|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:33 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:55 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 5:08 pm
 |
|
|
 |
Seority Aya313 I understand what your saying...but its not like you'd put your hand up and say somthing in the middle of class, no its like you'd talk about it at...lunch lets say or before class started. me and a couple of my christian friends get trouble for it all the time because "its not apropriate discustion" All im saying is that if your forced to learn somthing that you may not entirely beilive is true, then you should at least have that right to talk about what you do beilive with other people who beilive the same thing(at lunch before the bell rings, etc.) 
That would be nice, but unfortunetly there are to many religions to say what is what. In science they teach you what has been proven by science. Evolution is real. THe only question that comes up is if humans have evolved. Science takes a leap to say that we have been, but as for us we state otherwise. I know it's a pain in the rear to have a science teacher who thinks he knows it all, but at the very least I would like to hear, "Animals have evolved over time and it is belived that humans were too." Or something to those lines.
But that's what they're to teach because that's what's been discovered. If you believe something else, just keep strong to your faith and let others think what they want.
I know that I never get all A's in science because I don't agree with humans and monkeys when it's on a test. I just don't see why I should have to put down the correct anwser if I believe the it is wrong.
Kitty teh bread.
Ya i know...it just really sucks that your expected to swallow somthing you don't completely beilive and they silence you when you speak about what you DO beilive...its not like your telling them what to beilieve, your just stating your own opion...and arent we all intitled to the right of free speach? they say that you are in school, but then when it comes to a touchy subject like god and religion, your imidiently silenced, just because its not what every one bilieves. its kinda gay as far as im concerend...but i do understand what your saying, about them "proving it" and thats why we're forced to listen. but technicaly they havent completely proven it...most of what they have when it comes to the idea of evolution is only theorys, which means they havent been completely proved right yet...which techinicaly means they shouldn't be able to say "this is how it is" untill they are 100% of what they are saying. the whole idea of us coming from apes is ubsurd...i mean lets just say we did evolve from apes...how come we havent evolved into somthing else by now? if its plausable that we came from monkeys, then dont you think we would have kept on evolving...and i dont mean tech wise, but actually phyically? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:52 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:22 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:01 pm
|
|
|
|
Seority
They have dug up stuff that might be links to our ape-like past, but nothing is certian for now. I was meaning that some teacher think that it is 100% proven, and it bugs me.
My biology teacher last year had to say tha evloution and stuff was real, but she commented posstivly at my Christian shirts that I wore. I guess it's something they just have to say. Evolution does take a long time, like millions of years, and people have only been around for about 4000 - 5000 years I think ^^. If did evolve from apes, we seriosly arn't going to see any difference for a hell of a long time.
Kitty teh bread.
very true....but another point that arises from what i was saying is, the hole idea of us coming from apes....wouldnt that still techniclly be happening with the apes i mean....cuz yes it takes millions of years....but its not like all the apes we now currently have are brand new blood lines, they all came from apes who lived long ago.....and isnt the theroy of evolution basically the idea of speication? which means an ape would eventually have a baby some what different, then that ape has a baby and its is even more different, so on so forth untill creating a new speice which in this case would be humans....so my question to scientist is: Why isnt it still happening....why did it maraculasly stop once the human race began? if thier theorys are indeed correct....then technically it wouldn't have stoped and they would still be finding creatures looking and acting more like humans, but since apes are the closest animal to human, that means they havent found anything phisically linking us to them. which also means that the evolution would have stoped....but is if it did ever occur then it would still be happening. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:16 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:18 pm
|
|
|
|
