Posted by eman on September 17, 1998 at 11:53:19:
In Reply to: The proof is only there if you want to see it there. posted by John on September 16, 1998 at 19:24:44:
: : The reason that almost all scientists have accepted that evolution has occurred on this planet over billions of years is that there is an immense amount of scientific evidence and data to support it. Also some small evolutionary mechanisms have been repeated in the lab. One reason it is becoming so difficult to keep up with antibiotics that will kill the various viruses and germs out there is that they are evolving/mutating into different strains that are immune to the antibiotics. The only science that can support Creation is to misstate, misunderstand and distort scientific principles and evidence to make them appear to support a theory that is supported by a literal reading of the Bible alone. To this day, nearly every "scientific" arguement in support of young-earth creationism has been exposed to be a sham by those who truly understand basic scientific principles and methods. If the so-called Creation Scientists have research to support there cause, why don't they present it to the world and the scientific community for scrutiny? It is not that the scientific community is biased against their research; they do not even submit research to be published. Those few that have submitted research documents in the past have been rejected, not because there was a bias against their ideas, but because the research is academically deficient and fails to follow even the basic scientific methods and standards. If you just read some of their literature, it is laughable. Many of the leading Creationists, such as Carl Baugh, Kent Hovind, Kelley Segraves, Thomas Barnes, Richard Bliss, Clifford Burdick, John Grebe, Don Patton, and Harold Slusher, to name a few, have very questionable academic credentials. Many have supposed degrees from schools with no accreditation and many are widely considered diploma mills. Some even hawk their honorary doctorates as if they are actual earned degrees. Those in the Creationist movement who actually have valid credentials usually have obtained degrees outside of the realm of biology, anthropology, paleontology, etc., and therefore are no more an expert on the origins of life on this planet than the average aerospace engineer or computer scientist.
: As I stated before in my previous followup, the evidence for evolution is only there if you want to see it there. A virus that develops a resistance to certain drugs may be able to evolve that resistance, but I do not dispute whether or not an organism can evolve within it's own genetic boundaries. That's microevolution and it does indeed occur, however in a billion years that virus will still be a virus and nothing more. Microevolution plus time does not equal Macroevolution. A large amount of Native Americans were wiped out by diseases that the Europeans had become resistant to. That doesn't make the Europeans any more evolved as a species. An African who can spend the entire day in the blazing sun is not a more evolved species than that same fair skinned European, is he? I really would like to hear some of the immense amount of scientific evidence and data to support evolution, that you speak of. I haven't heard any yet that I think even supports it as a theory. The entire concept of evolution and how it caught on reminds me of a trial I watched in which the prosecution contended that when a certain song was played backwards you could hear satanic references in it. No one in the courtroom could make out any such thing when it was played on the P.A. Not until the prosecution told them what they were supposed to hear, were they actually able to make out some kind of jibberish that could have been taken as the statements in question. All I'm trying to say by all this is that scientists believe the earth is so old and that life evolved over billions of years because we, in our infinite wisdom, cannot create life so it must have happened by accident, and because there are so many different forms of life, it had to have taken a really long time. A literal interpretation of Genesis was completely out of the question because it would acknowledge the God of Christianity and man's accountability to Him. After that as soon as they developed dating methods that fell in line with an earth that was millions and even billions of years old, they called that proof. Carbon dating was inaccurate from the get-go because it is based on the assumption that the ratio of c12 to c14 in the atmosphere has always been what it is now. It is a proven fact that c14 is building up in the atmosphere and is not at a balanced state. Things that died 8,000 years ago may not have taken in any c14 at all, or at least a whole lot less, so when a paleontologist digs up a skeleton and labs test show no measureable traces of c14 the thing is instantly tagged as over 60,000 years old and is tested by another method that is only accepted as valid simply because it gives them the answer they want. Of course, there isn't a paleontologist on the planet that would send a dinosaur skeleton for RC dating. I was using that as an example. I'm sure Darwin didn't develop his theory completely on his own but by publishing it he gave people who were reluctant to believe that God created us as we are now, an avenue to travel and feel they finally figured it all out.
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor. The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. "Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophilia." NATURE. 230:289-292). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives (www.talkorigins.org/faqs) gives several examples. Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been VERIFIED MANY TIMES OVER. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming. What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution DOESN'T propose occurences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observe a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence AGAINST evolution.
