Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Evolution and Creation

  1. Jul 1, 2003 #1
    Well, everyone asked for it! I read atleast 5 or 6 posts that had some reference to the want of this topic. I've studied Evolution and Creationism for almost 2 years now. So I'm up to any challenges concerning the matter.

    I don't know the appropriate way to start off, so I'll leave it up to you all! And so all of you know, I'm a creationist. That should help you out a bit.

  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 1, 2003 #2
    On what grounds?

    Why refute the overwhelming evidence in favour of evolution?

    Oh, and how old do you believe the Earth to be?
  4. Jul 1, 2003 #3
    Heheh, there's a start. Well, actaully, according to the Bible it is about 10,000 years old. Some people say that it ranges all the way to 16,000, which certainly goes against the time lines in the Bible. I'll look back into the study I did on it about a year ago. It took me over a week of work.

    And there's another point you had above it - So what are some of those undeniable proofs? Just any of them! Go right ahead!

  5. Jul 1, 2003 #4
    First of all you haven't actually told me how old you think the Earth is...

    Secondly, undeniable proof is not the same as overwhelming evidence. Evolution is a theory - it isn't perfect, and there are holes. Heck, I'm certainly not a biologist (although I know one or two), but I hear google is a good place to start if you're looking for some information.

    What would help, perhaps, is if you spoke to us about your reasons behind your disbelief of evolution...
  6. Jul 1, 2003 #5

    Ok, sry about that. I believe in what i found through giong through the Bible. Like, I said, I did research on it a year ago and I think it is less. I believe that I put a date for Creation around 6900 and 7100 BC. That's what I believe.

    Second, I do believe in Micro Evolution. Any educated person in the field of Creationism does and it IS a undeniable fact. Now, I'm not saying your definition of micro evolution is the same as mine, but it should be close. Like mutations, natural selection, etc. How else could we get all these new virus'? How about the cold virus? It changes constantly. That's what I mean by Micro Evolution. Now as for Natural Selection and Mutations, they still have not given us any proof af ADDING genes. All they have done is take away and this is PROVEN. I didn't make it up. That's why evolution seems to be holding onto mutations right now, they are the best bet for evolution.

    Lastly, what I DON'T believe in is Macro Evolution, or Molecules-to-Man evolution. It makes a good storyline for a fictitious movie to me and that's it. I have studied about both sides of this argument for nearly two years now and I understand both sides perfectly fine. It's just seems to me like there's more disproving of evolution going out there than usual. I mean, for example, Netscape had an article on it a little while back about how there seems to have been an unusual catastropic event that caused the fossil record and what scientists thought it used to be(STRICTLY caused by long periods of time). (That seems to me like the flood.)

    It's just that I have found so much proof of the Bible's accuracy that I believe every word it says. It just what every word means gets me.

    But that's about it. I can't think of anything else!

  7. Jul 1, 2003 #6
    Re: ...

    there is next to no solid evidence that would support creationism. and the few that exist have other explanations. i challange you to produce on scientifically sound piece of evidence why you think god created man, and i'd like a very clear explanation for the reasons you do not accept the evidence that evolutionists have brought forth. what is it if not proof of evolution?

    if you believe every word that was said in the bible, and your beliefs cannot be shaken, why are you posting here. you must keep an open mind. question everything. yes, even god.
  8. Jul 1, 2003 #7
    First off - there is no such thing as studying creationism.

    Second off - saying you're a creationist is identical to saying "I accept outrageous claims with no evidence for them, and mounds of evidence against them."

    Thirdly - That makes you a 100% idiot.

    FROM THE MENTOR: Name calling is grounds for being banned
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 1, 2003
  9. Jul 1, 2003 #8
    Cube - You just said you are a creationist, and yet "believe" in microevolution.

    First off, microevolution has been filmed thousands of time, believing is accepting a claim with no evidence. Microevolution is a fact - and so you KNOW it occurs, not believe.


    You just said you "believe" microevolution takes place.


    Man oh man - it saddens me how someone can "study" for 2 years and come to a conclusion which I can rape to death in less than 30 seconds without performing a SINGLE thought process.

    Are you sure you're human? I can't believe I am the same species of you! Surely you have evolved less than me!