haha those links of yours baerly begin to skratch the surface my friend....i didnt mean that apes wouldnt exsist anymore, no....i merrly ment that if this theroy of evolution was acurate...then that "link" between humans a nd apes would exsist....through logics of science, and once again refering to speiciation....the stage inbetween would have become another speices....and like i previously said....apes are the closest thing to a human...when it comes to physically...there is one other animal thats closer to a human than an ape when it come to intelect, and thats the dolphine...i dont see people claiming we came from them....in the logics of speciation, there should still be another speices inbetween humans and apes to prove that we evolved from them. and to further it....did it start at apes? i think not. if this idea of evolution is really true, then where is what an ape came from that, and the speices before that and so forth? no matter what you do evolution isnt a completely plausable theroy. many people mistake between the ideas of addaptation and evolution...the differance? addaptation is plausable, because thats an oraganisim corrdanating itself in certain enviorments which would cause it to change and so would its offspring, but they wouldnt completely physically change only mental mind set...hunting and such. thats really the only thing that they've proven to be true. but not evolution its so ubsurd....no matter how much a scientist trys to dismiss the idea of creation...they will never get rid of it....cause no matter how far you chase exsistance back, there will always be the question "and where did that come from?" to evolve there has to be a previous state for it evolve from. which means that there is creation(not saying anyone said there wasnt here)at one point. which would end the disscution of what is more plausable, to even have evolution you would HAVE to have creation first. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:04 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:38 pm
|
|
|
|
Tangled Up In Blue You know, I rarely play the grammar Nazi, but ellipses are not interchangeable with commas and full stops. Better punctuation would go a long way towards making your points comprehensible. I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what it is you're trying to get at here. The links are the best I can do right now given that whatever your point is, it's been swallowed up in a sentence-less garble. If you or someone else could help me out, that'd be great because I really do want to post a substantive response here.
ok then....it does make sense, but i'll try re wording for you.
basically the links you sent are quite invaild, they don't really in any way back up the idea of evolution. basically for me to stop pressing my points it would take a plausable explaination as to why an ape is the closest thing to a humans phisically. If we really did evolve from apes there would be another spieces even closer to humans...who knows maybe even two. point is we couldn't have jumped straight from ape to human there HAS to be something inbetween. And adding on to that, what did the apes come from? For evolution to be acurate there would always have to be something before the exsisting spieces. so therefore creation would have had to occur before evolution, thus making it the more plausable theroy. So the basic point is that evolution is not as accurat as scientest lead people to beilieve. Many think that creation never happened, which is phosically imposible because to evolve there has to be a starting point in wich to evolve from. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:23 pm
|
|
|
|
Aya313 ok then....it does make sense, but i'll try re wording for you.
Thank you. That's much better.
Quote: basically the links you sent are quite invaild, they don't really in any way back up the idea of evolution.
I'll grant you that they weren't really relevant to your argument, but in my defense I couldn't really understand it and so those links were the best I could come up with.
Quote: basically for me to stop pressing my points it would take a plausable explaination as to why an ape is the closest thing to a humans phisically.
Two words: Common descent. It's one of the most basic concepts in all of evolutionary theory. I'll explain in greater detail below.
Quote: If we really did evolve from apes there would be another spieces even closer to humans...who knows maybe even two. point is we couldn't have jumped straight from ape to human there HAS to be something inbetween.
Here's the thing: Humans did not evolve from modern apes. Rather, modern apes and humans both evolved from a common ancestor that lived several million years ago. Somewhere back there in prehistory, one population of ancient apes took one evolutionary path, and another population of apes took a different path. The first group eventually evolved into modern apes, while the second evolved into Homo sapiens. There were of course many intermediary steps between that original ur-ape and the modern species of hominid, but they're all extinct by now.
That was kind of over-simplified, but that's basically how it happened. In case that wasn't sufficient, though, I'll use an analogy. French and Spanish are said to be related languages, right? Now, is that because French developed from Spanish or vice versa? No. It's because French and Spanish both evolved (and it really is an accurate term) from Latin, which could be called the common ancestor of the two languages. It's the same with humans and modern apes. We both evolved from a common ancestor; we did not evolve from each other.
Quote: And adding on to that, what did the apes come from? For evolution to be acurate there would always have to be something before the exsisting spieces. so therefore creation would have had to occur before evolution, thus making it the more plausable theroy.
Not quite. Now your getting into abiogenesis. According to the theory of universal common descent, all the earth's species are descended from one common ancestor, the first species to ever exist (probably a prokaryotic cell of some sort). Now, evolution doesn't even attempt to answer the question of how that first species got there. The theory of evolution presupposes the existence of life; it does not attempt to tell us how life came to exist in the first place. Abiogenesis is the exploration of how life on earth began. Your argument here is an argument against naturalistic abiogenesis, not evolution.
