.

It's probably easier to believe in if you do away with the complex reality. It's not more likely because it appeals to someone.

 

I hear alot about the way the big picture evolved, but what about the zillions of parts that make it up?

 

This is just a scientific question: can everything be made up of the malicules of water? not hydrogen and oxygine, but the things that make them up also

Not everything is made up by water...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can any Athiest look at somone bluntly and say with an honest answer that they honestly believe that evolution is the way and has all the solid proof and evidence that they have no question about it being the truth? yes or no?

Yes, and so can a lot of theists as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, "Gee it's just so darned complex that there just must be a God". That's the entirity of your anti-evolution, pro-Creation argument?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Oh no, they have the bombardier beetle too. And the moon dust is all wrong, and the rings of Saturn can't be older than a hundred million years! Surely proof of their favourite myth!

 

Truth is, the Genesis-creationists have no single piece of evidence that would support any of the multitude of interpretations of their myth. They do have plenty of arguments that attempt to attack evolution, but even if they would succeed at that, it would still be no evidence for Genesis. And in the process of "attacking" evolution, they also attack geology, astronomy, cosmology and archaeology, and even physics, and others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't mass extinction events tend to result in a concentration of fossils for that particular time, whereas the normal cycle of life and death is a bit of a lottery as to whether you even get any fossils at all (ref: Buffy's quote earlier)?... Maybe we should expect the gaps in the fossil record to be uneven.
Well, we can certainly posulate some number of catastrophic events (e.g., other than the broadly accepted Yucatan asteroid that probably took out the dinosaurs) and that avenue is worth investigating further. But it would seem to be implausible that essentially every phylum was wiped out and life subsequently started anew with new phyla. There should be any number of bridges between phyla, and there really are only rare examples. We don't see serially graduated complexity, we generally see parallel complexity, punctuated by relatively rapid (200 million year) dramatic shifts in phyla.

 

I think it is also troublesome to explain how the original promoridal life forms use the same fundamental biochemical machinery that later, more complex forms use. Why do we (almost) always see the use of the same 20 amino acids? Why the same four bases in the nucleutides? If these are the tools that are so flexible and powerful that they can generate highly complex multicellular, mulit-embronic-plate mammals, wouldn't we expect to see some progenitor that used a simpler system? Is the 4-base, 20 amino acid model the only one that works at all, irrespective of complexity of life form?

 

Things that make you go "Hmmmm".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What malicules or matter is carbon made of?

 

Why do you deny the abuility of a worldwide flood,

and how can people find petrified clamshells in random places on the tops of mountains?

 

I also think that your carbon dateing method is flawfull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

those are just barely elevated mountain ranges in america though..i would have thought that this shell claim was more vast. america was once covered in ice bergs, right? so this doesn't surprise me at all, not does it prove anything of a wordwide flood with religious ties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I don't think there are any religious ties at all, I was just supplying the link... It is believed that mountains were created from two plates smashing together, meaning that there used to be water between them. This makes perfect scientific sense to me for the fossils to be there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, sorry, but he asked for sources, so I gave them.

 

In a way that breaks the forum rules.

 

rockytriton: I guess I need to be spanked.

 

I'm sorry, is "being cute" supposed to excuse you from following the rules of posting here, and from being held responsible for baiting people and lying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eMTee: What malicules or matter is carbon made of?

 

Read up on basic chemistry or basic physics.

 

 

eMTee: Why do you deny the abuility of a worldwide flood,

 

Of the Creationist kind …

 

“Why I left Young-earth Creationism

by Glenn R. Morton

Copyright 2000 by Glenn R. Morton. This may be freely distributed so long as no changes are made to the text and no charges are made to the reader.

 

For years I struggled to understand how the geologic data I worked with everyday could be fit into a Biblical perspective. Being a physics major in college I had no geology courses. Thus, as a young Christian, when I was presented with the view that Christians must believe in a young-earth and global flood, I went along willingly. I knew there were problems but I thought I was going to solve them. When I graduated from college with a physics degree, physicists were unemployable since NASA had just laid a bunch of them off. I did graduate work in philosophy and then decided to leave school to support my growing family. Even after a year, physicists were still unemployable. After six months of looking, I finally found work as a geophysicist working for a seismic company. Within a year, I was processing seismic data for Atlantic Richfield.

 

This was where I first became exposed to the problems geology presented to the idea of a global flood. I would see extremely thick (30,000 feet) sedimentary layers. One could follow these beds from the surface down to those depths where they were covered by vast thicknesses of sediment. I would see buried mountains which had experienced thousands of feet of erosion, which required time. Yet the sediments in those mountains had to have been deposited by the flood, if it was true. I would see faults that were active early but not late and faults that were active late but not early. I would see karsts and sinkholes (limestone erosion) which occurred during the middle of the sedimentary column (supposedly during the middle of the flood) yet the flood waters would have been saturated in limestone and incapable of dissolving lime. It became clear that more time was needed than the global flood would allow.(See http://www.seg.org/publications/geoarchive/1996/sep-oct/geo6105r1336.pdf for an article showing an example of a deeply buried karst. For a better but bigger (3.4 meg) version of that paper see http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/97/97ng/ng97_pdf/NG4-1.PDF

 

One also finds erosional canyons buried in the earth. These canyons would require time to

excavate, just like the time it takes to erode the Grand Canyon. This picture was downloaded from a site which is now gone from the web. It was http://ic.ucsc.edu/~casey/eart168/3DInterpretation/Deltain3d1.gif

 

I worked hard over the next few years to solve these problems. I published 20+ items in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. I would listen to ICR, have discussions with people like Slusher, Gish, Austin, Barnes and also discuss things with some of their graduates that I had hired. In order to get closer to the data and know it better, with the hope of finding a solution, I changed subdivisions of my work in 1980. I left seismic processing and went into seismic interpretation where I would have to deal with more geologic data. My horror at what I was seeing only increased. There was a major problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian. Doubts about what I was writing and teaching began to grow. Unfortunately, my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems. No one could give me a model which allowed me to unite into one cloth what I believed on Sunday and what I was forced to believe by the data Monday through Friday. I was living the life of a double-minded man--believing two things. By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to a nearly 10 year withdrawal from publication. My last young-earth paper was entitled Geologic Challenges to a Young-earth, which I presented as the first paper in the First International Conference on Creationism. It was not well received. Young-earth creationists don't like being told they are wrong. The reaction to the pictures, seismic data, the logic disgusted me. They were more interested in what I sounded like than in the data!

…” (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm)

 

 

 

next…

 

eMTee: and how can people find petrified clamshells in random places on the tops of mountains?

 

Mountains weren’t always mountains. Read up on plate tectonics.

 

eMTee: I also think that your carbon dateing method is flawfull.

 

And? Do you think scientists use carbon-14 dating to calculate the age of the Earth or the age of dinosaur fossils? Read up on radiometric dating.

 

 

 

You said you read up on all the science related to evolution.

 

eMTee: I read all about the evolution of the universe, and many of the theories change every so often(which may not be widely advertised do to some reason or other)...I read about the theories of this, the theories of that, those theories these theories.

 

and

 

eMTee: I read all about the theories that evolution is made of,

 

So far you've shown that you don't know basic chemistry, basic physics, and basic geology. Hope you are better at biology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...