As far as Carbon dating being inaccurate, could you please cite the research that has shown that Carbon dating has been so inaccurate as to indicate millions or billions of years when the item being dated is merely thousands of years old. You forget that radiometric dating is also being used for dating. There have been thousands of dating tests performed by independant laboratories with a wide variety of radioisotopes. Virtually all of the results correlate with evolutionary expectations. The few anomalies in radiometric dating disappear when the samples are reanalyzed.
Since Creationists are constantly misstating science to their own ends in transparent attempts to try and show that evolutionary theories are incorrect, I believe it is time for us to analyze their "science history" book for accuracy. Genesis 1:3-5, 14-19 : There was light ("night and day") before there was a sun. (Note: If there were no sun, there would be no night or day. Also, light from the newly created heavenly bodies seems to have reached the earth instantaneously though now it takes thousands or millions of years). Genesis 1:12,16 : Plants begin to grow before there was sunlight. Genesis 1:29 : Every plant and tree which yeild seed are given by God as good to eat. (Note: This would include poisonous plants such as hemlock, buckeye pod, nightshade, oleander.) Genesis 1:11-12, 26-27 states that trees were created before man was created, but according to Genesis 2:4-9, man was created before trees. In Genesis 1:20-21, 26-27, birds were created before man was created, but in Genesis 2:7,19, man was created before the birds. In addition, in Genesis 1:24-27, animals were created before man was created, but again in Genesis 2:7,19, man was created before animals were created. According to Genesis 1:26-27, man and woman were created at the same time, but in Genesis 2:7, 21-22, man was created first, woman sometime later. In Genesis 2:17, Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit but according to Genesis 5:5, Adam lived 930 years. In Genesis 6:19-22, 7:8-9, 7:14-16, two of each kind are to be taken, and are taken, aboard Noah's Ark. In Genesis 7:2-5, seven pairs of some kinds are to be taken (and are taken) aboard the Ark. And speaking of Noah's Ark; it must have been significantly larger than described in the Bible. According to the size of the Ark described in Genesis 6:15, it was such that there would be about one and a half cubic feet for each pair of the 2,000,000 to 5,000,000 species to be taken aboard. If some believers feel that Noah only took "kinds" of animals, and not every species, than that would have to lead you to believe that evolution occurred. How else could you save only a small subset of the available species of animals on the Earth and have them lead to the diversity in species that we see today. Also, where were the dinosaurs? Presumably they would have had to been on the Ark, since several Creationist believe that man coexisted with dinosaurs (even though there is NO KNOWN VALID EVIDENCE to support this. According to Genesis 8:20, Noah's first recorded action following the flood is to sacrifice one of every clean animal and bird. (Considering that only a pair of each may have been aboard the Ark, this is rather wasteful and defeating). In Genesis 9:12-16, God first creates the rainbow. (Note: Apparently the laws having to do with refraction of light were null and void prior to this time). In nGenesis 7:19-20, the flood covered the earth with water fifteen cubits (twenty plus feet) above the highest mountain. (Note: This would require steady, worldwide rainfall at the rate of about 6 inches per minute, 360 inches per hour, 8640 inches per day--for 40 days and nights--so as to cover the entire earth with an endless ocean 5 miles deep, thus burying 29,000 ft. Mt. Everest under 22 feet of water. Where has all the water gone?). Also, how did all the creatures of the distant continents travel across vast ocean distances to get to the Ark before the flood? Some creatures presumably would never make it since their lifespan is much shorter than the time that would be required to reach the Ark. In Genesis 18:1, 7-8, God eats solid food with Abraham. According to EX 12:30, the Lord kills all the first-born of Egypt and there is not a house where there is not at least one dead. (This means that there was not a house in Egypt that did not include at least one first born--a most unusual situation. In EX 12:37, NU 1:45-46, The number of men of military age who take part in the Exodus is given as about 600,000. Allowing for women, children, and older men would probably mean that a total of more than 2,000,000 Israelites left Egypt at a time when the whole population of Egypt was less than 2,000,000. In EX 17:14, God says that he will utterly blot out the remeberances of Amalek. (That remembrance is now permanently preserved in the Bible). In LE 11:20-21, there are winged creatures (birds or insects) that go