Why Evolution Is Wrong

[clonemeister]

I really expected you to come up with some better arguments Cottons. As I see it for you to prove evolution is wrong, you pretty much have to throw out almost all known science. Geology and geophysics , I doubt any geologists think the planet has only been around a few thousand years. Astronomy and astrophysics, tell one the planets and universe are only a few thousand years old, see what they say.Marine biology, those silly folks think sharks have been around for millions of years. Let's see, yep, you gotta throw out Archeology, Anthropology, Paleontology, Chemistry too, Oceanography. Any field of science that views the world as more than a few thousand years old would have to be wrong, and I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that.

As far as neanderthal man, the rickets thing was an observation made by a german anatomist not long after thier discovery in 1865. Within a few years and more discoveries this idea was ruled out and hasn't been generally accepted by the scientific community for over a century.Also it is widely accepted that they were around for a lot longer than 35000 years.

As for the earths magnetic field, at the very beginning you said the magnetic field is decaying at a steady rate. This is false, the field fluctuates and has actually begun decreasing more rapidly than normal, thats what happens when it reverses, some times it drops way down and doesn't reverse, but begins growing again. And that brings us to another science that we have to throw out. Paleomagnetology, which you have used a skewed version of in your arguement .

And fossils? Well if all the fossils on the planet were caused at the same time, why are they in so many different layers?Why are all the same animals and plants not found in all the layers? Ever hear of the Law of Fossil Succession: The kinds of animals and plants found as fossils "change through time". When we find the same kinds of fossils in rocks from different places, we know that the rocks are the same age. Oh, but I can't use that arguement because we ruled out paleontology.

You have to debunk almost all excepted sciences to support your ideas. Except of course thermodynamics, which I still fail to see how the 2nd law defeats evolutionary theory. What isn't complex about a system that has an increasing amount of entopry and disorder?

Your ability to dig up obscure pseudo-science will never disprove evolution, at least to me.

[IGotTheCottons]

this is going to be a looooong post...

"Homo erectus:

A number of fossil men are now grouped under the generic name Homo erectus, including the somewhat notorious Java Man, Peking Man, Heidelberg Man, and Meganthropus. These are believed to have lived about 500,000 years ago, to have walked upright, to have had brains of about 1,000 cc. and to have developed a crude culture involving simple implements and weapons.

The evidence for all this is equivocal, to say the least, Java Man was later repudiated by his discoverer, and the bones of Peking Man disappeared during World War II and are unavailable for examination. Heidelberg Man consisted solely of a large jaw and Maganthropus consisted of two lower jaw bones and four teeth and has been assigned by many to the Australopithecines.

However, other fossils of this general type have apparently been found at various locations around the world. It may well be that Homo erectus was a true man, but somewhat degenerate in size and culture, possibly because of inbreeding, poor diet, and a hostile environment.

In 1984, a 12-year old boy of the Homo erectus species, dated at 1.6 million years old, was dug up in Kenya. His body skeleton was virtually indistinguishable from our own, and his skull and mandible looked much like Neanderthal man, except that the cranial capacity was only about 800 cc. This skeleton, identified by Alan Walker and Richard Leaky, is believed to be the most complete skeleton of an early human "ancestor" ever found.

Some may question the true humanness of Homo erectus on the basis of his small brain size (900-1,100 cc). However, that is definitely within the range of brain size of modern man, though on the low end of the scale."

"Neanderthal Man:

The most famous of all the so-called "missing links" is Homo neanderthalensis, pictured for more than a hundred years as a stooped, brutish character with heavy brow ridges and the crudest of habits. Many skeletal remains of these people are available now, however, and there is no longer any doubt that Neanderthal Man was truly human, Homo sapiens, no more different from modern men that the various tribes of modern men are from each other. His brain capacity was certainly human, as Dobzhansky has noted:

'The cranial capacity of the Neanderthal race of Homo sapienc was, on the average, equal to or even greater than that in modern man. Cranial capacity and brain size are, however, not reliable criteria of 'intelligence' or intellectual abilities of any kind¹."

