Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game!

[nato]

I was going to reply to the guy who replied to me ... but this thread jumped from 1 page to 4 in the time I ate dinner! Wow. Too much to keep up with for me.

Cool pic Lonestar!

[Dauphin]

Concentration of Ocean salt
The concentration of salt in the oceans is steadily growing. Yet the oceans are not nearly salty enoughh to have existed for billions of years. even with generous allowances, the salt concentration suggests they could be no more than 62 million years old at the most.

The sea is at saturation point, no more salt can be dissolved into it, therefore the first statement is a fallacy

Earth-moon distance
Measurements show that the moon is slowly withdrawing from the earth. Each year, the distance increases by about 1 and half inches, though the rate was likly greater in the past. Calculations show that even if the moon had been in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon, not the actual age. This maximum age is still far to young for evolution to have had time to occur, and much younger than the radiomentric "dates" assigned to moon rocks. Since the precise distance of the moon from the earth is critical for regulating ocean tides, the age must be a fraction of that amount of time.

I can show you the equations for this, but I don't think you would follow them. Suffice it to say they show the Moon would end up in its current position after it was created about 3 billion years ago.

Magnetic Feild Intensity
The earths magnetic field is rapidly decreasing in strength

It fluctuates both up and down. Whats the problem.

Absent Supernova
Supernova is the name given for the tremendous explosion of a star. It creates a brief light far briger than any other object in a galaxy. Calculations show that the remains of supernovas continue shining for hundreds of thousands of years. yet oservations of our own milky way galaxy do not show any old supernova. This fact suggests the galaxy has not exixted long enough for these to have occurred.

I see plenty of white dwarves and neutron stars. Plus if there weren't any in our galaxy then we wouldn't be here. We are after all made of stardust.

The others have answers but I don't have the time to answer.

[FrustratedPoet]

Those are interesting arguments Draco.

I have no qualifications to comment on their accuracy, so I won't even try.

I don't like to blindly believe anything I read in books (or Internet forums for that matter) and I therefore maintain a reasonable scepticism about, well ... pretty much everything . However, I have not encountered any explanation for the development of species that sounds more plausible to me than Darwin's theories, and more more specifically the Mendelian experiments that both preceded and support Darwin.

If some, or all, of the information you presented is accurate then it certainly poses questions about the validity of a Theory of Evolution. There are Biology professors in many (all?) major universites that are inclined to disbelieve Darwin's theories, so support for Evolution is certainly not universal, although surely still the majority opinion.

However, progress can only be made towards a 'true' version of events if their is a free and informed debate.
The 'I'm right - You're wrong' attitude is wholly unproductive to either side of the debate.

Just my $0.02

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
World population growth
World population growth is esimated by many population experts to be an average of about 2 percent per year. To be very conservative, if the population only increased one half percent per year (allowing generously for plagues, wars, starvation, etc ), in one million years ( the evolutionists gereral estimate of the age of man on planet earth) there would have been 10 to the 2100 power people somehow stacked on earth. (that number of people would actually fill countless trillions of entire universes.) even if an almost zero growth rate of population were assumed, in a million years the earth would have housed 3000000000000 people up until the present age. There is no cultural or fossil evidence for numbers anywhere near that level.
At the one have percent growth rate. it would take about 4000 years to produce today's population from a single couple.

In a hunter-gatherer society (which is to say anything before 8000BC), it is impossible to have a growth rate of 2% a year. Such societies can barely support one person per square kilometer, and thus any sort of growth at all would result in starvation.

Topsoil depth
there is an average of seven or eight inches of topsoil that sustains all of life on earth, while the earth beneath the topsoil is as dead as rock. Scientists tell us that the combination of plants, bacterial decay and erosion will produce six inches of topsoil in 5000 to 20000 years. IF the earth had been here for 5 billion years, we should have much more topsoil than the seven or eight inches; more on the order of 56 miles thick!

As soil, mud, or sand accumulates, the stuff that's below experiences so much pressure that they eventually fuse into sedimentary rocks, like sandstone or conglomerate. That's why we can't have 56 miles of topsoil.