Quote: So the basic point is that evolution is not as accurat as scientest lead people to beilieve. Many think that creation never happened, which is phosically imposible because to evolve there has to be a starting point in wich to evolve from.
Yes, but as I've said, the issue of how live on earth began isn't an issue for evolutionary theory. It does not explain the origins of life, it is merely a framework for understanding how life has changed since it came into existence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:59 pm
|
|
|
|
ok that was better explained than in those links.thank you. but my argument is against evolution, every person that i have ever met, science teachers, profs, friends...they all say that creation is invaild because of evolution. If the evolutionary theroy was as correct as they make it out to be, then they would be able to answer how did that "common ansestor" (as you would put it) get here. Its only proper. If your going to tell the world that you've descoverd something, you better be able to answer all the questions that come at you, and the fact that no scientist has ever been able to explain how the very first organisim came to be- or rather even what it was,they just know that it was probably some sort of single cell oraganisim....thats the best geuss. kind of flushes the idea of evolution being what populated the world.
ok and what you said about us having a common ansestor with apes rather than evolving from each other does make alot more sense. But now the question is, what exactly is this common ansestor? Like i said before, if your going to try explain something, you had better have hard facts that there indeed was an ansestor that both apes and humans came from. and adding on to this, if we did start out the same and then change over time(speiciation) into to different speices. then please tell me what is the linage? if that is what truley happened, then there should be records and phisical proof of what happened in both linages, like what was inbetween that ansestor and apes, and the same with humans? the fact still remains and even more so now because of what you said. how can an ape be the closest thing to humans if we didnt evolve specifiacly from them? Shouldn't there still be something else closer to us? because we then evolved from something else so there should be proof of something in exsistance being even closer to us than an ape.
and useing the example of laungages wasnt the best way to devlop a point. that is knowen as addaptaions, not evolution. evolution is very simillar to speiciation in where you cant go back to the way you were, the change isphysical where as an addaptation is something learned if you so disierd you could change your language again without trouble, i mean look at how many people in the world speak multipul laungages. what your talking about is also much like migration, look at japan for a second. they developed thier laungage, thier hole culture for that matter on the bases of korea and China, because most of those who first lived in japan were from korea and china, and over time they combined thier languages and made slight changes to it. which is why they are all very simillar countries. that is not evolution, that is adaptation. and dont think i hate science because im pressing this...cause honestly its my best subject, which is why i press this topic so much. people so commonly and blindly follow, but half the time they dont know what the heck thier talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:52 pm
|
|
|
|
Aya313 ok that was better explained than in those links.thank you. but my argument is against evolution, every person that i have ever met, science teachers, profs, friends...they all say that creation is invaild because of evolution.
Bear in mind that there are a lot of definitions of 'creation'. Evolution invalidates the idea that life on earth was created in the forms that we see today. It does not invalidate the idea that life was created (it does require, though, that once created, life evolved), nor does it invalidate any sort of cosmic creation. It invalidates the 'creation' of fixed, unchangeable species, that's all.
Quote: If the evolutionary theroy was as correct as they make it out to be, then they would be able to answer how did that "common ansestor" (as you would put it) get here. Its only proper.
Actually, it's really not. That's an inappropriate conflation of two different theories. Look, as I said, evolution is a theory describing how life changes; it is not a theory of how life began. Those are two separate questions with two separate answers. Evolution presupposes the existence of life; it doesn't even pretend to tell us where life came from.
Quote: If your going to tell the world that you've descoverd something, you better be able to answer all the questions that come at you, and the fact that no scientist has ever been able to explain how the very first organisim came to be- or rather even what it was,they just know that it was probably some sort of single cell oraganisim....thats the best geuss. kind of flushes the idea of evolution being what populated the world.
