Evolution is Not Science

When I was very young, I launched an interesting campaign. When I was bored, I drew tiny lines on a piece of paper, and recorded the amount every 50 or so. After 3 years, with 10 pieces of paper, I came to a total of 50,000 marks, each mark a few seconds of time...I was about 1/2 the way to 100,000, which is 1/10 of 1 million, which is one 100 times less than 100,000,000, which is 1/10 of 1 billion, which is roughly 1/4 of the total age of the earth.Basically, if I wanted to write down the total number of years this ball of rock has been in existence, I would have to count 90000 times longer than I did just to get to the age of our planet. Another 270,000-360,000 times and I'll have the estimated age of the universe.And all those marks- one year. A lot can happen in a year, and even more can happen in a billion of those years.The problem today is that time, and numbers, for that matter, are trivialized. We here million, and even billion, all the time. they've become cliches- they've lost their power and meaning.My point? Events that occur on the million and billion year time scale are well beyind human comprehension- because we witness so incredibly little during our life, we are in no place to judge the plausibility of eovlution.Take a timeline of our universe, and identify the last 30000 years of human history, and you'll find that we are roughly the size of an atom.

12345

Q&AThis site is interesting- it gives very simple and straight-forward responses to the most common issues raised by YECs. http://www-personal.si.umich.edu/~wmwines/WASP/creationist_arguments.html

123

The evidence for an old earth is overwhelming. Not only do dating methods indicate a very, very old earth, but starlight is a certain indication of a billion year old universe (this light is usually dismissed by creationists- unscientific as this dismissal may be)To the extent our intellectual capabilities, humans have drawn the concclusion that evolution, which, let us not deny, occurs, took millions of years.On the other hand, the creationists dismiss evolution, but use evolution to keep the number of animals on the ark to a minimal.the creationists have no answer to polar-flips, or at least not that I know of- their beliefs are shrouded in myths and conspiracies, like the NASA "missing day" incident, or Dr. Humphrey's "calculations".Very few creationists, with exception of some on this board, understand the fundamentals of science, and thus grow a naive doubt over its credibility.the fact is, the old earth model is very consistent- it rarely stumbles or slips.

quote:

---

"Now, there is no point in you denying this fact, what you will now do is to invent some hypothetical barrier through which evolution cannot cross."

​

Actually, it is perfectly reasonable to create a hypothetical barrier. YOU are the one required to show that evolution can accomplish what we see here on Earth.

---

CS- this was done a very long time ago. Dating methods have proved that the less advanced a fossilized creature is, the older it is.The fossil strata reinforces evolutionist theories with its distinctive "primitive to advanced" pattern, which, throught the eyes of the scientific community, is overwhelming proof of genetic evolution over vast and, quite frankly, incomprehensible periods of time.You and your fellows in the creationist camp are trying to disprove these theories, and shed doubt on its assertions and evidences. It is your responsibility to demonstrate that macro-evolution is impossible and thus did not occurr. The scientific community is already confident of its findings, and will only listen if you come up with something of interest.such preposterous claims as "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics", or that mutations are too rare to have created species over time, are rebuked, and in some cases, chuckled at in the scientific community. Why do they fail to take you seriously? Because your claims are ridiculous. Top of the line archaeologists, high calibre geologists, and experienced cosmologists know their fields like the backs of their hands, and possess a vast knowledge of science. When they are approached by occasionally naive religious-fundamentalists, dragging with them incredible and surprisingly bold claims, they know instantly the flaws and the pitfalls. They see the problems and the contradictions.Creationists rarely engage the scientific community with tough questions, and when scientists bother to rebuttle, creationists are silent. Such questions as "why does the fossil strata look the way it does", or why starlight appears to be so young, or how humans were capable of living for centuries, or why C14 dating dates more primitive fossils as older, or how non-modern animals were not fossilized, are generally ignored, or responded to with arrogant and clearly inexperienced answers.Its up to you to get the scientist's attention.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
That site is typical- give the worst arguments ever used for Creation. Pretend that Creationists have never encountered these "explanations" before. (For example, the "bad design" argument is extremely weak)

---

Well that's just super- but tell me how it is weak...The human body, and life in general, is not perfectly designed. There are many flaws in genetic "design". What is so interesting is that the older a fossil (older meaning based on dating methods that are millions of times inaccurate, but for some mystery date the fossils of more primitive animals older) and the fossilized animal, the more problems we begin to see. In other situations, we see animals slowly adapting to their local climates and conditions.And here is another issue that I should bring up- scientists have discovered the fossils of many "polar dinosaurs". According to creationists, continental drift occurred primarily during the flood. If this were true, then we would see no fossils of "modern" animals (all animals existed in at the same time pre-flood) that existed post-flood fossilized in Antarctica.So what exactly does this mean? Well, it means that we should see a sudden extinction of creatures existing in tropical Antarctica (the Antarctica before the continental split, which, according to the creationists, occurred in a year's time.) But we don't- we see dinosaurs on the continent very gradually adapt to conditions in the region, which would be becoming progressively cooler. This adaptation, or evolution, would have occurred over the very long period of time that it would be required for the Antarctic continent to drift beyond a point at which life would be incapable of surviving.Creationism would not allow this adaptation. There only argument for rapid continental drifting is the world flood. Before the flood, the continents would have been drifting at their current rate, which would certainly not produce such miraculous drift rates. Thus, dinosaurs inhabiting the Antarctica would not be required to adapt to cooler conditions, as the continents would be drifting at an extremely slow rate, which could only force evolution over millions of years. When the flood occurred, there would be a mass extinction.Creationists must inescapably accept that all Antarctic creatures existed at the same time pre-flood, despite the inadvertent assertion that creatures adapted for very cold condtions would be living on a sub-tropic Antarctica. (Antarctica was much further north and was thus much warmer when it was a part of the pangaea.)I really have no idea how a creationist could explain this, but in anticipation of another episode of "Reference Wars", I will provide unbiased and highly credible sources.And just the fact that there is coal in Antarctica alongside polar dinosaurs (higher in the strata, indicating a gradual drift south) would raise some eyebrows.Basically, how could polar dinosaurs, clearly adapted for harsh and cold conditions, be found on the a continent that possesses coal, which requires very warm, moist conditions to form... If the creationist model is correct, then we could expect to find only coal and no dinosaurs, considering that Anarctica was sub-tropic right or temperate right up to the Great Flood, where it drifted, or rather, sped, to its current desolate and unihabitable position, leaving no time for the appearance of polar dinosaurs.Could the fact that dinosaurs are found to be younger than coal in Antarctica indicate a very slow and gradual drift south, and a very slow change in climate, allowing for the adaptation of polar dinosaurs? Or am I just a dumb evolutionist drone?References: http://www.oceansofkansas.com/antartic.htmlhttp://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/locations/Antarctica.shtml---coal---
do I really need a reference for the existence of coal in Anarctica- but just in case. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1137.aspIronic- this one is creationist and discussed coal in antarctica.Any criticisms of these references are welcome. My assertion above is based on my own analysis of the facts. I am yet to find a site that brings up this issue in regard to the YEC-Evo debate. My assertion is very possibly flawed.I think I will make a thread involving this.

​

[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-18-2002]