Natural selection or Intelligent Design?

Originally posted by CliffLandin

And a 10,000 year old earth. Let's see some cold, hard facts for that one.

Can you post some of the evidence that you had that outwieghs the evidence of evolution.

There are allot of evidence about young earth, I believe that Secular scientists hang on to the old Earth and old universe interpretation because nobody will believe that nothing will evolve into something unless you have a massive period of time. It's so tightly clung to because if you take away the time, nobody's going to believe in evolution.

from http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/youngearth.shtml

sorry about the copy and paste, but you wanted evidence, Some of these have been refuted by scientist, however, they are nothing more then mere assumptions IMO, created to go on with their other ideas

• Independently, Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), who formulated the laws of planetary motion, calculated a creation date of 3992 BC. Sir Isaac Newton (1643–1727), is widely regarded as the greatest scientist of all time, but he wrote more on biblical history. He vigorously defended a creation date of about 4,000 BC.82

• The old ages for the Earth come primarily from the ages of rocks, which evolutionists date by the presumed ages of the fossils in them. Radioactive measurements of rocks are based on assumptions that were chosen to make the radioactive measurements agree with the presumed ages of the fossils.63

• Naturalists choose an "index fossil," one that is in a certain layer and date it by when they think it evolved - not by Carbon-14 dating, nor potassium-argon, nor by uranium-lead dating. They date the fossil by when they think it evolved. Then they date the rock by the fossil, and then they prove evolution by the date on the rock. This is circular reasoning.6

• They cling to these assumptions even though there is a lot of scientific evidence for a young Earth.

• Human population can be extrapolated backwards to see how long it would have taken to achieve present-day numbers. Using conservative growth figures of one-half percent per year, Earth's population would have been eight people about 5,000 years ago, comparing very well with the number of people on Noah's Ark. Based on evolution's claim for the origin of man, the same ½ percent growth calculation for the human race results in a huge present day population that can not be justified by the fossil record or current statistics.30

• Rivers pour tons of material every year into the Earth's oceans. Scientists know with a fair degree of accuracy the quantity of each element's influx as well as the current concentration of these elements in the oceans. By simple division, they can calculate the time it took to reach present levels, even accounting for sedimentation and dissipation. None of these elements give an age of the Earth even coming close to billion of years.30

• Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several "strata" of rock, sometimes penetrating 20 feet deep. According to evolutionists, a 20 foot deposit of rock would take place slowly and uniformly, over a great many years. However, the tops of such tree trunks would have decayed long before the new rock layers had a chance to surround them.30 At Katherine Hill Bay, Australia, a fossilized tree can be seen extending over twelve feet, through several sedimentary layers. This tree is testimony to the catastrophic and rapid burial that must have taken place.10

• When the carbon-14 test was first created, scientists used the process to date many different things including oil and coal. Tests of these two substances by this method revealed them to be only several thousand years old instead of millions of years old, as predicted by evolutionary theory. Once this method was shown to predict recent dates for oil and coal, scientists stopped dating oil and coal using this method.30

• Laboratory and field research has demonstrated that coal is formed rapidly and in vast quantities. Modern laboratories can duplicate the formation of coal formation in a matter of days - or even hours. Furthermore, massive seams of coal in the Earth remain undiluted by influxes of clay and other impurities before they thicken.10

• The Biblical account of Noah's Flood's description of the fountains of the great deep breaking up strongly indicates volcanic activity in the pre-Flood basins. This would have provided several of the key factors needed for the production of coal, along with an explanation of how the process could have occurred at such a rapid pace.10

• The pressure in modern day oil fields is too high for them to be very old. Current estimates indicate that the longest a rock layer could keep oil under pressure would be 100,000 years. Oil is simply not as old as evolutionists' claim.30

• It is well known that the interior of the Earth is very hot. For each mile you descend, the temperature increases by 118 degrees Fahrenheit. The Earth is a thousand miles in diameter; the core is so hot that the rocks are molten. Yet as Earth passes through the extreme cold of outer space, it's losing its heat. Even with the heat it receives from the sun, Earth's net heat loss is 1027 calories per second. This means that if it started at 190 degrees Fahrenheit on the surface, Earth would have been frozen stone cold to the center in the first 40 million years. If it were four billion years old, it should have been a huge sphere of ice over 100 times by now.6

• Earth's spin is slowing down at a rate of one third of a second every year. Extrapolating this back billions of years, we obtain an unreasonable spinning speed for the Earth.30

• Earth's magnetic field has been measured since 1835. It is growing weaker and the rate at which it is growing weaker has been calculated. If we extrapolate backwards, even to 20,000 BC, the magnetic field would have been so strong Earth would have been like a star and nothing could have lived here. Extrapolating further back, it would have been so strong it would have crushed the surface of the Earth in on itself.6

• Evolutionists say that the magnetic field of the Earth has shifted from positive to negative at times - that's how it keeps going. But observations of the sun's magnetic field's changing from positive to negative show it loses more energy each time instead of gaining energy. Applying the same criteria to the magnetic field of the Earth, we see is that it drops the age of our planet to about six to eight thousand years.6

