Evidence FOR Creationism

Sword_Of_Geddon

Arbiter of the Sword
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Messages
14,184
Location
New England, USA
Focus—news of interest about creation and evolution
Fossil figures fall
The number of species living in the past, as estimated from fossils, is not as great as once thought, according to a new study seeking to catalogue every fossil ever dug up.

So far, the researchers have found that a number of fossils have been misidentified as being separate species, whereas in fact they are the same species. Poor communication between taxonomists in different countries can often lead to fossils being wrongly given their own species status.

Accordingly, it is now estimated that the overall number of species in the fossil record is inflated by 32–44%.

New Scientist, 23 August 2003, pp. 32–35.

‘Species’ is not the same as ‘kind’. Lions and tigers are different ‘species’, but they can interbreed to produce ligers and tigons (Creation 22(3):28–33, 2000).

So they are descendants of a single pair that Noah took on the Ark. (So sceptics’ ideas that Noah needed to look after ‘hundreds of thousands of species’ are not valid.) Note that even aside from this new information, only about 340,000 actual fossil specimens (estimated to represent about 250,000 species) have been found.

A common claim that 99% of fossil species have become extinct is based on the assumption of evolution, i.e. that billions of intermediate species once existed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rapid oil
A new industrial process produces commercial oil from any organic waste—anything containing carbon, e.g. poultry/abattoir offal, crop residues, municipal garbage—in only a couple of hours.

Scientists have developed other methods to rapidly convert waste products into liquid fuel. But such processes are expensive and inefficient, requiring extremely high pressures and temperatures. ‘The chief difference in our process is that we make water a friend rather than an enemy’, said Brian Appel, CEO of Changing World Technologies, describing his company’s waste-into-oil installation in Missouri, USA. ‘The other processes all tried to drive out water. We drive it in, inside this tank, with heat and pressure. We super-hydrate the material.’

Thus, temperatures and pressures need only be modest, because water helps to convey heat into the organic material.

Discover, <www.discover.com/may_03/featoil.html>, 2 May 2003.

Once more we see that the earth’s oil reserves did not need millions of years to form. The key ingredients needed for making oil in this new industrial process were all present at the time of the Flood (only about 4,500 years ago): uprooted plants and dead animals, moderate pressures (under layers of water-borne sediment) and, of course, water—all in abundance!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More clone deaths
There are new fears about cloning after three cloned pigs collapsed and died of heart failure at less than six months of age.

The ‘adult clone sudden death syndrome’, as one researcher called it, struck down all surviving members of a litter cloned using a variant of the ‘Dolly’ cloning technique. This is where a whole adult cell was forced into a fertilized egg that had been emptied of its own genetic material. (A fourth piglet had died only a few days after being born.)

These untimely deaths are a reminder of the problems plaguing cloned animals (see ‘Dolly dead’, Creation 25(3):8, 2003), with many falling ill or dying just after birth.

Nature Science Update, <www.nature.com/nsu/030825/030825-2.html>, 28 August 2003.

New Scientist, 6 September 2003, p. 12.

This is another reason why cloning should not be attempted for humans (see Creation 21(1):48–50, 1998).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thumbs up for human Neandertals
Although Neandertals are known to have made and used tools, they have been presumed by many to have had limited ability to use their hands, based on interpretations of the anatomy of their thumb and forefinger.

But the latest research indicates no significant difference between Neandertals and people today in their ability to move thumb and index finger to give precise grip.

So anatomical evidence and archaeological evidence both indicate Neandertals were just like humans today, manufacturing and handling a range of implements and tools.

Nature, 27 March 2003, p. 395.

Evolutionists aren’t sure what to do with Neandertal man—whether he is a precursor of modern man or an offshoot that died out. But fossils of Neandertals don’t present a problem for creationists—Neandertals being fully human, descendants of the first man, Adam, who was created in the image of God. (More at Thumbs up for Neandertals.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Planet theories wrong
Hubble telescope pictures of ‘a giant gaseous object orbiting two burned-out stars’ is forcing a rethink of theories of the origins of planets. Astronomers say the gaseous object is the most distant and oldest planet yet found in the universe, as it appears to have formed 12.7 billion years ago, within a billion years of the theorized big bang origin of the universe.