'Neanderthal man may have looked like he did, not because he was closely related to the great apes, but because he had rickets, an article in the British publication NATURE suggests. The diet of Neanderthal man was definately lacking in Vitamin D during the 35,000 years he spent on earth.'²"

"Modern Man:

Leakey and his co-workers found three jaw bones, leg bones and more than 400 man-made stone tools. The specimens were attributed to the genus Homo and were dated at 2.6 million years.

Leaky further described the whole shape of the brain case as remarkably reminiscent of modern man, lacking the havy and protruding eyebrow ridges and thick bones characteristic of Homo erectus.

In the addition to the as yet unnamed skull, the expedition turned up parts of the leg bones of two other individuals. These fossils surprisingly show that man's unique bipedal locomotion was developed at lease 2.5 millions years ago." ³"

"Here is apparently good evidence that modern man -- modern anatomically at least -- was living prior to Neanderthal, prior to Homo erectus, and even prior to Australopithecus! This would place man well back within the Plicene Epoch and, for all practical purposes, completely eliminate his imagined evolutionary ancestry. ⁴
<hr>
[1] Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Changing Man," <i>Science</i>, Vol. 155 (January 27, 1967), p.410.
[2] "Neanderthals Had Rickets," <i>Science Digest</i>, Vol. 69 (February, 1971), p.35. (This reference is to an article by Francis Ivanhoe in August 8, 1970 issue of <i>Nature</i>.
[3] "Leakey's New Skull Changes our Pedigree and Lengthens our Past," <i>Science News</i>, Vol. 102 (November 18, 1972), p. 324.
[4]Henry M. Morris. <u>Scientific Creationism</u> P. 176

and to go on to the next subject...

And fossils? Well if all the fossils on the planet were caused at the same time, why are they in so many different layers?

Well, you see, there's many features on earth today that could only have been explained by a global flood (i'm not going to go at this Biblically, but scientifically). There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support that the whole world at one time or another was under water.

Now, with the world being submerged with water, the lighter, lesser developed, more hydrodynamic organisms would tend to sink to the bottom a lot faster, while the more complex ones who were less hydrodynamic, and created more drag, took longer to sink, thus the fossils in the rocks would go from less complex to more complex. Now, there's a lot more to it obviously, and I can and will go into more detail in another post. But I want to mention that there is support for a global flood using coal and oil deposits, sedimentary rocks, evaporates, the fossil record, etc. That post will probably be as long or longer than this one, so I won't go into it at the moment.

Moving on to the magnetic field, yet again....

The earth is cooling, has been from the start. With this cooling comes the decaying of the magnetic field (colder interier temperatures means slower movement of the outer-core, which means less electric current, which means weaker magnetic field. There's nothing sustaining the interior temperature of the earth, and thus, nothing to sustain the magnetic field over billions of years. According to the most widly accept theory on the magnetic field of the earth the field should only have lasted tens of thousands of years. Can you not read the sorces I got from LittleWing? His sorces even prove my point!

Now, we'll move on to thermodynamics. Let's go step by step...

Evolution teaches a couple different ideas about how the universe formed. The most popular two are the big bang theory and that matter just appeared out of nothing (sticking with the fundamentals). In either case, this matter was chaotic, and unorganized. Evolution requires this unorganized mass of matter to somehow organize itself into the known universe. This would require entropy to decrease, and for the matter to become more and more organized, and less and less chaotic. The second law of thermodynamics states that anything in a closed enviornment (which, by definition, the universe is), things will break down, entropy will increase (not decrease!), chaos and unorganization will become more and more prevelant, and overall things will break down and wear away. This has always been the case, and there has never once been an observed instance of something breaking the second law of thermodynamics (which evolution would require).

The second law of thermodynamics also applies to living things. From the time we're born we're dying. Genetics degress, mutations are becoming more abundant, things are moving from more order to less order. In order for evolution to have occured in living things, they must have somehow been able to gain DNA structure, gain organization, etc. which is impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics.

[Little Wing]

The websites I showed you in no way suggested Earth's magnetic field is only 10s of thousands of eyars old. Earth's magnetic field is much much much much much older.