Again, if you understand the theory of evolution then you understand that the origins of the first species are not relevant. The first species didn't evolve: it was either created by God or it was formed by cosmic forces. Evolution is only concerned with what happened after the first species appeared on the universal stage, not before. And of course we'll never know for certain what the first species was. It's not like it left fossils lying about for us to find.
Quote: ok and what you said about us having a common ansestor with apes rather than evolving from each other does make alot more sense. But now the question is, what exactly is this common ansestor? Like i said before, if your going to try explain something, you had better have hard facts that there indeed was an ansestor that both apes and humans came from. and adding on to this, if we did start out the same and then change over time(speiciation) into to different speices. then please tell me what is the linage?
Sahelanthropus tchadensis is a good candidate for a human/great ape (or possibly just chimp) common ancestor, although we're unsure about where it falls on the primate phylogenetic tree. If you're looking for just the human lineage, then you can find an excellent compendium of fossils here (start with A. afarensis and work your way down).
Quote: if that is what truley happened, then there should be records and phisical proof of what happened in both linages, like what was inbetween that ansestor and apes, and the same with humans?
Unfortunately, that's a difficult question to answer. The fossil record is necessarily incomplete, making it difficult to trace the exact lineage of every species. That's where genetics comes in. I can't give an in depth explanation of the similarities between human and ape DNA, so I recommend you take a look here.
Quote: the fact still remains and even more so now because of what you said. how can an ape be the closest thing to humans if we didnt evolve specifiacly from them? Shouldn't there still be something else closer to us? because we then evolved from something else so there should be proof of something in exsistance being even closer to us than an ape.
Apes are our closest living relatives. Necessarily, we are/were more closely related to our immediate evolutionary antecedents (H. erectus, for example), but the fact is that they're dead and gone. Apes, having come from a very recent common ancestor, are therefore our most closely related living cousins.
Quote: and useing the example of laungages wasnt the best way to devlop a point. that is knowen as addaptaions, not evolution. evolution is very simillar to speiciation in where you cant go back to the way you were, the change is physical where as an addaptation is something learned
An adaptation is not learnt—it is a physical change. I really don't think I need to say anything more on the matter. Adaptations occur at a genetic level and, I assure you, have nothing to do with learning.
Quote: if you so disierd you could change your language again without trouble, i mean look at how many people in the world speak multipul laungages. what your talking about is also much like migration, look at japan for a second. they developed thier laungage, thier hole culture for that matter on the bases of korea and China, because most of those who first lived in japan were from korea and china, and over time they combined thier languages and made slight changes to it. which is why they are all very simillar countries. that is not evolution, that is adaptation.
And again, you seem to believe that adaptation, when used in an evolutionary sense, is the process of learning. This is not true. It is the process by which a species accrues beneficial physical variations.
Quote: and dont think i hate science because im pressing this...cause honestly its my best subject, which is why i press this topic so much. people so commonly and blindly follow, but half the time they dont know what the heck thier talking about.
I don't think that you hate science, I just think that, as far as evolution goes, you have a lot of misconceptions (that or you really just don't understand how it works at all). Try poking around here and see if it doesn't answer your questions a bit more fully than I can. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 8:02 pm
|
|
|
|
I was told this would be the right place to post this.
I plan on posting this research paper in the ED. I thought it would be benificial to have you good people chew on it for a bit. When I do post it, I would appreciate some backup.
THE TELLTALE SIGNS OF GOD'S HANDIWORK
Recently, the widely accepted principle of evolution has become challenged by an outrageous hypothesis. This scientific hypothesis states that existence, specifically life, was not created by random, physical means, but by a divine Designer. Only within the past few years has the idea of divine creation been considered so scientifically. Throughout the scientific community, creationism, also now called Intelligent Design, is gaining speed in mainstream science. This theory (used in the general sense) has sparked the fire of a great controversy: the debate over the origin, progression, and purpose of life. On the one hand, the classic theory of evolution stated that life was created and evolved by completely material chance and has no purpose other than to reproduce itself. On the other hand, the theory of Intelligent Design states that this is extremely improbable and life is far more likely to have been designed by an intelligent Mind. This also implies a greater significance in life.