But these conclusions challenge the belief that planets could not have formed so early because of insufficient heavy elements at that time. So the astronomers say this discovery shows that all theories of planetary formation may have to be revised.

The Washington Times, <washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030710-093314-3718r.htm>, 9 September 2003.

The detection of this planet goes against evolutionary predictions, but its existence is consistent with the Bible. Note that the planet’s alleged age is not based on any evidence whatsoever—see New planet challenges evolutionary models.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a web they weave
Spider silk has been found preserved in a piece of amber ‘dated’ at 130 million years old, eclipsing the previous date for the oldest preserved silk of 40 million years old.

Because this latest find resembles silk from the complex aerial webs of modern orb-weaver or comb-footed spiders, the fossils of which are found in rocks dated at 190 million years, [evolutionists say] complex web-weaving must be at least that old.

New Scientist, 9 August 2003, p. 24.

Nature, 7 August 2003, pp. 636–637.

Spider silk is stronger and more efficiently produced than any man-made fibre (Creation 23(2):20–21, 2001). This is testimony to a Creator (Romans 1:20). But could spider silk really last for 130 million years? Preservation in amber is consistent with there having been a global Flood (Creation 25(2):52–53, 2003) around 4,500 years ago. Also, comb-footed spiders today are still the same as fossilized comb-footed spiders, testifying to reproduction ‘after their kind’, i.e. no evolution.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sniffer dogs
The wild dogs called jackals have a much sharper sense of smell than domestic dogs, but are less willing to be put to work.

So a Russian research group has crossed a jackal with a husky to breed the ‘ultimate’ sniffer dog. Now 25 of the new breed are used at a Moscow airport to sniff out drugs and explosives in planes and luggage. A further 10 ‘jacksy’ dogs are working in a forensic department.

New Scientist, 18 May 2002, p. 19.

This shows again that the Bible’s created kinds often include more than one ‘species’.

It also shows that the selective breeding that produced domestic dogs removed information, in the case of the husky, its acute sense of smell.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don’t blame the asteroid
Many say that an asteroid smashing into the earth 65 million years ago caused the dinosaur extinction. But this may be misplaced, say paleontologists.

They claim to have found evidence of global climate change before the asteroid hit. So they say the dinosaurs were already in sharp decline, and the impact winter simply finished them off quickly.

Discovery Channel News, <dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20030714/dinodead_print.html>, 28 July 2003.

Evolutionists assume the fossil record shows the order of evolution and extinction. The biblical perspective is that vast numbers of creatures perished in the Flood (with many of their remains being fossilized under layers of sediment, which later hardened into rock), but all the kinds of land animals and birds survived aboard the Ark (including dinosaurs), repopulating the earth afterwards. Since then, many creatures have gone extinct, not just dinosaurs, in an ongoing display of the Curse on creation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Germ degeneration
When new disease-causing bacteria appear, it is commonly thought that it is because they gained [‘evolved’] new genes, thus enabling them to attack particular animal species or humans. But a recent study of three species of Bordetella whooping cough bacteria shows just the opposite, i.e. the bacteria have lost genes. This ‘substantial gene loss and inactivation’ makes the bacteria even more dependent on their unfortunate animal or human ‘host’.

So, the appearance of new disease-causing Bordetella bacteria resulted not from an ‘upwards’ genetic gain, but a ‘downhill’ loss of genes. As The Scientist dubbed it: ‘Survival of the not-so-fit’.

The Scientist, Daily News, <www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030814/02>, 2 September 2003.

We have earlier reported evidence that losing an ability can make germs more dangerous (Creation 24(4):8, 2002). Remember, too, that germs were originally not harmful in the ‘very good’ world God made, but benign or useful.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The legs that weren’t
The fossilized skull and other fragments of a whale unearthed in California, USA, are forcing a rethink of some aspects of whale evolution.