Also, we essentially have 10,000 years of history. None of which document dinasaurs or saber tooth tigers, or mammoths.... So we essentially KNOW what happened the last 10,000 years, and we KNOW dinasaurs rules the earth before that, and we know after dinasuars saber tooth tigers and wooly mammoths and giant sloths rules the world.

There is practically infinite overwhelming evidence proving that the world is over a billion years old. You are argueing little bits and pieces that you think somehow justifies the world being 10,000 years old, While completely closing your eyes to all other science that is based off of a billion year old planet.

Now, I could go on argueing forever with you over this. I will not go hunt down and type out facts for you any more. If you havent gone out and read credible scientific theories that is your problem. You have an askewed idea of the universe.

[IGotTheCottons]

The websites I showed you in no way suggested Earth's magnetic field is only 10s of thousands of eyars old

Well, try reading what I said. The sites you gave me said that the LIFESPAN of planets with magnetic fields such as ours are only tens of thousands of years.

And yes, your website said just that.

http://www.psc.edu/science/Glatzmaier/glatzmaier.html says the following:

"<b>According to generally accepted theory -- the dynamo theory</b> -- interactions between the churning, twisting flow of molten material in the outer core and the magnetic field generate electrical current that, in turn, creates new magnetic energy that sustains the field. '<b>The typical lifetime of a magnetic field like Earth's</b>,' says Glatzmaier, '<b>is several <big>tens of thousands of years</big></b>.'"

As for my "bits and pieces" of information... I'm going at this slow. I have PLEANTY of information. Just because I don't have the time to type it all out at once doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Now, if you want to read a 971841975 word post on why evolution could not have happened, I'll be more than glad to give it, but I highly doubt anyone here wants to spend hours reading that long of a post, so I choose to break it into smaller posts.

EDIT: As for the thing about us only having 10,000 years of history, and them not mentioning dinosaurs, etc... I have evidence that suggests otherwise. I'll post later when I have more time.

[clonemeister]

Originally posted by IGotTheCottons


And yes, your website said just that.

http://www.psc.edu/science/Glatzmaier/glatzmaier.html says the following:

"<b>According to generally accepted theory -- the dynamo theory</b> -- interactions between the churning, twisting flow of molten material in the outer core and the magnetic field generate electrical current that, in turn, creates new magnetic energy that sustains the field. '<b>The typical lifetime of a magnetic field like Earth's</b>,' says Glatzmaier, '<b>is several <big>tens of thousands of years</big></b>.'"

Why did you leave part of that out? the part that says:"The fact that it's existed for billions of years means something must be regenerating it all the time." If you read the rest of the page you will notice several mentions of the earth being much older than 10,000 years. It goes on to discuss a computer model which:"offers precious insight into the dynamics that sustain the magnetic field and generate reversals. " Anyone can take excerpts out of context and use them to make a point. it doesn't make the point valid though.
For instance in [1] you take a snippet from Dobzhansky, who was an evolutionist. Who the author of the article was I don't know, but Dobzhansky never believed neanderthal to be people with rickets, or that they were even the same species as us.
[2] Like I said before "the rickets thing was an observation made by a german anatomist not long after thier discovery in 1865. Within a few years and more discoveries this idea was ruled out and hasn't been generally accepted by the scientific community for over a century." Just because someone published an article about it in 1971, doesn't make it fact.
[3] I fail to see how any of Leakeys finds disprove evolution, unless you post some unrelated material afterward, which you did. And that brings us to ...................
[4] People living in the pliocene? Anyway, here is what it says on the "Scientific Creationism website:"Scientific Creationism is a web site dedicated to refuting evolution and promoting creationism, but in particular promoting the Bible as true in all it says and claims." This is hardly widely accepted science.

Lastly, what about all the scientific fields that would be invalid if the earth was only a few thousand years old?
When you can get reliable scientific evidence from NON-christian sources that are recognized by the majority of the scientific community, maybe then you can make a valid arguement. Posting excerpts , out of context, from articles over thirty years old, and pro-christian propaganda isn't going to cut it.

