Creation vs Evolution

[Kev]

Ive read the contents of this thread with some interest...

Admittedly both creation theory and evolution theory are both only theories. A theory being just an idea. The main point of a theory is to try and find as much evidence to try and back it up and thus continue the relevance of the said theory.

I dont hold much credence to creation theory. Why do I say this? Well, firstly I argue from a scientific basis, I am not religious nor do I feel any kin with any particular faith. It seems that creation theory comes from a neglect of scientific data and comes mainly from the interpretation of religious scriptures: the Bible being being the main source. I think the Bible is a wonderful piece of fiction and like good fiction you can learn things relevant to the world around you. But to hold this work as an explanation for the world today being as it is, is just not something that fits into any rational recorded hypotheses or scientific deductions. For anyone just to say evolution theory is just lies is just ignorance of observable data. We are now able to observe data in even more minute detail via DNA. To just call this lies is somewhat naive.

Now creation theory as ive stated before is just the interpretation of scripture, writings of a religious basis. There is little to suggest that man was here at the time of the dinosaurs. In fact with the help of DNA testing of fossils we see no traces of a human type fossil being as old as a dinosaur fossil. Its not even close by an insy wincy margin of 50 million years. Man has not been on this earth since day one. And neither were the dinosaurs!

We can see evidence of evolution in DNA, genetics and fossils. We share 95 percent of the same DNA with chimpanzees. We share a lot less DNA with that of the great white shark. Think about it. Are we really that different from our ape like friends? Is it such a burden to consider that the human race is not of such "mighty" heritage? Stone age man was not writing Shakespearean sonnets, painting the Mona lisa nor running a marathon in less than 2 hours. We have got to this stage through natural processes over one heck of a long time. We dont have observable data of a human skeleton as we are now from 5 million years ago. Why? Because there isnt one. We will be able to find variations on that form though and the genetic makeup would be mighty similar to what we are made of today.

Admittedly both Creation theory and evolution theory are just theories. But for me one theory has a lot more scientific data backing it up. The other theory is supported by mainly interpreting literature. As a man that likes to follow logic and probability I have to support the latter theory.

I respect anybody's point of view and im not trying to hammer my own view down anyones throat either. This thread has been informative and friendly lets hope we can keep it that way!

Interesting thread, Bilbo

Hey Miles back, finally got someone who disagrees and so somebody to fence intellectually with

As regards to your claims that the evidence supports evolution I would refute that completely. Perhaps the best way to demonstrate this is merely to ask you to provide us with the evidence.

If you don't mind I'll ask you some simple questions that should obviously have clear and straight forward answers to and you can go and fetch the answers. I personally think you will be suprised.

1) The Fossil Record.

You seem to believe that the fossil record is supportive of evolution. I would really love to see you demonstrate this.

As evolution occurs at an incredibly slow rate over literally millions of years then the fossil record should clearly demonstrate the slow and gradual transition from one species into another.

So my first challenge is to find a transitional fossil, ie a a fossil that clearly and demonstrabley shows one kind of creature gradually evolving into another.

Now before you mention the Archaeopteryx, remember that all evolutionists classify it as 100% bird with some peculiar reptilian features, teeth for example and a three fingered wrist similiar to some of the later dinosoaurs such as belong to members of the raptor family. Nobody now believes this creature was half bird half reptile so despite it having peculiar features it does not qualify as a missing link.

Remember that a gradual theory of evolution should actually produce more transitional fossil than complete species as it such a gradual process with literally millions of years seperating a species from it's supposed ancestor. Why are there massive gaps, and for every single species of animal on the planet?

Actually many evolutionists have now recognised this problem, most prominantly Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge. Their puncuated equilibriam theory states that actually a species doesn't evolve gradually over millions of years but rather stays unchanged for millions of years then in some isolated population a series of rapid mutations take place and the resulting rapid evolution will result in new species very rapidly in the 10's of thousands rather than millions of years. As this happens in isolated populations then of course they will leave no fossils. A nice way to explain why the fossile record is completely non-supportive of evolution!