BASIC COMPLAINTS
Since its beginning, Intelligent Design has been bombarded by a plethora of arguments by the mainstream scientific community. One main complaint is that the concept of a supernatural cause is simply beyond science and, therefore cannot be scientifically investigated. "Furthermore, explanations in terms of supernatural causes cannot be scientifically investigated because they do not operate via physical forces. The God 'hypothesis' is beyond science" ("Intelligent Design" 1). Another assumption sometimes made about ID is that it is simply religion, not science. Many scientists accuse the hypothesis of ID to be nothing more than a way of sneaking religion into science. Both of these complaints don't attack the argument for ID, but merely try to pull the hypothesis out of its scientific context. Also, although it is impossible to definitively prove the existence of God through scientific means, it is very possible to investigate evidence for it. Looking into evidence for ID is in many ways the same as looking into evidence for evolution. Since they happened in the past, we will never be able to prove one way or the other. The theory of evolution will always be a theory because it is impossible to observe, experiment with, or reproduce because of the great amount of time it covers. Beyond these fundamental problems with explaining life, there are piles of evidence that seem to go against the theory of evolution. As well as having many specific problems, trying to prove the origin and course of life has many fundamental problems.
FIRST THINGS FIRST- ORIGINS
An issue that evolution textbooks are rather vague about is the beginning. They are very clear that from the first cells came a long, progressive line leading to life today. But where did those first cells come from? On the molecular level, it is virtually impossible for a complex organic cell to have been formed from inorganic matter by random chance. The molecular structures that make up a cell are immensely complicated. Most involve thousands, millions, and even billions of atoms. All these were allegedly formed randomly. The basic building blocks, nucleic acids and proteins, didn't exist in the early world. Furthermore, there was so much sulfur and other harmful chemicals in the atmosphere that life would have been impossible.
A related paradox that seems to stump material science is the origin of biological information. In general, the problem is the lapse between basic chemicals and long, complex, self-replicating, information-bearing polymers. The very existence of biological information in the form of DNA and RNA testifies to a surreptitious intelligence. It is a logical assumption that information implies intelligence behind it. This can be seen in computer programs, books, instruction manuals, etc. Information is plentiful in biology. "What else can generate information but intelligence?" (Strobel 244). "[Stephen Meyer, PhD:] 'Naturalistic theories that rely solely on matter and energy are not going to be able to account for information. Only intelligence can. I think that realization is going to dawn on more and more people, especially younger scientists who have grown up in the age of information technology'" (Strobel 244).
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY- BEHE'S MOUSETRAP
Michael Behe, PhD has popularized a criticism of the gradual evolutionary explanation of life with a term he calls irreducible complexity. He has written a book called Darwin's Black Box. He explains a scientific "black box" to be a complex unit to which the inner workings are not understood (Strobel 196). In Darwin's time, scientists had discovered the cell and knew mostly what it did, but they couldn't see the tiny organelles within it because microscope technology had not advanced that far. In other words, Darwin knew nothing of protein synthesis, cellular respiration, DNA replication, etc. Behe states that the enormously complex protein systems within a cell are irreducibly complex. This term means that if one part (individual protein) in the system is altered, the entire system will fail and be of no use as far as natural selection is concerned.
A repeated analogy that Behe makes is to a mousetrap. He compares a complex microbiological protein system to a mousetrap. The basic mousetrap he uses contains five parts: a flat wooden platform to act as a base, a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse, a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged, a sensitive catch that releases when slight pressure is applied, a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back when the trap is charged (there are also assorted staples to hold the system together) ("Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility?" 1).