[IGotTheCottons]

It goes on to discuss a computer model which:"offers precious insight into the dynamics that sustain the magnetic field and generate reversals. " Anyone can take excerpts out of context and use them to make a point. it doesn't make the point valid though.

If you can use half a brain you should be able to recognize that what is being said there is that the movement of the liquid outer-core is what is generating and sustaining our current magnetic field. It doesn't say that it's what had kept it going for billions of years because the second part of the statement says it should only last for several tens of thousands of years. I made the point earlier about the "the fact that the earth is billions of years old" statement. They are ASSUMING the earth is billions of years old, and therefore assuming that there's SOMETHING ELSE keeping it from being totally gone. You should learn how to read. The reason I "took it out of context" as you say is because I already gave my arguments about the previous texts in earlier posts (go back and read them).

By the way... I'd like to see your proof that the world is, in fact, billions of years old. I promise you I can provide a strong argument against any of your so-called proof.

And also, the only field of science that I would have to dismiss to disprove evolution is evolution. Science actually backs up creation more than evolution.

Do you remember that guy I was talking about who will give $10,000 to whoever can give him any hard scientific evidence of evolution (Kent Hoven)? That guy has never lost a debate against the worlds TOP EVOLUTIONISTS. The ones who are the top in their field debate this guy, and he has never once lost. No one has ever been able to give him any scientific evidence whatsoever for macro evolution. The fossil record (your strongest "evidence") actually supports the flood more than evolution.

For instance in [1] you take a snippet from Dobzhansky, who was an evolutionist. Who the author of the article was I don't know, but Dobzhansky never believed neanderthal to be people with rickets, or that they were even the same species as us.

Is that why he's QUOTED as having said that? I guess now people are just making it up that he said that? Please.

[3] I fail to see how any of Leakeys finds disprove evolution, unless you post some unrelated material afterward, which you did. And that brings us to ...................
[4] People living in the pliocene? Anyway, here is what it says on the "Scientific Creationism website:"Scientific Creationism is a web site dedicated to refuting evolution and promoting creationism, but in particular promoting the Bible as true in all it says and claims." This is hardly widely accepted science.

The part of Leakey I want to focus on is this: "Here is apparently good evidence that modern man -- modern anatomically at least -- was living prior to Neanderthal, prior to Homo erectus, and even prior to Australopithecus! <b>This would place man well back within the Plicene Epoch and, for all practical purposes, completely eliminate his imagined evolutionary ancestry.</b>" If we evolved from Homo erectus, Neanderthal, and Australopithecus, then why is it that there's evidence of modern man from before any of these were supposed to have existed.

Lastly, what about all the scientific fields that would be invalid if the earth was only a few thousand years old?
When you can get reliable scientific evidence from NON-christian sources that are recognized by the majority of the scientific community, maybe then you can make a valid arguement. Posting excerpts , out of context, from articles over thirty years old, and pro-christian propaganda isn't going to cut it.

Well, why don't you try giving me some non-evolution biased scientific facts? The only stuff you're going to accept as fact is what supports evolution, even though all the actual proof supports a young earth and creation. If anything dismisses your religion, you won't even consider it. I just want to make it known (again) that I was once an evolutionist.

[dr_krapp]

this will go on forever, theres enuf to proof on both sides.

You have to reember that theres going to be no new brakethrus in religion, enless theres a second coming of jesus, but science will continue ot evolve and find new things which make the old ones completely and utterly wrong, just cos its "prooven" now dosnt mean it will be in 20 years time.

So really, you cant say anything of science is wrong, cos it proberly is, but that dosnt mean your right, i try not to get involved cos i blab on to muh on this subject, my proudest moment being converting a christian, i dont care how that sounds.

so everyone, chill. it donsnt matter whos right with this one.