This has led to criticisms from the other evolutionary branches who argue that such rapid change resulting from mutation is impossible, considering what we now know about DNA. The equilibruists likewise counter that gradual and continuous evolution, tiny incremental changes at a uniform rate throughout history is also impossible because the fossil record disproves this.


This leads on nicely to my second point. We know as you pointed exactly how we are made literally, through our DNA. We understand that for evolution to occur at all it must be at the molecular level, something not understood by Darwin, Huxley and others when Darwinism was introduced.

In order for example for a species such as a dog to grow wings, there has to be new information added to the DNA and genetic code. Without this information you simply cannot ever have a dog producing wings. It's like coding a video game and expecting to race cars when the game is actually a medival sword game. Now matter how many times you run the game, you will never come across a car unless somebody subsequently codes it into the game.

Now lets consider this in more detail. For evolution to work at all it HAS to work at the molecular level. This means that somehow new information must get into the genetic code.

According to evolutionists this method is achieved through random mutatations, literally copying errors. I will not bore you by citing the probability calculations that have been done which completely put this in the realms of the absolutely impossible, something a long the lines of winning the lottery several million times in a row, all that is irrelevent here.

As you seem to know that there is evidence to support that random mutations can lead to an INCREASE of information withing a species that is actually BENEFICIAL rather than LETHAL to that organism I challenge you to find a SINGLE example.

Just one observed mutation in a species that led to new information being added that subsequently benefitted that organism will convince me.

As evolution is clearly true and it occurs at the molecular level and ALL OF LIFE has evolved through random mutations alone, I would make that around an infinite number of mutatations that must have taken place!

Find one!


Finally to say there is little evidence to suggest man lived contempary with dinosuars, it depends what you regard as evidence. The fossil record is irrelevent here as what you are saying is that according to your evolutionary understanding of uniformitarianism different rock strata represent millions of years and dinosaurs are buried in rocks millions of years older. However if the principle of uniforitarianism is not in fact true then the rock strata's have nothing to do with geological age and so the fossil record becomes irrelevent.

So we need to put aside both of our world views for a moment and decide to look for independent evidence that is not subject to our own particular beliefs.


For me for there to be convincing evidence that man and dinosaurs lived together I would need to see evidence of the following.

1) Folklore and a collective consciousness of such animals that clearly resemble dinosaurs. This concsiousness would need to be evident in a diverse human population across time and amongst different races, and the descriptions of such creatures should all share many commonalities to increase the likelyhood that tales were based on a shared experience of seeing similar creatures.

2) Such creatures, when described in written detail should clearly resemble dinosaurs as reconstructed by modern paleontologists.

3) There should be paintings, drawings, carvings etc of these creatures and they should look like dinosaurs as we understand them.


I would say that all three of the proof's necessary for belief that man and dinosaurs co-existed are abundant and found in virtually all races.

We all know that dragon legends abound amongst every race and tribe that has virtually ever exisited and left any traces of their civilisation. The word dragon occurs 13 times in the bible. Of course the word dinosaur does not, seeing as the word was first coined in the early 1800's by Sir Richard Owen.

Below are a few examples I have found on the net illustrating clearly the similarity between 'dragons' and modern dinosaurs......


This 'Stegasaurus' like creature is carved into a stone pillar belonging to one of the ruined temples of Ankgor Wat, built over 900 years ago


Here is a sauropod painted in a cave by anasazi indians between the fith and fourteenth centruries.




This is a very famous Roman mosaic dating 200 AD



This brass depiction of sauropods is engrave upon the tomb of the Bishop of Carlise Richard Bell who died in 1496!



Considering no man ever saw any of these creatures or even knew of their existence I think you will agree that the ancients did a pretty good job of imagining them!

Every animal in each of these pictures is instantly and immediately recognisable to us a known species of dinosuar.

That each of these paintings, engravings are as old as claimed to be is not disputed by ayone even evolutionists.

I guess you need to make up your own mind, but to me this is more valuble evidence than looking at a layer of rock strata.