The mousetrap, Behe says needs all five parts to operate, only one missing and the system would fail. Behe's mousetrap analogy has been the target of much debate involving the problem of irreducible complexity. Not that it is a bad analogy, on the contrary it portrays the concept quite well; instead Behe's opponents have tried in many ways to prove the mousetrap reducible. They argue that they would be able to build the mousetrap with four of the five parts. They claim the wood floor is unneeded. Does this tear apart the analogy, or prove the concept of irreducible complexity wrong. Neither. Luckily, Behe himself heard of this counter-argument and personally wrote a rebuttal. He had this to say:
That's an interesting reply, but you've just substituted another wooden base for the one you were given. The trap still can't function without a base. Furthermore, you were essentially given a disassembled mousetrap, which you then assembled. All of the parts were pre-adapted to each other by an intelligent agent. The point that has to be addressed is, how do you start with no pieces (at least none specifically designed to be part of a mousetrap), and proceed to a functioning, irreducibly complex trap ("Behe Responds to Postings in Talk Origins Newsgroup" 1)
So Behe's great mousetrap analogy withstands scrutiny, proving the point that the workings of a mousetrap, and implicatively a cell, are irreducibly complex. Now, how exactly does this disprove the concept of gradual evolution? This is how. Evolution uses natural selection acting on random mutation to produce functioning systems. Producing one part of an irreducibly complex system will accomplish nothing; the entire system would need to be there to function. Therefore, natural selection would have no reason to favor the organism with that single part of the system. The only way by those means to come up with a complicated system or structure like a cilia for example would be to have all the right mutations occur at once. The odds against that occurring are astronomical even with billions of years to fall back on, which brings us to the next point.
THE AGE OF EARTH
One issue that seems to repel many educated people from faith is the biblical model for creation. This model says that the universe was created in seven days and the Earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old. Science had clearly proved that the Earth is ≈4.6 billion years old and the universe is far older. Or has it? Many traditional Christians have looked into the matter and have found a striking volume of scientific evidence that contradicts the accepted belief that the Earth is billions of years old.
The best way to start would be with carbon-14 dating; the principle way we date old organic material. From this stems the concept that life started ≈3.5 billion years ago. Few people really understand the difficulty and inaccuracy of c-14 dating. This is partially due to the fact that few people understand how exactly it works. C-14 is a rare, unstable ion of carbon, which is made in the upper atmosphere. Carbon is the backbone of all organic molecules and so c-14 is mixed in with it at a certain concentration. C-14 decomposes at fixed rate, with a half-life of 5,730 years. This forms a graph of exponential decay that can be calculated. C-14 dating samples the concentration of c-14 in a specimen and calculates the age based on what point on the graph it corresponds to. This has some very fundamental problems. Any math major will tell you that it is impossible to graph a continuous decay graph without a primary value. In other words, we don't know the concentration of c-14 in the original specimen. Although the concentration of c-14 in the biosphere has been relatively constant, there is no proof that it doesn't fluctuate. Factors like the intensity of the sun's radiation, the sunspot cycle, volcanic activity, etc. would drastically affect the level of c-14 in the biosphere. The industrial revolution has also changed the concentration by adding lots of carbon-12 into the atmosphere. Another problem is that c-14 dating becomes unreliable after millions of years. On an exponential decay graph, even at hundreds of thousands of years from the starting point, the slightest variation in the calculated concentration could mean a difference of tens of thousands of years. There are also countless examples of the inaccuracy of c-14 dating. For example, the shells of living snails were carbon dated and showed that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. Other specimens have been carbon dated more than once, each time producing a different date varying by thousands of years? ("Subject: Carbon Dating" 1). Even the inventor of the carbon -14 technique didn't intend for it to be used for so much time. "W.F. Libby, inventor of the C-14 dating technique, found that, prior to 1600 B.C., the radiocarbon [carbon-14] dates go wild" ("Dating of Time in Evolution" 2, 3). Concisely put, the entire system of c-14 dating is a dogma that most scientists take for granted, but which should be thoroughly scrutinized.
Another major piece of evidence involving the age of Earth is our magnetic field. Unlike the amount of carbon-14 in the biosphere, the intensity if Earth's magnetic field can be accurately tested. Although the field itself will not tell us, there are geological records of its behavior. Science has found that the Earth's magnetic field affects the development of rocks within the crust so consistently that we have been able to plot a pattern of its activity for over 150 years ("The Earth's Magnetic Field" 1). It has been found that our magnetic field recently has been decaying along, once again, an exponential decay pattern with a half life of 1,400 years ("The Earth's Magnetic Field" 3). Scientists have developed a model for this theorized pattern of activity. In 605 A.D., the field would have been twice as strong as it is today; in 795 B.C., it would have been four times stronger, and so on. The problem that this presents is that it only allows for the Earth to be about 10,000-15,000 years old. Beyond that, the field would be as powerful as a magnetic star, making life as we know it would be impossible ("The Earth's Magnetic Field" 3-4). There is much speculation of this model because we have not seen the entire picture and are trying to make a pattern of a small part.