[Little Wing]

Originally posted by clonemeister
Why did you leave part of that out? the part that says:"The fact that it's existed for billions of years means something must be regenerating it all the time." If you read the rest of the page you will notice several mentions of the earth being much older than 10,000 years. It goes on to discuss a computer model which:"offers precious insight into the dynamics that sustain the magnetic field and generate reversals. " Anyone can take excerpts out of context and use them to make a point. it doesn't make the point valid though.
For instance in [1] you take a snippet from Dobzhansky, who was an evolutionist. Who the author of the article was I don't know, but Dobzhansky never believed neanderthal to be people with rickets, or that they were even the same species as us.
[2] Like I said before "the rickets thing was an observation made by a german anatomist not long after thier discovery in 1865. Within a few years and more discoveries this idea was ruled out and hasn't been generally accepted by the scientific community for over a century." Just because someone published an article about it in 1971, doesn't make it fact.
[3] I fail to see how any of Leakeys finds disprove evolution, unless you post some unrelated material afterward, which you did. And that brings us to ...................
[4] People living in the pliocene? Anyway, here is what it says on the "Scientific Creationism website:"Scientific Creationism is a web site dedicated to refuting evolution and promoting creationism, but in particular promoting the Bible as true in all it says and claims." This is hardly widely accepted science.

Lastly, what about all the scientific fields that would be invalid if the earth was only a few thousand years old?
When you can get reliable scientific evidence from NON-christian sources that are recognized by the majority of the scientific community, maybe then you can make a valid arguement. Posting excerpts , out of context, from articles over thirty years old, and pro-christian propaganda isn't going to cut it.

Thanks for pointing that out.


Seriously though, if someone came up to me in person and tried to tell me the earth is 10,000 years old I'd laugh at them. Every bit of logic, science, and common sense screams that the world is older.

[tehpottestmofi0]

Originally posted by IGotTheCottons

Reason #1:

Evolution goes against the second LAW of thermodynamics. Evolution also goes against the second LAW of thermodynamics by saying the universe is moving towards a more complex state. How can this be when everything that's left to itself in a closed system (which, by definition, the universe is) moves towards higher degrees of entropy and disorder?

Reason #2:

The Earth's magnetic field is decaying at a steady rate. This has been carefully studied and documented for about 150 years, and the halflife of the magnetic field has been determined to be 1,400 years. So 10,000 years ago, the magnetic field would have been 32 times stronger than it is today. Big deal right? Well if the Earth's magnetic field were to be 32 times stronger than it is today, it would be as strong as a magnetic star. This is impossible because stars have thermonuclear power generating their massive magnetic fields. The Earth has never had, nor will it ever have these types of reactions going on in its core.

Reason #3:

The fossils found in the earth's geologic strata can only be acceptably explained by a massive, world-wide flood. Fossilization requires rapid, permeant burrial in order to preserve the animals in the rocks. If the process were to occur over long periods of time, the animal would decompose before it had a chance to fossilize. Secondly, if these rocks took millions of years to form, why are there petrified trees found going through multiple layers of these rocks? Any organic material would have long rotted away before the surrounding rocks would have a chance at forming... that is... if they took millions of years to form like evolution teaches.

Reason 1:
first, all theories about the universe are just that, theories...and if the universe is a closed system, that means over trillions of years, it goes from ball of matter/energy(Big Bang) to galaxies, stars, planets all shooting away, stars dying and being reformed, until all stars die out(trillions of years)......this only effects stars and galaxies on a huge scale, and takes trillions of years, so how does the galaxies moving apart from each other affect evolution?

Reason 2:
Scientists have no idea what causes the magnetic field, and it cant have a half life, its not a radioactive element...only the size of it constantly changes, which only effects the distance of the filtering of radiation(Gamma rays and such) not life!

Reason 3:
fossils form when animals, plants are suddenly killed and trapped and pressed into rock, and over millions of years, pressure forces the bones into their surrounding rocks, encasing them and protecting them and petrified wood could have easily just been next to an animal when it died

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally posted by tehpottestmofi0
Reason 1:
first, all theories about the universe are just that, theories...and if the universe is a closed system, that means over trillions of years, it goes from ball of matter/energy(Big Bang) to galaxies, stars, planets all shooting away, stars dying and being reformed, until all stars die out(trillions of years)......this only effects stars and galaxies on a huge scale, and takes trillions of years, so how does the galaxies moving apart from each other affect evolution?