Absent Meteorites
Where are the meeorites in the multi billion year old geological column? While most meteors burn up before they reach the earths surface, many (up to 60 tons each day) land on earth. If the supposed geological layers were laid down over millions of years, where are the meteorites in the layers? no such meteors ahve been found in the geological layers.

The earth's erosional forces are very great. If there were no winds, rivers or seas, the earth would probably be as cratered as the moon. That's why there're very little craters or meteor remains.

Short Period comets
Our solar system has an abundance of short period comets, that is, comets whose life span averages only 1 500 to 10000 years. yet if the universe is billions of years old, these comets would have disintegrated long ago. evolutions have had to scramble to try and explain their existance.

They probably originated farther off and were hurled inwards by Jupiter's or Saturn's gravity.

Our shrinking, self consuming sun
It just makes sense to suspect that as the sun burns its fuel, the sun gets smaller.

The sun doesn't "burn its fuel". It transforms hydrogen into helium, and during the process, the sun gets larger.

[Andrew Cory]

As far as I can tell, having taken a few college level Science courses, as well as reading a few books on the subject, One can say definitivly that Evolution is _fact_, but there are _theories_ as to _how_.

I don't tend to belive that the gods had much to do with it, after all, they didn't come into existance until after we asked them to...

[Fitz]

1

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
World population growth
World population growth is esimated by many population experts to be an average of about 2 percent per year. To be very conservative, if the population only increased one half percent per year (allowing generously for plagues, wars, starvation, etc ), in one million years ( the evolutionists gereral estimate of the age of man on planet earth) there would have been 10 to the 2100 power people somehow stacked on earth. (that number of people would actually fill countless trillions of entire universes.) even if an almost zero growth rate of population were assumed, in a million years the earth would have housed 3000000000000 people up until the present age. There is no cultural or fossil evidence for numbers anywhere near that level.
At the one have percent growth rate. it would take about 4000 years to produce today's population from a single couple.

World population growth: Who would assume a positive population growth on the average of 2%? There is no way to estimate this number. First of all, a dramatic plague in a low population of man concentrated in a small locale (ie early in mans history) could result in a -95% growth rate in a single year. Ditto war, ditto weather or crop variations. Even later on, the european plauges of recent history devastated huge populations. Since we are making up numbers, if I assume 50% loss over a 1 year period in europe, then a 5% growth rate after, it would take ~15 years to recover to the old point. That means a 0% gain over that 16 year period. Given the dangers to life and limb in ancient and medival times, I find it hard to believe that you can quote a stead 2% growth rate since the dawn of man.

[Draco aka Se7eN]

The sea is at saturation point, no more salt can be dissolved into it, therefore the first statement is a fallacy

Tell that to R.E. Walsh, editor, Proceedings of the second internation conference on Creationism, "the Sea's Missing salt: a dilemma for the Evolutionists," By S.A. Austin and D.R. Humphreys (Pittsburgh, PA: the fellowship, 1990), Vol. 2, p. 17 33
J.D. Sarfati, "salty seas: Evidence for a young earth," Creation, 21 (1): 16-17 (December 1998 February 1999)

I can show you the equations for this, but I don't think you would follow them. Suffice it to say they show the Moon would end up in its current position after it was created about 3 billion years ago.

Tell that to Don DeYoung, Creation Ex Nihilo, 14 (4)43 (september november 1992)

I see plenty of white dwarves and neutron stars.

Tell that to R.E. Walsh, editor, Proceedings of the second internation conference on Creationism, "Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the galaxy," By K davies (Pittsburgh, PA: The Fellowship 1994), p 175- 184
J.D. Sarfati, "exploding stars point to a young universe," Creation, 19(3): 46-49 (june-august 1998)

[mactbone]

During the period of the Black Death in Europe (the beginning of the Late Middle Ages) there was a population decrease of 33%. Meaning that 33% of Europe's population died. Not only that, but it did not start to increase *significantly* again for another ~100 years.