In particular, paleontologists are surprised that such a ‘primitive’ whale ‘lived about 20 million years later than it should have’. They say, ‘the creature may have had small rear legs, though this remains speculative because the rear part of the whale was not found’.

Orange County Register.com, <www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=53794>, 9 September 2003.

A fishy story—even telling us what size these imaginary legs were likely to have been!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aardvark ancestry?
An international team of researchers claims that every mammal, including man, is descended from a common ancestor genetically similar to the modern aardvark.

Comparing chromosomes of mammal species shows that the aardvark has the greatest number of genetic features in common with other mammals. The researchers conclude that the aardvark is the closest living relative of our common ancestor.

Proceedings of the NAS, 4 February 2003, pp. 1062–1066.

Evolutionists assume that common features are evidence of common ancestry. Creationists explain such similarities in living things as evidence of a common Designer (Romans 1:20). See Are look-alikes related? Creation 19(2):39–41, 1997.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even faster diamonds
While many people still think natural diamonds need millions of years to form, the technology to rapidly synthesize diamonds continues to improve. [See Creation 25(3):7, 2003; 25(1):9, 2002.]

Researchers have now made diamonds by reacting carbon dioxide with metallic sodium in a pressurized oven at only 440ºC—the lowest temperature reported so far for diamond synthesis—and 800 atmospheres. (Other methods require pressures up to five million atmospheres and temperatures up to 1,400ºC.) It took just 12 hours.

New Scientist, 26 July 2003, p. 17.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi-tech Ötzi
Further analysis of the frozen corpse of Ötzi, the ‘ice man’ found in the Austrian-Italian Alps in 1991, shows that his society, three thousand years ago, had a high level of technology. Ötzi’s equipment included a framed backpack, a copper axe, dried fruit and other foods, and a fire-making kit that included flint and ores for making sparks.

‘Ötzi was extremely well equipped, each object fashioned from the material best suited to its purpose’, said the Ötzi researchers. For example, Ötzi’s longbow was made of yew—‘the best wood for such a purpose because of its great tensile strength’.

Longbows of yew gave the English army a crucial advantage at the battle of Agincourt in 1415—thousands of years after Ötzi’s society had discovered their power. Ötzi was also carrying plants with powerful pharmaceutical properties, e.g. birch bracket fungus—in other words, his own first aid kit.

Ötzi’s last meal included goat meat and bread cooked in a charcoal oven. Said one commentator: ‘Clearly Stone Age Europeans were sophisticated individuals who exploited local resources and led lives that were far from brutish or short.’

Scientific American, May 2003, pp. 60–69.

The Observer, 4 May 2003, p. 7.
 
Is it just me or are those "evidence AGAINST evolution" than evidence for creationism? Creationism is not valid by default due to the presumed inconsistencies of all the other theories.
 
I would answer this thread but Mods keep posting Don't feed the trolls.
So I won't. :p
 
What bothers me is not that new evidence is arising to dispel previous scientific conceptions, but that so many are willing to immediately jump on the "well a Creator must've done it" bandwagon, citing a two-thousand year old text as evidence, then turning around and using their interpretations of it as the premise for their arguments.
 
It just gets you thinking how many things have to be wrong, to even have a shot at starting to make a point for Creationism: evolution, paleonthology, astronomy, cosmology, physics, biology. In other words, Creationists are trying to disprove Science by scientific means ;)
 
Just because we can create diamonds and oil faster than nature can, god must have created us and the world, please give me a break.

Fossils aren't the only proof of evolution, either.

And you do know that out of every 1000 species of bacteria, there is only 1 that is harmful to humans.

Also, if the great flood in the ark story really happened, where is the sediment at the bottom of the ocean, eh. There should be a layer of sediment on the ocean floor at a similar depth worldwide, as the water would have eroded the land as it passed over it.

This sediment has never been found.

Neanderthal man causing a problem, well you get different forms of other animals, say breeds of dog and such, why can't we have had breeds of human in the past.