    FROM THE MENTOR: Insulting others is grounds for being banned.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 1, 2003
  10. Jul 1, 2003 #9
    Re: ...

    So how do you dispute the pretty much irrefutable hard evidence that shows the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (certainly much older than a few thousand anyway )?

    Is it all a big cover up? Have we got it whoppingly wrong when fossils for example are discovered and dated as however many thousand or million years old? This is what amazes me about creationists - do you want me to find thousands of pages with information that proves that the Earth has been around a lot longer than 7000 years?

    As for your evolution rant, CubeX, I can't believe you're real. So much proof of the Bible's accuracy? How about reading some biology text books too.
  11. Jul 1, 2003 #10
    Re: Re: ...

    Mulder- Hey . You and I both know he has absolutely no refute for this. He's merely been brainraped and will only accept the subjective evidence which supports his predjudice.

    There are well over 100 methods in independantly dating an object. Absolutely all the methods will independantly produce the same result on a specific item.

    Less than one tenth of one percent of the material that has been dated is less than one million years old.

    There is no such thing as new material.

    Cube is just a victim of the preisthood (probably in more ways than one :))

    FROM THE MENTOR: Insulting others is grounds for being banned.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 1, 2003
  12. Jul 1, 2003 #11
    Cube is one sick sick person.

    You guys wanna here something funny?

    Here is one interesting way in which you can completely ass-rape creationism.

    Did you know that if the Earth was the age the wackos say it is - usually 6 thousand years old, and we assume that every person now living, and every human corpse known to be in existance (buried etc..)

    if we assume everyone of those people lived to be at least 18 years on average (judging by body sizes, and most reached higher ages)

    that even if we distributed there lives evenly over the 6 thousand years their would be so many people alive at one time that they could not even physically fit on all the earth surface even including that surface that is underwater??

    haha - talk about below-scientific proof of the stupidity!!!!!!!

    FROM THE MENTOR: Insulting others is grounds for being banned.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 1, 2003
  13. Jul 1, 2003 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm curious what the source of your figure is.

    And it's clear you didn't.

    Interesting. How, pray tell, do you know of 2 * 10^17 people? (and that's a conservative estimate based on your parameters)
  14. Jul 1, 2003 #13

    Another God

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    First of all Cube, I hope you just Ignore PhysicsRocks88...I assume he is new here (I keep forgetting to look at when he joined), and obviously doesn't realise that everyone here is actually interested in discussing things...Not being flamed for their beliefs.

    Now having said that, I must warn you, that I am about to convince you that evolution is undeniably real. Do you think you can handle that?

    I'll take my time with it, otherwise it may come as a bit of a shock.

    The first thing you should know is : Talk Origins is the Undisputed ll round perfect resource for all facts on Evolution (and counter arguments by creationists, and counter counter arguments and so on). If You have spent 2 years researching this subject, and never come across this website, then u weren't looking very hard.

    Secondly, I am in my fourth year at Uni doung a Triple Major in Philosophy, History and Philosophy of Science, and Molecular Biology. I have a keen interest in evolution just for interest sake, and understanding molecular biology allows me to understand how evolution works 'In reality'...in the biological system. I know What mutations actually are. I know how mutations affect a system, and I know how they are propagated. Mutations are not something which occur on the phenotypic level...they occur on a genetic level, and sometimes they may have phenotypic effects. Just remember that.

    Anyway, I said I will do it slowly, so I will just await your reply here so I know where to go with it from here. I have just one last thing. This is my proof for evolution:

    Evolution requires three things to work.
    1. Accurate Copying of information down 'generations'
    2. Slight Variations in that Informatio
    3. Something which 'selects' the good information from the bad information
      This is a fact, reproduced many many times in computers, labs, and a social experiments times over. If you have these 3 parameters, you have a system which over time changes. This change, is evolution.

      Now, does our world encounter evolution?
      Well, every 'generation' recieves an accurate copy of genetic information from its parents. In that event there may be slight mutations. If the genetic information codes something which isn't functional, that generation dies. If that genetic information codes something which is below obviously less functional than many others around it, then it will probably die. And so on.

