Evolution & Creationism Debate at Museum

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

There is plenty of evidence for creation, it's the same evidence used for evolution in many cases, just interpreted differently. Please don't mischaracterize creationism as a position with no support. There are plenty of reputable scientists who not only believe it but do research in it (check out http://www.icr.org/). For example, there is the hot field of Flood geology. Did you know that you can more easily explain the current composition and condition of the earth via Noah's Flood? That is our explanation of why the earth appears so old: giant flood = jumble up fossils (that's why birds often appear above larger animals, they managed to escape the flood for longer) + leach out radioisotopes.

By the way, large parts of the earth have been determined to have been under water at one time or another, which makes sense.

Now here are some problems for an old earth, which evolution requires: explain how you can have carbon-14 in a several million year old diamond? Also, explain how rocks from the recent Mt. St. Helens eruption date to several million years old? The answer the scientific community gives is that the methods were incorrectly applied, except for the small problem that the analysis was performed by an independant lab that didn't know the motive behind the research. Interesting how it magically must be invalid because it contradicts current opinion.

Oh, here's the kicker: explain polystrate fossils (i.e. trees that were fossilized and extend thru layers of strata dating millions of years apart).

It's not an old earth, it's flawed assumptions.

1) Every example you are citing is misleadingly being construed as evidence. Many major theologies cite examples of a Great Flood - having studied sociology, we can deduce that regional floods that are especially catastrophic, those that destroy crops, cause social upheaval, etc. are the source for stories like this.

You also happen to be ignoring all other problems with a literal interpretation of Noah's Flood, (many of which are listed here). You claim that the fossils we have found were "jumbled by the flood." Please explain what you mean by this because I feel you're conveniently ignoring fatal flaws within each argument and selectively picking portions of them to try and support Creationism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IPGwAf0Ivw

Yes, large parts of the Earth have been determined to have been under water at some point...but there's no evidence to suggest that the Earth was submerged in water at any given time. In fact, records of human development in the Americas show uninterrupted growth up until the time the Mayas disappeared...and at this time (simultaneously), the Teotihuacan, the Olmecs, other civs still lived and thrived, in fact, the Niger Valley People of W Africa still lived. There is no evidence to suggest that all humans, except for Noah and his family, were wiped off the planet Earth...there is too much genetic diversity for that to be the case.

2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKGMqCqWpNc The Earth is most certainly not young.

3) Here is an article that explains "polystrate fossils" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

EDIT: Here is something interesting I stumbled across; it sheds light on what you had mentioned earlier, the generation of new genetic information: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/origins-of-new-genes-and-pseudogenes-835

And Sketchup, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdddbYILel0&feature=player_detailpage#t=520, I've lifted a portion of a very well-presented video to address your concerns. Please feel free to watch the whole thing should you so choose.

[Hobo]

If evolutionary theory was entirely free from error, then there would be unequally developed humans. By necessity, a belief in evolution requires belief in Social Darwinism. Congratulations, you are now a proponent of imperialism, racial cleansing, and a variety of other lovely policies. Just another reason why mainstream liberalism is paradoxical at best.

I feel like there's a difference between "i think evolution happens" and "i am an avid supporter of evolution"

[(SWGO)DesertEagle]

There is plenty of evidence for creation, it's the same evidence used for evolution in many cases, just interpreted differently. Please don't mischaracterize creationism as a position with no support. There are plenty of reputable scientists who not only believe it but do research in it (check out http://www.icr.org/). For example, there is the hot field of Flood geology. Did you know that you can more easily explain the current composition and condition of the earth via Noah's Flood? That is our explanation of why the earth appears so old: giant flood = jumble up fossils (that's why birds often appear above larger animals, they managed to escape the flood for longer) + leach out radioisotopes.

By the way, large parts of the earth have been determined to have been under water at one time or another, which makes sense.

Now here are some problems for an old earth, which evolution requires: explain how you can have carbon-14 in a several million year old diamond? Also, explain how rocks from the recent Mt. St. Helens eruption date to several million years old? The answer the scientific community gives is that the methods were incorrectly applied, except for the small problem that the analysis was performed by an independant lab that didn't know the motive behind the research. Interesting how it magically must be invalid because it contradicts current opinion.

Oh, here's the kicker: explain polystrate fossils (i.e. trees that were fossilized and extend thru layers of strata dating millions of years apart).

It's not an old earth, it's flawed assumptions.

1) Every example you are citing is misleadingly being construed as evidence. Many major theologies cite examples of a Great Flood - having studied sociology, we can deduce that regional floods that are especially catastrophic, those that destroy crops, cause social upheaval, etc. are the source for stories like this.