Recent discoveries have added more weight to Dr. Humphrey's model. The April 5, 1995 edition (Vol. 14) of Science News reported on a Nature article that researchers are finding fresh evidence of extremely-rapid field orientation shifts, as much as six degrees per day? The article quotes one geophysicist as saying "that shows the core to be violently active in terms of the magnetic field" ("The Earth's Magnetic Field" 5).
Interestingly enough, some theologians have attributed a passage in Genesis to account for this activity. "…on that day all the fountains of the deep were broken up…" (Genesis 7:11, New King James Version). Although the field's pattern of activity is still being investigated, it does seem to present a problem to the idea of the Earth being 4.6 billion years old.
The great thing for the idea of Judeo-Christian creationism is that this particular debate does not need to be won. Even if the Earth were 4.6 billion years old, it would not undermine the biblical account of creation. Genesis 1:3-5 (New International Version) asserts: "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light 'day' and the darkness he called 'night.' And there was evening, and there was morning- the first day" (Genesis 1 New International Version). Throughout Genesis 1 the phrase "and there was evening and there was morning, the [first, second, third…] day" is used frequently. This is what seems to make it incompatible with a 4.6 billion-year-old Earth. However, this incompatibility dissipates when the original Hebrew definitions are analyzed (as the original text was in Hebrew). The words for evening, morning, and day have somewhat vague meanings. "Yowm" is the phonetic spelling of the Hebrew word that is translated as "day." It is defined as this: sunrise to sunset; sunset to sunset; a space of time (defined by an associated term); an age; time or period (without any reference to solar days). "Ereb" is the word defined as "evening" and means this: the beginning of darkness; dusk, twilight, or nightfall; closing, ending or completion. Finally, "Bocer" is the word translated as "morning." It means this: the breaking forth of light; dawn, daybreak or morning; dawning, beginning, or origin ("Word Studies in Genesis One by Hugh Ross, Ph. D." 3-4). Using the direct Hebrew definitions, the phase "and there was evening and there was morning, the [first, second, third…] day" could mean a number of things. It could mean something as completely different as "and there was an ending and there was a beginning, the [first, second, third…] age." This vastly different interpretation is entirely compatible with a 4.6 billion-year-old Earth.
THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION- BIOLOGY'S BIG BANG
Darwin, at the time he was formulating his theory of evolution, knew of a paleontological inconsistency with his theory. This inconsistency is known as the Cambrian Explosion, which occurred supposedly 540 million years ago (using Old Earth thinking). The paleontological record shows prior to that point life consisted mostly of single-celled prokaryotic and eukaryotic bacteria with the most complex life forms being sponge and jellyfish-like organisms. Then, in a geological instant (5-10 million years), there were phyla-level changes in the Earth's organic life. Within that time period "evolved" all modern-day phyla. At the time, Darwin though this was just due to a lapse in the paleontological record and he was confident it would be filled to show his theory of gradual change. Looking in retrospective, the opposite happened. As more and more fossils of that time were discovered, more and more species were found to have originated within that same time period. Due to the approximative nature of c-14 dating, it is possible that every fossil found within this 5-10 million year range could have originated the same millennium, year or even the same day. This is statistically unlikely, but it does draw attention to just how close these organisms lived, and with no preceding evolutionary relatives either. This paleontological anomaly is possibly the greatest thorn in the side of evolutionary theory. It clearly disproves Darwin's theory of gradual evolution. Scientists have even begun to amend Darwin's original theory to allow for this strange anomaly.