    1. I can't prove right here right now with these words that these facts about nature coincide directly with the mathematical style proof of evolution as given above, but I can suggest strongly to you, that it is VERY unlikely that it doesn't.

      We have the parts, we have the proof. It is unreasonable to accept that they don't come together and result in what you know you see all around you.
  15. Jul 1, 2003 #14
    I got it from family trees, and if there were no dates to them, I used a figure for the average lifespan before having a child at that time for the people. But then, I also used religious traditions and practices and traced them to their first dated recording. I had a Church History class at that time, so it was quite easy to use the information I got from there. And also, I used calculations of time and so i guess that they can be educated guesses. But all I did was follow the outline of the Bible basically. You would probably find about the same numbers if you did it.

  16. Jul 1, 2003 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    From what I've read, the Catholic Church did just that, and got a date of 4004 BC for creation.
  17. Jul 1, 2003 #16

    I can see by your replies that you are 100% ignoring any contradiction. I would assert your sole purpose is to stir **** up - and that indeed you know not a single thing about evolution. Also, your post content makes you look 13, so are you?

    Secondly, why are you using the bible. If you're asserting that a piece of information is true because it's in the bible, then please provide evidence that this information is true.

    I could write a book which said the earth was 10 days old. You have no evidence of the age of the Earth little child - you're just believing what you read.
  18. Jul 1, 2003 #17

    Another God

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Yeah, thats generally accepted as how the creationists date the earth. I've just enver met someone who bothered to do it personally before. But even so, how do you account for the fact that there are so many many many scientific methods of dating things, all of which give a number MUCH MUCH MUCH larger than 6000 years? I mean like, if they were at all similar, then maybe you could claim they were wrong, and that the earth was actually 6000 years old. But no, the scientific dates are MUCH bigger than 6000 years. And they ALL say it.

    What I find compelling is that these earth age dates from science all came out in a time when everyone was a good little christian, and the only date they had for the earth was the biblical one. And so compelling was the scientifica evidence, that all of these christian scientists realised that the earth COULDN'T be only 6000 years old, so changed to the obvious evidence present in the science.

    It's hard to change someones belief system, and so to have an entire world of people change it obviously means something. It is just a limited number of residual pockets left, unwilling to change.
  19. Jul 1, 2003 #18
    Yes, i have come across that site many, many times. I've been very intrigued by some of the articles there. But, yes, I do know that mutations occur on the genetic level. but, please, correct me if I'm wrong but you posted:

    Evolution requires three things to work.

    Accurate Copying of information down 'generations'

    Slight Variations in that Information

    Something which 'selects' the good information from the bad information

    But isn't it also that those changes need to be for GOOD for and progression to occur? Evolution means "change" as we all know, and so that means that any change is an evolution. But for a Progressive Evolution (or Molecules-to-Man) to occur, doesn't it require the addition of genes? Therefore, natural selection CANNOT cause this type of evolution, but we still don't know about mutations, correct? There hasn't been one that has caused this, but there is still quite a chance that it still could do this. But we cannot prove that it can or cannot at this time. The only problem is - where do the genes come from?

    Also, I was ignoring PhysicsRock88 because, I don't think he even knows where he got any of his stuff. Also, most of his posts were just Spam. I'm just glad that there are people on this board like you and Hurkyl that are willing to just takl and not flame.

  20. Jul 1, 2003 #19

    1. I would suggest you attempt to recieve a refund on your education. This statement is complete and total misinformation. If you're gonna attempt to prove evolution, at least know what it is.

      Statement 1 is fine - and so is statement 2.

      In statement 3 you are merely referencing ONE evolutionary agent called natural selection. If your three statement were to accurately describe evolution statement three should read like this:

      3. A change in allele frequencies of a given population over time, for absolutely any reason.

      You need to correct this in your brain - and stop spreading misinformation that I as a biologist must go around and correct.
  21. Jul 1, 2003 #20
    Posts with truths you can't handle aren't spam. You're not here to learn obviously.

    Thirdly - his 3 points of evolution are flawed, and so you need to ignore those posts.

    His third one is simply one evolutionary agent.

    Also, why are you asking that it needs to be "good"? If you had done evolutionary research you would have known the answer to this - which is 100% no.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook