Evolution or Creationism?

Originally posted by gcle2003 A theory claiming to be scientific can be disproven in two ways. 1) Predictions that are deduced from it fail to come true when tested. 2) No predictions deduced from it can be tested in order to determine if they are untrue. 1) The creationist theory that the world sprang suddenly into existence on January 1 1950 leads to the prediction that there would be no historical or other records of events before then. Obviously we have plenty of such records, so obviously the the theory is disproven under category 1. 2) The failure of the prediction that there would be no historical records antedating 1950 can be explained away by asserting that any such 'records' are actually fakes dreamed up by a bamboozling trickster God. However, in that case no prediction based on the theory can be shown to fail to come true, so the theory is disproven under category 2. Of course that does not disprove the NON-scientific theory that the world was created at the stroke of midnight on 31 December 1949, and if you want to go on arguing that it was, then you can go on doing so for ever, and I won't object as long as you're kept under supervision and kept well away from anything to do with educating children. (You can if you want substitute any other date for 1/1/1950 - my birthday might be good - but it wouldn't change any of the arguments.)

I was about to respond to your post, but then decided to heed your advice about educating small children...

Ah, what the hey, I do love small children

I shall first address your misconceptions about the nature of 'science'. I will agree, that when predictions fail to come true then you can successfully disprove the current form of any scientific theory.

However, your second point is quite frankly ignorant to an extreme degree. You may, sir/madame, have heard of Einstein's theories about the nature of the particle, or any such theory. No-one has successfully proven electrons, gluons, protons, etc exist. The theory of the Big Bang has never been successfully "tested". Have you seen any proof of the big bang? I thought not. Neither has evolution ever been successfully tested. I've never seen a half-monkey, nor a half-dinosaur, nor any of the so-called "missing links". That's an important fact to remember, there are just about an infinite number of missing links. So, if you want to exclude theories who can't be proven then you can be the one to exhume and crucify Einstein, Darwin and Lemaitre.

I also find your choice of date quite amusing, especially seeing as 'creationism' outdates any other explanations for the beginning of the universe. Whereas evidence for evolution and the big bang are circumstancial at best, contradictory on average and often in direct contradiction to the law itself, creationism is supported by alot of evidence. The lead scientist on the human genome project converted to christianity after his work was complete, claiming that only intelligent design could possibly result in what he found. He described the human gene as a brilliant work of art by God. He was a strong atheist before he began. I don't ask that creationism be put in science text books, it is religion. What I do ask, is that evolution is removed as it's quite frankly a load of 'hooey'.

I had to study some biology as part of my science degree, although it was quite a while ago now, the one example I do remember is of the �Peppered moth�.

The moth was a light brown colour and found over all parts of northern Europe. During the industrial revolution however it was found that the colourings of the moth changed to a dark brown / black colour within city areas.

After the industrial revolution and with the advent of the clean air act, buildings weren�t so covered in soot and started returning back to there original brick colour.

The dark version of the peppered moth also disappeared.

So according to Darwin�s theory, the black version of the peppered moth was a mutant, that found it was better camouflaged against the soot covered buildings than the lighter coloured version, and so it prospered.

So I would be interested to hear a creationist view of how the peppered moth changed its colours.

So let me get this straight, knights. You say: please give me evidence that the world is older than 6000 years. But you can only use documentry evidence. Scientific methods are somehow not reliable. Since writing only appeared about 5500 years ago, this is an impossible task.

Your task therefore is impossible, since it is not a question of finding evidence that the world is older than 6-7000 years ago, it is a question of finding written evidence from before there was writing. That is complete bulls**t!

There are hundreds of different scientific methods used in archeology, geology, biology and astronomy, which show dates earlier than 6-7000 years ago, but none of them are not "controversial" for you.

Originally posted by Lotus I had to study some biology as part of my science degree, although it was quite a while ago now, the one example I do remember is of the �Peppered moth�. The moth was a light brown colour and found over all parts of northern Europe. During the industrial revolution however it was found that the colourings of the moth changed to a dark brown / black colour within city areas. After the industrial revolution and with the advent of the clean air act, buildings weren�t so covered in soot and started returning back to there original brick colour. The dark version of the peppered moth also disappeared. So according to Darwin�s theory, the black version of the peppered moth was a mutant, that found it was better camouflaged against the soot covered buildings than the lighter coloured version, and so it prospered. So I would be interested to hear a creationist view of how the peppered moth changed its colours.

Hello Lotus,
I would be honoured to give you my view and the facts behind this 'evolutionary evidence'.