And you're evidence about planetary theories being wrong, says they need to be revised, i.e. they aren't completely wrong, after all if they were completely wrong, they wouldn't be accepted as theories.
 
Nothing in the initial post disproves Evolution, anyway. It simply raises the possibility that Evolution happened in different ways than we believe it did.
 
So because there is a lesser number of extinct species than once thought, this is somehow evidence for creationism? :hmm:

"You don't have an idea, so I can have an idea and say it's true without any evidence!" :rolleyes:

Astronomers say the gaseous object is the most distant and oldest planet yet found in the universe, as it appears to have formed 12.7 billion years ago, within a billion years of the theorized big bang origin of the universe.

But these conclusions challenge the belief that planets could not have formed so early because of insufficient heavy elements at that time. So the astronomers say this discovery shows that all theories of planetary formation may have to be revised.


Maybe there were more heavy elements than we once thought?
 
All that stuff about Otzi being able to use advanced tools, and herbs. You do understand that monkeyscan do all that?
 
It just gets you thinking how many things have to be wrong, to even have a shot at starting to make a point for Creationism: evolution, paleonthology, astronomy, cosmology, physics, biology. In other words, Creationists are trying to disprove Science by scientific means
No we're simply trying to disprove bad science, that bases its conclusions on preconceived ideas, and on simplistic ways of looking at the universe, read the book the Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb, it was made in 1961, and still refutes literally hundreds of stuff STILL being used as evidence for evolution. That book totally destroys anything that even looks remotely close to uniformitarianism, it also has alot on the really bad science used by people like darwin and other 19th century "scientists" who are now considered hero's by many scientists today.
 
CenturionV said:
No we're simply trying to disprove bad science, that bases its conclusions on preconceived ideas, and on simplistic ways of looking at the universe, read the book the Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb, it was made in 1961, and still refutes literally hundreds of stuff STILL being used as evidence for evolution. That book totally destroys anything that even looks remotely close to uniformitarianism, it also has alot on the really bad science used by people like darwin and other 19th century "scientists" who are now considered hero's by many scientists today.
Here are some reviews of that book. They don't seem unanimous in it's praise, so could you actually quote specific parts from the book rather than simply saying: "Read it".
 
Here are some reviews of that book. They don't seem unanimous in it's praise, so could you actually quote specific parts from the book rather than simply saying: "Read it".
For what purpose? No scientific argument worth its salt can be explained in under a few dozen pages (if it can, then its not anything near enough to be considered scientific) Simply put, typing in any of the complete arguments of the book would take most of my day. As I said, if your soooo very interested in the scientific arguments in this book, buy it, research it yourself, its probably best if you have easy access to a library when you do so as it has a huge amount of qoutation from supporting books (a huge amount of them evolutionist ones).

I also notice that most of those reviews use the favorite atheist evolutionist tactics of accusing the writer of "religionous dogma" and "unscientificness" without much sound evidence. As simplistic atheist thinking goes (hey is there any other kind?) because it supports some things in the bible it MUST be religious, and thus CANNOT be used as scientific evidence. If your a religious person, and write a book with any mention of religion in it, it CANNOT be scientific. what a load of crap.
 
CenturionV said:
For what purpose? No scientific argument worth its salt can be explained in under a few dozen pages (if it can, then its not anything near enough to be considered scientific) Simply put, typing in any of the complete arguments of the book would take most of my day. As I said, if your soooo very interested in the scientific arguments in this book, buy it, research it yourself, its probably best if you have easy access to a library when you do so as it has a huge amount of qoutation from supporting books (a huge amount of them evolutionist ones).

I also notice that most of those reviews use the favorite atheist evolutionist tactics of accusing the writer of "religionous dogma" and "unscientificness" without much sound evidence. As simplistic atheist thinking goes (hey is there any other kind?) because it supports some things in the bible it MUST be religious, and thus CANNOT be used as scientific evidence. If your a religious person, and write a book with any mention of religion in it, it CANNOT be scientific. what a load of crap.
Actually, the prevailing argument was that the writer used the un-scientific practice of making up their mind beforehand, and simply searching for reasons why their point of view was correct. To be honest, if I was truly desperate, I could eventually write a book that contains a billion arguments in support of Time-cubism. Deliberately setting out with a view that something is an absolute truth is among the most unscientific thing you can do.
 