Reason 2:
Scientists have no idea what causes the magnetic field, and it cant have a half life, its not a radioactive element...only the size of it constantly changes, which only effects the distance of the filtering of radiation(Gamma rays and such) not life!

Reason 3:
fossils form when animals, plants are suddenly killed and trapped and pressed into rock, and over millions of years, pressure forces the bones into their surrounding rocks, encasing them and protecting them and petrified wood could have easily just been next to an animal when it died

You might want to read the rest of this thread... I'm only going to respond to some of "Readon 1" the last part of your "Reason 3" seeing as how I've talked about the other stuff you've said already.

First off, if you would have read my other posts, you'd see that the point I'm making with that has nothing to do with the galaxies moving apart from eachother. I'm talking about how if the universe were billions (or trillions) of years old, there wouldn't be enough usable energy to sustain such a complex system of galaxies, stars, etc. The universe would basically be a useless, chaotic blob of matter drifting through space with no organization whatsoever. If you know anything about the universe, you know it's just the opposite. It's highly organized, and the galaxies within it are highly organized. Creation teaches it was created perfect, and has been decaying (which follows the second law of thermodynamics). Evolution teaches it started chaotic, and became organized (which directly contradicts the second law of thermodynamics).

I didn't say petrified wood was found next to an animal when it died. I said that entire petrified TREES have been found going through MULTIPLE layers of rock, and that each of these layers of rock supposedly took millions of years to form. And the icing on the cake is that not only have a lot of these trees been found, but some have been found UPSIDE-DOWN! Tell me, how does an upside-down tree stay in that position over millions of years while these rocks are forming? Organic matter decays fairly quickly. It doesn't just sit around for millions and millions of years waiting for rocks to form around it.

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally posted by Little Wing
Every bit of logic, science, and common sense screams that the world is older.

Well then, how about you give me some proof? Remember, you can't use anything having to do with radiometric dating because it's totally inaccurate and based on assumptions. The fossils can only be satisfactorily explained by a global flood (I can give backing for this if you feel like reading a really long post). As far as I know those are the two strongest arguments for evolution. Both of them not having much going for them.

[dr_krapp]

dinosaurs? they lived before humans and have no mention in the bible, and we know they lived before us cos there berried deeper. so why does the bible not mention them?

[KraziHare]

Originally posted by dr_krapp
dinosaurs? they lived before humans and have no mention in the bible, and we know they lived before us cos there berried deeper. so why does the bible not mention them?

The entirety of the bible could simply state "jello jello monkey diaper halleluja" and people would still defend it as fact. In fact, even though it directly contradicts itself multiple times people still try to explain it in any number of ways. This argument is like two blind people trying to figure out if the sky is blue. Sure, everyone says that it's blue but they can't really be sure can they?

[clonemeister]

Originally posted by IGotTheCottons
If you can use half a brain you should be able to recognize that what is being said there is that the movement of the liquid outer-core is what is generating and sustaining our current magnetic field. It doesn't say that it's what had kept it going for billions of years because the second part of the statement says it should only last for several tens of thousands of years. I made the point earlier about the "the fact that the earth is billions of years old" statement. They are ASSUMING the earth is billions of years old, and therefore assuming that there's SOMETHING ELSE keeping it from being totally gone. You should learn how to read. The reason I "took it out of context" as you say is because I already gave my arguments about the previous texts in earlier posts (go back and read them).

By the way... I'd like to see your proof that the world is, in fact, billions of years old. I promise you I can provide a strong argument against any of your so-called proof.

And also, the only field of science that I would have to dismiss to disprove evolution is evolution. Science actually backs up creation more than evolution.

Do you remember that guy I was talking about who will give $10,000 to whoever can give him any hard scientific evidence of evolution (Kent Hoven)? That guy has never lost a debate against the worlds TOP EVOLUTIONISTS. The ones who are the top in their field debate this guy, and he has never once lost. No one has ever been able to give him any scientific evidence whatsoever for macro evolution. The fossil record (your strongest "evidence") actually supports the flood more than evolution.