The Peppered Moth Story

Peppered Moths (Biston betularia) is a temperate climate moth, found with two distinct colourations - black (melanistic) and whitish - both are still the exact same species. Prior to the Industrial Revolution in Europe, the trees which Peppered Moths hid on were covered with amounts of lichen of a light colour. The white contingent of the Peppered moth gene pool found it easier to survive because of the camouflage protection the lichen offered. The Melanistic Peppered Moths however struggled to stay hidden and were therefore picked off more easily by predators. The decline in Melanistic Moths increased the gene pool of the white Peppered Moths.
As the Industrial Revolution set in, pollution killed the lichen off, revealing the darker bark of the trees. This made camouflage more favourable for the Melanistic Peppered Moths, and in turn, the White Moths were taken by predators reducing the White Moth gene pool to 2% and that of the Melanistic ones to 98%.
With the introduction of acts and initiatives regarding pollution control, the lichen began to make a comeback - providing another oppurtunity for the White Peppered Moth gene pool to even out again.

This is a prime evidence used by evolutionists to promote natural selection as the mechanism for change in a species, eventually leading to new species (macroevolution). Well they have another thing coming.
The Peppered Moth example is a superb example of adaptation within a species. Nothing within the genetic coding has been introduced, only changed in ratio over the entire gene pool. There is no new DNA/genetic coding introduced - and therefore there is no new species, still the exact same Peppered Moths. This in no way whatsoever is evidence for evolution.

Furthermore, much controversy has surrounded this topic of late, with fraudulent practice being uncovered in the process of the Peppered Moth saga. Peppered Moths of both colours were captured and either 1) Released nearby lichen/non-lichen covered trees to provide visual evidence or 2) killed and glued to trees! 'Now that's just not cricket'. Not only do they rig evidence so that public don't get the truth, but they forget that Peppered Moths do not tend to roost on tree trunks during full daylight hours (when the photos were shot). Much support even suggests the whole story was faked, but I wouldn't go that far.

The Peppered Moth Example is not an evidence for evolution, but for adaptation and intra-specific variation. The two colours acting as an insurance and in order to give the best chance in an environmental amendment. Sounds like an intelligent idea to me.

- Knights -

Originally posted by Zaitsev You're quite right Decebal, it is "bulls**t. The dating methods are, that is. Contrary to popular belief the most common form of dating, radiocarbon dating, is completely flawed. Carbon 14, used in radiocarbon dating, has a half-life of approximately 5730 years, meaning 1/2 its mass decays in 5730 years. Now, let us take the assumption that the earth is just under 14 billion years old. Even leaving several billion years for carbon-14 to first appear, there would still remain today such a miniscule quantity that it would be deemed fully decayed and would no longer be in any way reliable for dating. The underlying assumptions for the system are not only presumptuous, but also quite wrong. I shall give you a couple of examples to demonstrate my point. A newly formed piece of rock from Mt. St. Helens, about 25 years old, was taken to scientists for carbon dating. The scientists were not informed of the origin of the sample, and concluded that it was 300,000 years old. Carbon dating has also achieved the miracle of finding the longest living creature in the world - a small molusk celebrating its 3 millionth birthday.

If I may continue...though Carbon-14 is formed in the Troposphere/Stratosphere (gaseous) by Thermal Neutrons that are absorbed by Nitrogen atoms. After reacting with cosmic rays in the atmosphere Carbon-14 and Hydrogen form as the product. Now this may explain the naturally occuring presence of C-14 in the atmosphere, but what about in geological and biological structures? Carbon-14 decays through beta-decay. This is where an electron is emitted. Carbon-14 would be practically non-existant in any geological formations or structures due purely to that fact that it would have all decayed. No new Carbon-14 can be created within the earth's core or even crust/mantle.etc. because the atmospheric components are not present. If the earth is billions of years old then no Carbon-14 should be found in say Coal, and especially Diamond because of where it is formed - the earth's core. But wait, how can use Carbon-14 dating if there won't [shouldn't] be any Radiocarbon there?

If, however, the universe and earth only 6,000 or so years old, then Carbon-14 would still exist in rocks and minerals. Many tests by RATE on coal samples from right around the world have shown firm evidence of the existence of Carbon-14 in all of the samples meaning they couldn't be older than a few thousand years old. Accurate dating estimates the coal to have formed around 5,670 years ago, very close to our estimates of when the Great Flood occured. Tests by RATE were also done on Diamonds and Carbon-14 was present in every single diamond sample. What more could you want. Radiocarbon exists in geological components of our earth - the earth is young.

- Knights -

Originally posted by bg_turk His second point holds. Any acceptable scientific theory has to be falsifiable through testing. Testing can be either observational or experimental. In the case of the big bang most of the evidence is observational - the red shift of receding galaxies, the microwave background, etc. Einstein's theory is a brilliant masterpiece which has been proven time and time again either through observations, and in some cases even experimentation. Clocks running slower in orbit, light rays bending around the Sun as observed through solar eclipses, particle accelerators, close binary star systems, Mercury's precession, are all consistent and agree to unprecedented accuracy with the predictions of Special and General relativity. Scientists are now looking for gravitational radiation, which was predicted by Einstein long time ago.

Let me first commend you on your brilliant effort at sounding intelligent while uttering only idiocy. A scientific theory does not have to be proven, otherwise science would not advance. How long did it take for Einstein's theory to be proven? Was it proven the second it was proposes? No. Was evidence later produced? Yes. Should it have been rejected until that time? No, it should not. You see? Science will, at times, require a theory to be accepted, as a theory, until such time as it can be proven. I submit to you the example of the spherical shape of the earth. How long was it between someone proposing the Earth was spherical until we could actually prove as much? Thousands of years, depending on who you believe. Even Galileo said it a long time before it could be proven.

The kind of proof you proceed to talk about supporting Einstein's theories and the Big Bang theory are of equal, if not lesser, value as that supporting creationism. They are the same kind of "proofs" that successfully established that the earth was the centre of the universe. They all support small facets of the theories, but hardly prove them to be true. It would, indeed, be similar to me saying "The world exists", "the Euphrates river exists", "there is pain in child birth", therefore the bible is entirely 100% true. Just to help you out, this is what you call "circumstancial".

Originally posted by bg_turk Good rhetoric, but with nothing to back it up worthless nonetheless. What evidence exactly is "circumstancial" and "contradictory"?  Do you even know what evidence the big bang and evolution are actually based on?

Now that we have learnt the word "circumstancial", we can move on to the word "contradictory", which should be a little easier because it's shorter. Contradictory means that the two statements, which exist in a state of contradiction, cannot both be true. This would include such things as:

"At a point in time before time existed, the universe spontaneously came into existence." - The Big Bang theory.

The following statements also contradict:

"Animals evolve to be more complicated."

"New chromosomes cannot be created."

Now that we've concluded our lesson for today, we can move on to more sophisticated topics, such as thinking for one's self.

Originally posted by bg_turk What are your scienfic credentials to label evolution as a load of 'hooey'?

You don't need any credentials beyond basic intelligence to determine this. I'm sorry if I'm implied something with the complicated term "hooey", but that was actually intended as a euphemism for a somewhat less complicated one.

Originally posted by bg_turk This whole debate on evolution reminds me of a court case in the American South, where a student sued his school for teaching that PI=3.14, because according to the Bible it must be equal to 3. He won the case, and was granted the right to learn that PI=3.

It is horribly like that. Unfortunately the evolutionists won the court case, and now our pies are all messed up. Personally I have no stance on pie, unless it's hot and crispy. I heard a man say this once:

"In grammar school they taught us that a frog turning into a prince was a fairy tale. In university they taught the frog turning into the prince was fact."

Originally posted by Lotus As mentioned before, that's an example of adaptation... not evolution. Adaptation is another theory proposed by the French botanist Jean-Baptiste. The classic theory of adaptation is of the giraffe � it got its long neck by continually stretching to reach the leaves on trees. The peppered moth has been used as a text book example to explain evolution by natural selection.

Jean-Batptise Lamarck proposed the theory of 'inheritance of acquired traits' - which was later discredited. This involved the passing on of characteristics which an organism acquired during its life. For example if a rhino has its horn removed during its life, Lamarck proposed that the genetic information would be hereditary and the offspring would have a chance of being born without horns. This was scientifcally disproven through bio-genetic law and logic. Your 'classic' example of adaptation is rather similar to that of Lamarck's discredited theory - Giraffes extend their necks ever so slightly in their life and therefore pass the trait of a longer neck on to offspring, then over generations the necks extend. Adaptation is intra-specific only. It allows an organism to survive better, be the 'fittest' to put it ironically. Natural Selection does not create new information, it just changes the gene pool ratio within a species causing a loss of information in some cases (for example:50% White Persian Cats and 50% Red Persian Cats. The owner decides to kill off the Red coloured Persians and does this through only selecting the White ones to breed - Natural Selection. The White Persians are the fittest because their owners wants to keep them alive and going, while Natural Selection in the form of the owner roots out the Black Persians. Eventually, because the Whites are the 'fittest' to survive they gain a 100% control over the gene pool of the cats. No new information is created through this process of natural selection, but genetic information is lost!)

- Knights -

Is there anyone here who believes the world is 6000 yrs old?

Originally posted by malizai_ Is there anyone here who believes the world is 6000 yrs old?

No, it's 6023 years, 2 months and 7 days old. Give or take a couple of hours.

Originally posted by malizai_ Is there anyone here who believes the world is 6000 yrs old?

I don't mean to be pick, but the precise date is not as important as the fact that I believe in a young earth - one that is fewer than 10,000 years. Many estimates as to how long 'creation' took place, but no 100% solid ones have been made. So yes, I believe the world could be 6,000 years - give or take a couple of thousand.