around on all fours. (Note: There are no birds that go around on four legs, and all insects have six legs). LE 11:6, states, incorrectly, that the rabbit, or hare, chews its cud. In LE 14:33-57, God himself believes that a house or clothes can have leprosy and he details the remedy. In LE 14:49-53, the cure for leprosy involves incantations and the blood of a bird. According to ISA 2:8, JB 38:4, PS 104:5, the earth has a foundation and cannot be moved. What about the rotation of the earth and its orbit around the sun? Were these mechanisms not functioning back then? Natural laws must not have operated the way we know them today. According to 1KI 18:33-38, fire consumes wet wood, stones, and dust, and "licks up" water. In 2KI 6:5-7, an iron axe head "swims" (or floats). In 2KI 20:11, the shadow on a sun dial moves backward. Did earths revolution reverse? According to 2CH 21:20, 22:1-2, Ahaziah was forty-two when he became king; he succeeded his father, who died at the age of forty. Thus Ahaziah was two years older than his father. According to JB 9:6 (KJV), God shakes the earth out of its place and makes its pillars tremble. What pillars? The earth doesn't rest on pillars. In JB 9:7, God can make the sun not rise and seal up the stars. This would also mean that the earth's rotation would cease. PS 58:8 says that slugs and/or snails melt as they move. I guess the "evolved" since this does not occur today. IS 11:12, RE 7:1 state that the earth has four corners. What four corners can you get on a sphere? Maybe the Bible writers thought that the earth was a flat square. According to IS 24:1 (KJV), the earth can be turned upside down so as to scatter its inhabitants. How do we know that it is not upside down today? What is the point of reference as to what is up? Also wouldn't gravity hold you in place whether you're on the "top" of the earth or the "bottom"? In MT 4:8, there is a high mountain from which all the kingdoms of the world can be seen. (Note: This implies a flat earth). According to 2CO 12:2, there are at least three heavens. Which is the one believers go to? HE 7:1-3, says that Melchizedek had no mother or father, no beginning or end. Did he appear out of nothing? According to RE 21:16, Heaven is only 1500 miles square. It may get a little crowded.
This is what Creationists use for their "science" resource in their search for the origins of life? Well, taken literally, cover to cover, sure doesn't seem to make sense in the light of accepted science and logic today. In fact it appears to contradict scientific notions that are also accepted by most Creationists. According to many Creationists writings, there were no carnivores prior to the great flood. Presumably, lions, tigers, wolves, hawks, eagles, sharks, and even T Rex's ate only vegetative matter. Since all of the physical evidence discovered and observations made concerning carnivores indicate that their anatomy (digestive system, teeth, etc) would not support this notion, they must have "evolved" since the flood. I also wonder how a large creature like a T-Rex could survive without animal protein. His teeth were not design to enable him to process vegetative material. If the literal Bible is Creationists main science resource, it is no wonder why they are reluctant to submit there "research" to the scientific community. Their ideas just cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny, even when using their literal Bible as a reference. There are several more contradications, inconsistancies, scientific error, etc. in a literal translation of the Bible that I could give you if you wish. I find it fascinating that Creationists constantly misuse scientific methods and logic in order to attack the accepted and well-supported evolutionary theories of today, without closely examining their own precious religious documents. The Bible even implies that a bat is a bird! That would be one heck of an evolutionary leap for the bat to change from a bird to the mammel we know today! Unfortunately, the Creationist movement should be no surprise...the Christian religion, for years has tried to destroy advances in scientific thought when it appeared that it may contradict their literal translation of the Bible. Remember Galileo, Copernicus, and the scientific libraries of ancient Alexandria. Fortunately for mankind, science has always inevitably triumphed, or otherwise we would still be in an ignorant nomadic society of sheepherders. The Bible has survived to this day because mankind has been relatively successful in redefining and reinterpreting the Bible in accordance with the advances in man's knowledge of his universe. Hopefully this will continue, or we will become a third-world nation of scientifically ignorant, supersticious people. I, however, am optimistic about mankind and feel that the purpose for our (God given?)reasoning brain and human curiosity is to explore our universe, constantly gaining more knowledge of how it operates.