Actually, the prevailing argument was that the writer used the un-scientific practice of making up their mind beforehand, and simply searching for reasons why their point of view was correct. To be honest, if I was truly desperate, I could eventually write a book that contains a billion arguments in support of Time-cubism. Deliberately setting out with a view that something is an absolute truth is among the most unscientific thing you can do.
Yet evolutionist start out this very same way every time. They start out with evolution, and equally unprovable theory.

Trying to differentiate your theory from mine, is impossible, they are both untestable scientific theories with large bodies of evidence, and with eatch side rejecting the other as dogma. Both can't be right, but we can NEVER "prove" one or the other, you have to take it on faith. faith that your calculations are correct, faith that you have not made mistakes, faith that you are right even though you cannot know, nor test it. Are we really so different, the creationist and the evolutionist?

EDIT: actually according to the scientific method, evolution is not even at the point of theory, it is eternally hypothesis, you cannot test human evolution. The times required are to great.

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
 
Well yes creationists are different, in that they base their theory on a deity, and a religious belief, evolution may be seen as a religion but it is not, this makes the theory of creationism less testable than evolution, while you can't really call creationism a theory as it doesn't make testable predictions.

Why is it, that whenever we have a debate about creationism, evolution is brought up, evolution being false does not make creationism true and vice versa.

Nowhere in the theory of Evolution is the creation of the Earth discussed.
 
CenturionV said:
No we're simply trying to disprove bad science, that bases its conclusions on preconceived ideas, and on simplistic ways of looking at the universe, read the book the Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb, it was made in 1961, and still refutes literally hundreds of stuff STILL being used as evidence for evolution. That book totally destroys anything that even looks remotely close to uniformitarianism, it also has alot on the really bad science used by people like darwin and other 19th century "scientists" who are now considered hero's by many scientists today.
And they will continue to be lauded for their achievements not because they were correct but because they posited seminal ideas that continue to reasonably explain phenomena. No serious biologist will claim The Origin of Species to be irrefutable evidence of evolution, but may cite it as the first text to take the idea of descent with modification into consideration and expound it; nothing more.
 
SolarKnight said:
Well yes creationists are different, in that they base their theory on a deity, and a religious belief, evolution may be seen as a religion but it is not, this makes the theory of creationism less testable than evolution, while you can't really call creationism a theory as it doesn't make testable predictions.

Why is it, that whenever we have a debate about creationism, evolution is brought up, evolution being false does not make creationism true and vice versa.

Nowhere in the theory of Evolution is the creation of the Earth discussed.
Why? neither can be tested, unless you can recreat human evolution in the lab? 2 of nothing, still equal nothing, my theory(or hypothosis) cannot be "less testable" than yours simply because I say that the earth was created in 7 days about 6 thousand years ago.

I know it hurts. Just admit that there both equally untestable.

Let me ask you this. Why is it that whenever we discuss creationism, religion is always brought up? It the evolutionist stupid inability, to look at almost anything with an unwarped view. You CANNOT look at creationism as an equal hypothesis to evolution? It just as valid, just as untestable, deity, big bang, whatever, neither can be tested and thus neither is "more" or "less" testable.
 
Well I'm sorry if i touched a nerve, but I'm very open minded, but from what i am aware of, the reason religion is brought up, is because creationism takes its roots from genesis, and so religion is brought in from the word go.

I never said we couldn't take the two as equal hypotheses, in fact, although I know which one i would be more inclined to believe, I am happy for creationism to be debated and investigated as an alternative, as long as it is not forced in our faces if any part of it is proven to be true.

I am just sick of the knee - jerk reaction of some that says, evolution is crap so god must exist and must have created the world, thats about as logical as saying the moon is made of green cheese.

Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against Religion or Creationism, I enjoy these kind of debates, I can just get a little carried away at times.
 
Back
Top Bottom