Questions about Evolutionism vs. Creationsim

[MusicalElf11]

Hey @MusicalElf11, what do you yourself believe about those four questions? Also, since you are a real human being apparently, how's it going?

It's going pretty good, I'm just busy with stats and other homework (hence disappearing for a few days). How are you, fellow real human?


To answer your other question, here is what I believe concerning the questions I asked.


1) How long were the days of Genesis 1 and why do you think so?
 
24 hours. Some try to mesh both the theories of evolution and creation, but since the context of Genesis 1 shows that they’re normal, 24 hour days, and the length of a day isn’t disputed in any other part of the Bible, they’re 24 hours. Yes, I also believe they’re real.
 
 
2) How old is the earth and why do you think so?
 
Around 6000 years. Though radiometric dating does give us dates of millions of years, these dates are based on multiple assumptions that have not been proven. Two of these assumptions are:
a)   We assume that the earth started off with no decay at all. Based on this assumption, we measure the rate of the half-life of decaying element, measure how much daughter isotope there is, and do the math. However, it’s possible the earth began with some decay already having progressed.
b)   We assume the rate of the decay is the constant. Though the rate may be constant now, that doesn’t mean the decay was constant throughout all of time.
Also, we get different rates from radiometric dating (Uranium to lead, 4.5 billion years; potassium to argon, 1.3 billion years; carbon to nitrogen, 5730 years). These can’t all be right if the assumptions we base them off are true.
For instance, if we measure the rate of decay of uranium to lead using these assumptions, we get a date of around 4.5 billion years. However, this decay also creates helium, which easily slips away from the rock or whatever substance it is trapped in since it’s a light element and chemically inert (a noble gas). Measuring the rate of the helium diffusion based on the amount helium left in the substance gives a date of around 6000 years.
Also, amounts of carbon 14 left in diamond and other hard substances formed over millions of years lead me and others to believe in a young age for the earth. As previously mentioned, the half-life for carbon 14 is only 5730 years. After 90,000 years, it would be undetectable—yet, we find it in diamond that formed billions of years ago. If this was the case, there should no longer be any carbon 14 left in the diamond.
 
 
3) Do humans and apes share commons ancestors and why do you think so?
 
No. While we can find bits of skeletons that almost appear to be transitional creatures, they are often found to be either fake or something else. For instance, many argued that the Toumai skill was a transitional form, since it had an ape size brain but more human-like features. However, upon further investigation, it really was more characteristic of a female gorilla. Other finds have been faked such as the Piltdown man, a skull that was fabricated with both human and orangutan parts.
 
 
4) Was Adam of Genesis 2 a real historical person and why do you think so?
 
Yes, because I believe the Bible and what it says. Since the existence of Adam cannot be proven through empirical science but rather historical science (as forensics and evolution itself), we must rely on eyewitness accounts and hypotheses that can explain the most data. The Bible is our most historically consistent work of literature that we have, and I have no reason to believe that it was falsified.


Well, I was asked, so here you go.
~Melf

---

Thanks for the reply.

That's really interesting. (I'm a film major, so I could see using this in a sci-fi film at some point... I like fiction that builds off of real life).
But back to the science. Once a gene is mutated, doesn't it lose genetic information though? If we evolved from apes through RNA viruses such as HIV, wouldn't we have, well, died? AIDS weakens your immune system rather than strengthens it or changes you into something else.

I wouldn't say it "loses genetic information" because abstract information is difficult to define properly. Some of the information about its original state is lost for sure, but if it is little enough that the remains are recognizable that's ok. Imagine a deteriorated image of the Mona Lisa, with some dirt on it - you'd still recognize it as being the Mona Lisa unless an extreme degree of deterioration has set in.

The fact that the retrovirus gets chopped up is deadly *for the virus*, i.e. it isn't functional anymore, but the standard contents of human DNA which are necessary for survival have different properties - you always get equivalent copies from both parents for instance, which is why inbreeding is dangerous because the same bit of damaged DNA might be present on both sides. And whenever there is existential damage due to mutation, usually the foetus dies by itself very early in pregnancy, thus automatically removing the damaging mutation from the gene pool. Nature performs *a lot* of abortions in case you haven't noticed, and many women who have had a few pregnancies will have had that bad experience. And those are only the ones that were intact enough to even form a working sperm kr egg. On top of that, there are DNA repair mechanisms in place in our cells which constantly fix deviations.

Thanks again for taking the time to explain all this, and answer my question with this much depth--I very much appreciate it. I don't think I have any more questions on mutated genes, so thanks again for your time.