Questions about Evolutionism vs. Creationsim

[Thumpalumpacus]

1. 24 hours. That's how long a day is, give or take a few minutes.

2. Billions of years, according to radiometric dating and other evidences.

3. Of course we do. The evidence is fairly indisputable.

4. No, Adam was not a historical figure. He's a metaphor in a mythical tale.

Took the words right off'n my keyboard.

[brewer]

Did you guys break Melf all ready?

[Cyberman]

"Jeez, they come to bits easy!"

"I've just cleaned that bit!"

[Minimalist]

I'm sure he went running back to his jesus freak friends to spread the bad news.

[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.

[Alex K]

@MusicalElf,

There is a lot wrong with your statements, but can you clear something up first - you are stating the half lifes for decays of three isotopes (U238, K40, C14) and you seem to be saying that they should all be the same if radiometric dating were to work? That makes no sense, so I wonder what you are thinking here. Mentioning C14 as a dating method for the age of the earth is silly as well because it is too short-lived for that.

[MusicalElf11]

1) Why do you believe primitive goat herders came up with the tales? (As opposed to modern liars, or advanced ancient races, etc.)

2) Could you explain radiometric dating a bit more? What was the scientist's basis for dating?

3) What was the ancestor?

4) Why do you believe it is a fairy tale?

Sadly, in reference to #1, your apparent knowledge of history/archaeology is such that we have no common frame of reference.  We can actually trace many of the OT stories back to Akkadian/Sumerian mythology - even YOU would consider the Epic of Gilgamesh mythological.  But when it is updated and put in an allegedly jewish context with the name switched to "Noah" you seem to think that makes it all real. 

This article, by noted Israeli archaeologist, Ze'ev Herzog, printed in Haaretz in 1999 lays out the modern archaeological findings.  I promise you that you will not like it.  But read and learn.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/704190/posts

Re #2:  Here is an article by a physicist who happens to be a xtian.  In spite of that, he gives an honest appraisal of the techniques involved.  Something you will not get from your pals at AiG.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Re #3:  Right now, this seems to be a prime candidate.  Meet your great-great-great to the umpteenth power, grand daddy.  Let's call him Bernie, for convenience.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/huma...tchadensis

Unlike bibles, korans, and other assorted holy horseshit, science does not speak in absolutes.  It is always willing to learn.

#4  Probably for the same reason that you believe the Iliad and the Odyssey are mythological, or the labors of Hercules, or the Egyptian Pyramid Texts, or the Rig Veda, or the Avesta, etc., etc.  There is no evidence to sustain any of them.  The fact that someone chooses to believe in them counts for exactly zilch.

Thanks for taking the time to reply! The articles may help with my further studies, thank you.

[Alex K]

@MusicalElf,

Doing allright, the kid's sick but getting better. Gotta get back to work tomorrow and not feeling like it yet

[MusicalElf11]

1) How long were the days of Genesis 1 and why do you think so?
2) How old is the earth and why do you think so?
3) Do humans and apes share common ancestors and why do you think so?
4) Was Adam of Genesis 2 a real historical person and why do you think so?
 

1) Each day lasted from sunup to sundown, that is how the jews of c. 500 BCE understood the length of a day to be.
2) Approx 4.5bn years, based on an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of such a figure.
3) Yes, for the same reasons as 2)
4) No, Adam in Gen. 2 was both a biological impossibility and flat out contradicted the creation myth (untrue also) in Gen. 1.

Let me guess, you're going to start spouting creatard bullshit at me, right? If so hold your breath, firstly as part of the reality based community I'll disregard the shit you're trying to drag in (except to point and laugh at you), secondly as part of the reality based community, unlike you, I've actually read up on this so have a general grasp of what is behind the ideas you're laughingly trying to disprove, and thirdly if you hold your breath long enough you'll increase humanity's sum total of intelligence.

Haha, no I'm not going to try to prove anything I believe unless you ask. It would just be annoying to both you and me. But thanks for the reply!

If you don't mind my asking though, how is Adam a biological impossibility that contradicted creation? I've never heard that stance before, and I'm curious as to what your arguments are for it. (If you do mind my asking, don't feel like you have to answer me or anything.)

---

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

1. 24 hours or just nonexistent, if you believe it's a fake story?

2. Could you describe what radiometric dating was used as proof? I've been able to study it somewhat, and when measuring the half-lives of different substances, we find different results. Which specific elements were you referring to? And what other evidences?

3. The evidence is indisputable. Which evidence? Transitional fossils or something else?

4. How do you know he is a myth?

1. While fictional, the book describes a 24 hour day. Harry Potter is a "fake story" too. They deal with 24 hour days as well.

2. For fracks sake. I'm not your geology teacher. You do the research (instead of spouting regurgitated creationist BS) if you really want the answers.

3. For fraks sake. I'm not your biology teacher. You do the research (instead of spouting regurgitated creationist BS) if you really want the answers.

4. Because it's in a self-contradictory, demonstrably erroneous book that only makes sense as a book of myths and legends.

Theists like you are a dime a dozen around here. What ever you're fishing for, why don't you just skip the fishing and make your horrendous, repeatedly debunked claim already.

Thanks for the reply. I would do the research myself, except the requirements were to go and interview other people. Finding answers from journals or other articles wouldn't have sufficed.

I won't make any claim unless you ask me too, like @Alex K did. I'm just here to gather your point of view.

[pocaracas]

What did I tell you guys? Statler Wadorf! He's back!
Hey man!! How's your eye?

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

BUHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

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.

You know why we assume that?!
One word: volcanoes!!

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.

Sure! Right!
Elements with a low half-life follow the rule logarithmic decay to the tee.... but long lived elements wouldn't. SURE!
Time flowed differently back then, you suppose, right?

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.

Because of those differences, those transitions are probed for different expected ages of the material being tested.

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.

Care to provide a citation for that experiment?
Like you said, Helium can easily slip through.... could it have not come from some other source to the sample under consideration? Or is this a phenomenon measured systematically around the globe?
I can't tell.... you didn't provide anything to back it up.

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.

Care to tell me how you can tell how long ago that diamond was formed?
Again, is this a phenomenon that happens with every diamond stone, or only a particular one?

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.

Every fossil is a fake!!!!!! Scream it! Science if bogus!!
Scientists are false, lying, scum, humanoids!!!!


FFS, dude. Stop reading your creationist propaganda.
Read instead about how propaganda works. I like to know about psychology. Do you like it, too? I find it useful to know how my mind can be manipulated by others, so I can try to counter it.

Yes, the Piltdown man was a fabrication by some idiot pseudo-scientist.... in 1912!!
Get over it!
That doesn't mean that every other fossil is an equal fabrication.
Scientists, nowadays, go to great lengths to make sure they produce pure artifacts. Can you imagine the years it takes for a person to get to the level of archeologist? The work required to get funding to go some place and excavate? And then that person goes there and produces a phony... of course, only to have the whole world discover it, and see his sources of funding dwindle to nothing and then be forced to change profession.... spend a lifetime working for one career, only to destroy it for a few minutes of glory?
Not worth it.
And, frankly, your assumption of fraud in archeology is insulting to the whole academic body, me and AlexK included.

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.

Why? Why do you believe what is written in the bible?
Why have you no reason to think it was falsified? Many biblical scholars (christians included) admit that much of the bible is fabricated.
The pope himself will tell you to read Genesis (and most of the OT) metaphorically.

When I ask "why", here... I'm looking for your own personal path.... since your birth, what happened to you, to your mind (I like psychology, remember?).... what path did your mind take since the moment you were born to now, that led you to this belief, to this implicit trust in what was written long ago?