You also happen to be ignoring all other problems with a literal interpretation of Noah's Flood, (many of which are listed here). You claim that the fossils we have found were "jumbled by the flood." Please explain what you mean by this because I feel you're conveniently ignoring fatal flaws within each argument and selectively picking portions of them to try and support Creationism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IPGwAf0Ivw

Yes, large parts of the Earth have been determined to have been under water at some point...but there's no evidence to suggest that the Earth was submerged in water at any given time. In fact, records of human development in the Americas show uninterrupted growth up until the time the Mayas disappeared...and at this time (simultaneously), the Teotihuacan, the Olmecs, other civs still lived and thrived, in fact, the Niger Valley People of W Africa still lived. There is no evidence to suggest that all humans, except for Noah and his family, were wiped off the planet Earth...there is too much genetic diversity for that to be the case.

2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKGMqCqWpNc The Earth is most certainly not young.

3) Here is an article that explains "polystrate fossils" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

EDIT: Here is something interesting I stumbled across; it sheds light on what you had mentioned earlier, the generation of new genetic information: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/origins-of-new-genes-and-pseudogenes-835

And Sketchup, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdddbYILel0&feature=player_detailpage#t=520, I've lifted a portion of a very well-presented video to address your concerns. Please feel free to watch the whole thing should you so choose.

1) So it's okay to have multiple regional floods but not a worldwide one because that would contradict current opinion. As far as this genetic diversity goes, Creationists theorize that it was all contained in Noah and his sons. This makes more sense than your view because again, no one has ever demonstrated genetic diversity to increase, only to decrease, meaning that information is lost ("specialized") and never gained. On that point alone you have major issues.

Yes there are many problems with a global flood that are not yet solved, but it happens to solve many problems itself. Think about it: you have a large dinosaur and a small lizard, which one do you think would escape the flood first? The dinosaur is larger and less affected by rain so it would probably be able to escape for somewhat longer, while the lizard would be swamped earlier. Therefore, you would expect to see the lizard below the dinosaur in the fossil strata.

2) Again, a er of interpretation. An old earth can also be explained as a flooded one. You choose the former, I chose the later. I feel the earth is most certainly young.

3) I skimmed the article, and I don't see how they are explaining it.

As to the point on the generation of new information, gene duplication is still not creating information, just duplicating what already exists. Also, that article is just a hypothesis, show me an actual case of information being generated.

I don't ask you to embrace my view, just understand that I have my reasons for believing it. As long as it remains at that, all is well. There are very good reasons to believe evolution and good ones to believe creationism. There is nothing I can say that will convince you of Creationism being true unless you chose to be convinced anymore than I can be convinced of evolution unless I chose to be convinced. Sort of a gut feeling thing. We then paint the evidence around us to support our views.

What concerns me is when people try to paint Creationists out to be anti-science people, which is totally and completely untrue. We are not in Lala land here, we use actual science. We use the scientific method as rigerously as anyone else. The wonderful thing is that we can debate origins without affecting research in other areas of science. We love to fight over how we got here, but it doesn't stop us from working together on what we are going to do now that we are here :P. As for how things are currently happening, we tend to agree more than disagree.

I believe the reason Creationism excites such a strong response is because Creationism generally flows from Christianity, which is polarizing. Either you love it or you are repulsed by it, rarely are you indifferent to it.

[11_Panama_]

Watch this... science stumped. Quick overview... a statue of Christ in South America cries and bleeds. DNA tests are done of the blood and tears (3 labs in 3 different countries), they prove it's human but bizarrely enough.. cannot find it's DNA profile (in all 3 labs). The real weird part.. the statue's face changes. It went from a docile appearance, to agony. Real weird.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz9L2EYjjsc

[CommanderOtto]

If people don't want to believe that God created them, then I can't do anything about it. But, I just don't understand why people find it so hard to believe in God or other beings higher than us when there are so many things science can't explain. Let's turn things around...How can someone deny that satanists exist for example? If Satan exists, that means other spiritual beings like demons and Angels and God must exist as well. Sure, there's a lot of fake crap out there, but some people do speak to demons, some few magicians can do real stuff like levitating, others can see the future, and others get possessed... that is enough proof to me that spiritual things exist. Thus, I study the Bible... because I know I am protected from those evil things if I follow God's laws. If spiritual things exist, then God exists. If the Bible says God can't lie, then he can't lie. If he said he created humans, then to me evolution is wrong. And plus, if evolution was fact or law, nobody would believe in God.