THERE'S MORE OUT THERE
One of the great things about the theory of Intelligent Design is that it can draw from a far broader argument for God that spans many fields of science. To start off, it can be taken into astronomy. In brief, the astronomical evidence lies in the fact that Earth is very improbable. For starters, in the Milky Way, our solar system is in a narrow margin not too close to, or too far from the center. It's also in the arms, which is necessary. It also has all the right elements, some of which are rare in the universe. It is also the right distance from the right kind of star. It has the right thermo-dynamic mechanisms to regulate temperature. The list goes on. The odds of all of these qualities being invested in one planet are inconceivably small.
There is also a good amount of evidence in physics. This evidence has been called anthropic fine-tuning. This evidence is simply a collection of physical constants that are incredibly precise in their values, some to one part in 1E40 or even more. All are necessary for the existence of life. Many are necessary for such basic things as the existence of complex atoms. If the probability of these nearly two-dozen constants all occurring were to be calculated, the denominator would be unimaginably high.
One final field of evidence comes from cosmology. It has been fairly well-determined that the universe began with the so-called Big Bang. Amazingly enough, this discovery has actually worked as evidence for the existence of God, despite being shunned by much of the fundamentalist Christian community. The evidence of the Big Bang is best described in the age-old kalam cosmological argument. The argument follows these simple steps: "(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. (2) The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore: (3) The universe has a cause of its existence. (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God. Therefore: (5) God exists" ("The Kalam Cosmological Argument" 1). This argument works the way it does because since the universe does have a beginning, something must have caused it. No cause would go against such basic principles as inertia and finite matter. Also such a cause would have been before the universe existed, there is really no other entity that could have caused it other than some sort of God figure. But, why exactly should the cause be a personal being? Some scientists, for example, would argue that even if the universe had a cause, its cause could have natural. This would stay with the scientific assertion that all can be explained naturally. This has two problems. One, what exactly would a natural cause of the universe be? How would it work? Natural causes exist within the universe and therefore could not cause it, since a cause must precede what it causes. If something preceded the universe, then it is not a natural cause simply by definition. One way scientists try to get out of this is by saying the cause have always been in effect. This is the second problem. If the cause of the universe caused it this way, one where did it come from, or why has the universe not always existed? If the cause has always been there, why has the universe not always been there? If it hasn't, where did it come from?
THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: A SUMMARY
Throughout all of these vastly diverse fields of science are the hallmarks of transcendent intelligence. It is evident through biological information and DNA and through the complexity, improbability and irreducibility of cells. It is also evident in the inadequacy of material explanations, the magnetic field pattern for example. It is quite evident in the paleontological phenomenon of the Cambrian Explosion that seems to fit a seven-day creation than a 3.5-billion-year gradual evolution. The theory of Intelligent Design has some robust evidence in its own field of biology. However, possibly one of its best attributes is the existence of further evidence beyond biology. God has left His subtle hints all over His creation. Only in the last several decades has our knowledge come close to detecting them. The evidence is in our DNA and our cells. It is in the Earth we live on and the universe we live in. It seems the more we learn of life, the more incredibly improbable we find it to be. Future scientific discoveries may help to fully reverse the current trend of atheism in mainstream science. God fulfills His promise: "[Jesus:] 'seek and you will find'" (Luke 11:9 New International Version).
Works Cited:
"Behe Responds to Postings in Talk Origins Newsgroup." arn.org.
"Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility?" talkorigins.org 11 December 1996
"Dating of Time in Evolution." pathlights.com.
"Intelligent Design." sdmesa.sdccd.net.
Ramey, Bill. "The Kalam Cosmological Argument: A Summary." religiouseducation.co.uk. 30 March 1998.
"Scientific Evidence for Creation." creationevidence.org. ©1998
Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator. Grand Rapids: Zondervan©, 2004.
"The Earth's Magnetic Field." creationevidence.org. ©1995
"The Kalam Cosmological Argument." philosophyofreligion.info. ©2003-2005
"The Kalam Cosmological Argument: A Summary." religiouseducation.co.uk. 30 March 1998
"Word Studies in Genesis One by Hugh Ross, Ph. D." reasons.org. ©1998-2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
