Creationism vs Evolutionism

[otseng]

OK, give me reasons why evolutionism or creationism is right or wrong.

[otseng]

Look here--->

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... oc.html#c2

for the most up to date dating methods using Uranium/Lead and potassium/argon dating

One thing I'd be interested in is the exact process Uranium is used for dating. It doesn't seem that U decays directly into Pb. But rather goes through other intermediate elements. Thereby introducing more uncertanties.

Even if the earth is 4 billion years old, another question would be, how did U itself form? Are there any naturally occuring process that U is created?

[DeoxyriboNucleicAcid]

One thing I'd be interested in is the exact process Uranium is used for dating. It doesn't seem that U decays directly into Pb. But rather goes through other intermediate elements. Thereby introducing more uncertanties.

Even if the earth is 4 billion years old, another question would be, how did U itself form? Are there any naturally occuring process that U is created?

I am not a physicist but Uranium is formed like everything else (including the atoms that make us!) in the tremendous heat of the The Big Bang or later in the formation of stars. As an aside the closest four planets to the sun are made up of the heavy elements like iron and uranium because the elements that are most common in the universe Helium & Hydrogen didn't like the heat of the early solar system. They are quite abundant in the outer planets in frozen forms.

[otseng]

I am not a physicist but Uranium is formed like everything else (including the atoms that make us!) in the tremendous heat of the The Big Bang or later in the formation of stars.

But, isn't the Big Bang supposed to have occured 10 billion years ago? That would've allowed over 5 billion years for U to have decomposed.

Also, simply saying U formed during the Big Bang is quite a simplification. It's almost as incredulous as me saying that God created it.

[Alan]

OK, give me reasons why evolutionism or creationism is right or wrong.

By right/wrong, do you mean religious dogma or factual error? Corvus said it rightly in that "micro" examples of "evolution" are easy to come by, but the leap from one species to another has never been demonstrated. It's likely that the creationists are correct in speculating that it is a real and natural process, as Corvus pointed out, it's just that it is too gradual to demonstrate. All "evolutionary" theories that speculate as to how these things happened are, unfortunately, impossible to verify for certain.

Meanwhile, the "creationist" argument has stripped "science" of it's metaphysical origins and pitted the one side against another, a destructive and fruitless endeavor. The true "creationist" ought not to lower himself to splitting hairs over whether man was created directly from some type of mud, but argue instead that figures of speech are permissible and perhaps necessarily convenient in affirming the divine role in physical creation as a whole. Therefore, if both sides in such seemingly opposing viewpoints were to temper their arguments in a rational way, there should be ample room to say that both are compatible. Does this make any sense?

[pbaylis1964]

What we do have is "a common ancestor"

I'm not sure how you can make such a confident statement with the limited knowledge available to you. It's quite clear to me that God created us exactly as we were, not as ascendents from apes or anything else. I can state this confidently because it doesn't depend on evidence to validate it. It simply is.

But OK, if you or anyone else believes we evolved from apes, please explain the extreme evolutionary response that was loss of hair.

[perspective]

But OK, if you or anyone else believes we evolved from apes, please explain the extreme evolutionary response that was loss of hair.

Let's say that every year, 1,000 apes were born, and 1,000 apes died. 500 of the 1,000 apes that died every year were the apes that didn't have hair to keep them warm. The natural selection process is keeping heavily haired apes alive and evolving.

300 of the 1,000 apes that died every year died because of diseases that resulted from lack of personal hygiene. Matted, dreadlocked hair harbored parasites, fleas, and filth.

The next year fire is discovered. All of a sudden, those 500 apes each year that used to die because of their inability to keep warm survive. Now, the biggest cause of ape death is cleanliness directly related to their inability to keep their hair clean. Those apes with more manageable, or less hair, are surviving more easily than those with coarse, dense hair.

This is only one theory. It makes sense logically, but of course it can never be proven. There is no indication that this is an extreme evolutionary response - because evolution happens so slowly that it would never even be perceived, let alone be perceived as extreme.

[adherent]

Because, as you say, evolution is such a slow process, shouldn't there be millions upon millions of transitional forms for, say, humans?

[Corvus]

Because, as you say, evolution is such a slow process, shouldn't there be millions upon millions of transitional forms for, say, humans?

Yes, millions, depending on how precise you'd like to be. But that doesn't mean that we can't use nomenclature to define a general set of characteristics as belonging to a particular type of human that existed at a particular time. It's really just a long line of descent, not necessarily stages.

Second, I don't believe we've have even reached the million mark on the amount of fossils we've found of all animals, let alone humans.

[Corvus]

What we do have is "a common ancestor"

I'm not sure how you can make such a confident statement with the limited knowledge available to you. It's quite clear to me that God created us exactly as we were, not as ascendents from apes or anything else. I can state this confidently because it doesn't depend on evidence to validate it. It simply is.

And I can be quite confident in my belief that we are descended from, not exactly apes, but a common ancestor to apes from what evidence I've seen.

But OK, if you or anyone else believes we evolved from apes, please explain the extreme evolutionary response that was loss of hair.[/quote]

In addition to what perspective has already stated, I would add that once a creature has learned to take the furs from other animals to keep warm, it no longer has to depend entirely on its own natural coat.

[adherent]

Can you state the evidence that supports that we evolved from a common ancestor of apes? If our common ancestor could develop such a complex brain, why don't all the other organisms in the world do so also? developing a complex brain woudl suit any organism so why don't we have super-fishes or super-insects? The chance of an ape hitting a rock together with another rock and inferring that it caused fire and thus remembering it and teaching it to its children are so minute and minisqular in happening.

Also, is it not true that mathematicians say that a probability that is over 1050 is impossible? The probability of JUST 26 lettered dice (from A-Z) roll out of a cup in order is 10347. So how much greater chance and impossibility is there of the gases in the early earth's atmosphere to become primordial soup after being hit by lightinng.