[-)G(-Sawyer]

here is a comprehensive lecture on Noah and his big boat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqnI6_DT6YQ

[(SWGO)DesertEagle]

If people don't want to believe that God created them, then I can't do anything about it. But, I just don't understand why people find it so hard to believe in God or other beings higher than us when there are so many things science can't explain. Let's turn things around...How can someone deny that satanists exist for example? If Satan exists, that means other spiritual beings like demons and Angels and God must exist as well. Sure, there's a lot of fake crap out there, but some people do speak to demons, some few magicians can do real stuff like levitating, others can see the future, and others get possessed... that is enough proof to me that spiritual things exist. Thus, I study the Bible... because I know I am protected from those evil things if I follow God's laws. If spiritual things exist, then God exists. If the Bible says God can't lie, then he can't lie. If he said he created humans, then to me evolution is wrong. And plus, if evolution was fact or law, nobody would believe in God.

Basically, there is a lot of non natural things out there that science does not deal with. Doesn't mean they aren't real, just not the focus of study. Because of that, it is completely reliant on your personal beliefs. From this, you select your scientific model of choice.

[Mandalore]

Odin have mercy on your souls, you will not go to the halls of Valhalla if you do not repent!

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

1) So it's okay to have multiple regional floods but not a worldwide one because that would contradict current opinion. As far as this genetic diversity goes, Creationists theorize that it was all contained in Noah and his sons. This makes more sense than your view because again, no one has ever demonstrated genetic diversity to increase, only to decrease, meaning that information is lost ("specialized") and never gained. On that point alone you have major issues.

Yes there are many problems with a global flood that are not yet solved, but it happens to solve many problems itself. Think about it: you have a large dinosaur and a small lizard, which one do you think would escape the flood first? The dinosaur is larger and less affected by rain so it would probably be able to escape for somewhat longer, while the lizard would be swamped earlier. Therefore, you would expect to see the lizard below the dinosaur in the fossil strata.

2) Again, a er of interpretation. An old earth can also be explained as a flooded one. You choose the former, I chose the later. I feel the earth is most certainly young.

3) I skimmed the article, and I don't see how they are explaining it.

As to the point on the generation of new information, gene duplication is still not creating information, just duplicating what already exists. Also, that article is just a hypothesis, show me an actual case of information being generated.

I don't ask you to embrace my view, just understand that I have my reasons for believing it. As long as it remains at that, all is well. There are very good reasons to believe evolution and good ones to believe creationism. There is nothing I can say that will convince you of Creationism being true unless you chose to be convinced anymore than I can be convinced of evolution unless I chose to be convinced. Sort of a gut feeling thing. We then paint the evidence around us to support our views.

What concerns me is when people try to paint Creationists out to be anti-science people, which is totally and completely untrue. We are not in Lala land here, we use actual science. We use the scientific method as rigerously as anyone else. The wonderful thing is that we can debate origins without affecting research in other areas of science. We love to fight over how we got here, but it doesn't stop us from working together on what we are going to do now that we are here :P. As for how things are currently happening, we tend to agree more than disagree.

I believe the reason Creationism excites such a strong response is because Creationism generally flows from Christianity, which is polarizing. Either you love it or you are repulsed by it, rarely are you indifferent to it.

1) Yes, multiple regional floods have taken place but never simultaneously. If you believe that the Earth is between 6-15 thousand years old, you must also believe that the flood took place between then and now. We have records of uninterrupted human development in all parts of the globe for the duration of that time. There is NEVER a period of time in which all civilizations fade into nonexistence.

2) A- No, because the Earth is Old, we have the soil composition we do, the life forms we have, etc. A flood can't explain why the dating procedures we have all indicate that the Earth is ~4.6 billion years old.
B - How do you propose complex organisms such as ours developed within a 6 thousand year span?
C-We have fossil records of animals that would not survive the modern climate, nor would they have anything to subsist on. Scientists have dated major eras in world history; currently, we live in the Holocene. Temperature fluctuations, glacial drifts spurring on terrain changes, etc. have been mapped and traced for millions of years past.
D) The diversity of animal and plant life, the genome, mutations, etc. all support evolutionary thinking.

3) Science isn't a monolithic entity, but you speak of it as though it is. There are researchers in different fields and experts on multiple sides of an issue constantly conducting experiments and engaging in intellectual debate. Science is a work-in-progress; it doesn't claim to have all the answers, rather it maintains there is a need to continue searching. What isn't definitive yet will either become so or be refuted, and the human race will be the better for it.

[Duel of Fates]

Odin have mercy on your souls, you will not go to the halls of Valhalla if you do not repent!

"There can be only One."