[mactbone]

Tell that to R.E. Walsh, editor, Proceedings of the second internation conference on Creationism, "the Sea's Missing salt: a dilemma for the Evolutionists," By S.A. Austin and D.R. Humphreys (Pittsburgh, PA: the fellowship, 1990), Vol. 2, p. 17 33
J.D. Sarfati, "salty seas: Evidence for a young earth," Creation, 21 (1): 16-17 (December 1998 February 1999)

Tell that to astronomers who have observed these phenomenon (damn, for some reason I can't spell today, I know that's not how it's spelled.)

[Jack_www]

Like has been already stated, a thread on this topic is in the OT forum, and form last count I did there is 14 pages of posts in it.
Right now I am doing some research. I want to make sure I back up what I say, because many here think that many people who believe that the Universe was created are ignorant of the facts. This is what I get form all the post I have read form those who support theory of evolution.

Really the main support I would look for creation model would be the fossil record. The creation model says that when we look at fossil record that living things would appear suddenly in the fossil record with no links to previous forms of life. They would only reproduce according to their biological family and would not give rise to new forms of life, although limited changes could take place and great diversity is also possible.

Form the things I have read, that there are many explosions of life in the fossil record, although I have to do more research in this. This gives at least some support to creation model, since it predicted we would find these sorts of things with in the fossil record.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Asher

So this is acceptable, but it's not acceptable to say the world exists in THIS time and space as we know it, without a creator?

That is completely and utterly illogical.


Huh?
A perfect world would allow free will, but no one would kill by default and everyone would be tolerant of those around them.

What kind of masochist are you?


Is that why atheism is becoming more and more popular each day as people learn more about the world?

Asher you are talking out of your ass

you are not the only one but yours was the most idiotic on all levels (others keep their idiocy to sceince or the like)

Jon Miller

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN


Tell that to R.E. Walsh, editor, Proceedings of the second internation conference on Creationism, "the Sea's Missing salt: a dilemma for the Evolutionists," By S.A. Austin and D.R. Humphreys (Pittsburgh, PA: the fellowship, 1990), Vol. 2, p. 17 33
J.D. Sarfati, "salty seas: Evidence for a young earth," Creation, 21 (1): 16-17 (December 1998 February 1999)



Tell that to Don DeYoung, Creation Ex Nihilo, 14 (4)43 (september november 1992)



Tell that to R.E. Walsh, editor, Proceedings of the second internation conference on Creationism, "Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the galaxy," By K davies (Pittsburgh, PA: The Fellowship 1994), p 175- 184
J.D. Sarfati, "exploding stars point to a young universe," Creation, 19(3): 46-49 (june-august 1998)

The vast majority of the scientific community probably already have, and that is why they will have been a bit of a laughing stock at the time for missing the obvious. Credentials don't mean that much, everyone gets it wrong or manipulates facts to their own personal agenda.

[mactbone]

Some of the stuff Asher is saying makes perfect sense to me, though I guess I'm a little biased, having the same philosophical/religious views as him on this particular issue.

[loinburger]

Tell that to R.E. Walsh...Tell that to Don DeYoung...Tell that to R.E. Walsh...

He's telling it to you. In their abence, you're responsible for defending their claims since you purport to believe in them. Name-dropping is insufficient, especially for nobodies. I've heard of Hawking, I've heard of Reynolds, but this Walsh fellow is new to me...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Asher you are talking out of your ass

you are not the only one but yours was the most idiotic on all levels (others keep their idiocy to sceince or the like)

Jon Miller

How is it idiotic to discuss my philosphy of life?
I'm not debating the science part and never was, simply using logic and philosophy.

Of course it's "talking out of my ass" because there's no other way to debate philosophy.

It sounds like you're the one being idiotic here. At least others are trying to talk about the issue at hand while you're in here randomly saying stuff like "you're talking out of your ass" because you apparently disagree with my philosophy on life. **** you, and I will see you in hell.