Is that why he's QUOTED as having said that? I guess now people are just making it up that he said that? Please.



The part of Leakey I want to focus on is this: "Here is apparently good evidence that modern man -- modern anatomically at least -- was living prior to Neanderthal, prior to Homo erectus, and even prior to Australopithecus! <b>This would place man well back within the Plicene Epoch and, for all practical purposes, completely eliminate his imagined evolutionary ancestry.</b>" If we evolved from Homo erectus, Neanderthal, and Australopithecus, then why is it that there's evidence of modern man from before any of these were supposed to have existed.



Well, why don't you try giving me some non-evolution biased scientific facts? The only stuff you're going to accept as fact is what supports evolution, even though all the actual proof supports a young earth and creation. If anything dismisses your religion, you won't even consider it. I just want to make it known (again) that I was once an evolutionist.

I'll ignore the "half a brain" and "learn to read" comments.

Perhaps if you read without blinders on you would realize that the quote you are using is from a scientist who in no way, no matter how you read it, is suggesting the earth is only ten thousand years old. The field is created by a "self-sustaining " dynamo. Thats what is keeping it from being completely gone, and how it has lasted so long.

As for me proving the earth is billions of years old, I once again bring up all the fields of science that point to this being the case. Of course according to you none of the dating techniques are accurate, so it's useless to try and tell you otherwise. Perhaps you should write to all the scientists on the planet using these techniques and tell them they are wasting their time. I'm sure all the geologists, paleontologists, etc..etc...... would abandon their sciences and spend their time on more meaningful pursuits.

I reiterate the point that most all fields of mainstream science would have to be pr oven wrong for us to believe the world is not billions of years old. For instance since you mentioned half-life of the earths core, lets look at uranium. U-238 decays very slowly, its half-life being the same as the age of the earth (4500 million years). This means that it is barely radioactive, less so than many other isotopes in rocks and sand. Nevertheless it generates 0.1 watts/tonne and this is enough to warm the earth's core. I guess we have to throw out nuclear physics.


Regarding the guy and his offer, who decides if he wins the debate? I'm guessing he does, which invalidates the win.

Here is your Dobzansky quote; 'The cranial capacity of the Neanderthal race of Homo sapienc was, on the average, equal to or even greater than that in modern man. Cranial capacity and brain size are, however, not reliable criteria of 'intelligence' or intellectual abilities of any kind1." Explain to me where that says neanderthal was a human with rickets. Dobzhansky wasn't an anthropologist, he was a geneticist. So I wouldn't put too much emphasis on what he says about Neanderthal. Since you are fond of his quotes though, here's another:"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"

I honestly believe the "part" of Leakey you want to focus on is in fact not even a quote from Leakey. Seeing as how he devoted his life to the study of mans evolution.

I feel hard pressed to give you "non-evolution biased" scientific facts, considering your insistence that all dating techniques are completely inaccurate, and almost every field of science would be invalidated by your refusal to accept that the world is more than ten thousand years old.

I find your statement,"If anything dismisses your religion, you won't even consider it." , reflects your position more than mine. I don't view evolution as my religion, for all you know I could be a christian who, like most, don't see the bible as a historical document, and who don't feel that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive.

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally posted by dr_krapp
dinosaurs? they lived before humans and have no mention in the bible, and we know they lived before us cos there berried deeper. so why does the bible not mention them?

they aren't mentioned specifically in the Bible, but neither are cats, and we have them. the Bible says "and every beast after it's kind" there's a lot of things that can fit into the section of "every"

and if the dinosaurs lived so long before people, why is it that there's fossilized dinosaur footprints with fossilized HUMAN footprints inside of them? as in the dinosaur print has a human print inside of it. you can't make footprints in a solid fossilized rock... so that can only mean that they were made BEFORE the mud turned into rock, and thus means that dinosaurs and people were alive TOGETHER.

EDIT: fossils of this type must be made quickly or they will get messed up by outside factors (rain, other's stomping on them, etc.). this rules out the "well, during the millions of years it took the this fossil to form, a person might have stepped in it" excuse. try again.