• Like a giant vacuum cleaner, the sun sweeps up almost 100,000 tons of inflow per day. The sun's radiation pressure also pushes small, dust particles outward into space. This phenomenon is known as the Poynting-Robertson effect. If the solar system is really billions of years old, then the solar system should have been swept clean by now. Unfortunately for evolutionists, tons of space dust remain in our solar system.30

• When spiral galaxies make one full turn they leave behind distinctive pairs of arms because the interior stars move around faster than the outer stars. These galaxies are supposed to make one full turn every hundred million years meaning they should have a pair of arms for every 100 million years. If the Earth is five billion years old, galaxies should have so many arms they couldn't be counted. But astronomers haven't been able to find a galaxy with more than three pairs of arms, meaning they haven't been able to find one that's even half a billion years old.6

• A star cluster contains hundreds or thousands of stars moving, as one author put it, "like a swarm of bees," held together by gravity. But in some clusters, the stars are moving so fast that they could not have held together for millions or billions of years. Star clusters tell us that the age of the universe should be measured in thousands of years.30

• When big stars run out of fuel, they explode. Some of these "super nova remnants" are visible from the Earth. According to astronomical theory, in galaxies of our size, approximately 7,250 super nova remnants should be visible. Using the creationist age of the galaxy, we should expect to find between 125 and 200 super nova remnants. The actual number of super nova remnants visible from the Earth is 205, which is very close to the creationist numbers.30

This is just a few of the many evidences, here are some more

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842

A favorite ploy of evolutionists is to portray all Creation Scientists as pseudo-scientists. In fact, some of the leading scientists in their fields are creation scientists, and many used to believe evolution themselves

Dr Ian Macreadie (Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist)
Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. In 1997 he was part of a team which won the CSIRO’s top prize, the Chairman’s Medal. In 1995 he won the Australian Society for Microbiology’s top award, for outstanding contributions to research. See Interview with Dr Ian Macreadie.


Dr. Raymond Jones (Agricultural Scientist)
This, combined with Dr Jones' other achievements in improving the productivity of the tropical grazing industries, caused CSIRO chief Dr Elizabeth Heij to describe him as ‘one of the top few CSIRO scientists in Australia’. Among the awards he has received are the CSIRO Gold Medal for Research Excellence, and the Urrbrae Award, the latter in recognition of the practical significance of his work for the grazing industry. See Interview with Dr. Raymond Jones.

Originally posted by flyUnity
wow, I never did such a long post, didnt even know there was a post size limit, here was the rest of my post, I figured you didnt want to look at a link


Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a 3-star NATO General)
The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A ou had all the evidence in the world, you wouldnt change you mind.

Sorry about the long post

radiodating of rocks.

WRONG there fella

http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~idh/STROBEL/solarsys/solsysc.htm

dum de dum...

Oh, and here's a good piece on the age of the earth;

The age and accretion of the earth. Y. Zhang (2002). Earth science reviews, 59, 235-263.

Zhang reviews current work which places the earths age between 4.45 and 4.53 billion years old. he cites about 6 or 7 different (independant) studies all using different methodologies.

Originally posted by flyUnity
wow, I never did such a long post, didnt even know there was a post size limit, here was the rest of my post, I figured you didnt want to look at a link


Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a 3-star NATO General)
The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A ...[text shortened]... ou had all the evidence in the world, you wouldnt change you mind.

Sorry about the long post

Well this one lake in Canada has been around for 45,000 years. Maybe god made Canada first?

H. Kitagawa and J. van der Plicht, "Atmospheric Radiocarbon Calibration to 45,000 yr B. P.: Late Glacial Fluctuations and Cosmogenic Isotope Production," Science 279(1998):1187-1190

Originally posted by flyUnity
wow, I never did such a long post, didnt even know there was a post size limit, here was the rest of my post, I figured you didnt want to look at a link


Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a 3-star NATO General)
The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A ...[text shortened]... ou had all the evidence in the world, you wouldnt change you mind.

Sorry about the long post

Oh, and this oil was dated to the Jurrasic - Cretaceous, 100 - 180 MYA

Title: Source, age and taxon-specificity of biomarker parameters tested on a large diverse oil set
Author(s): Barbanti SM, Moldowan JM
Source: GEOCHIMICA ET COSMOCHIMICA ACTA 69 (10): A499-A499 Suppl. S, MAY 2005

Originally posted by Vapata
What is the scientific explanation for God putting the earth together in seven days?

I never said that there is scientific evidence of God Creating the earth in 7 days, Although I believe it, Its more of a faith thing.

I was pointing out that there is scientific evidence for ID, and young earth

Originally posted by flyUnity
I never said that there is scientific evidence of God Creating the earth in 7 days, Although I believe it, Its more of a faith thing.

I was pointing out that there is scientific evidence for ID, and young earth

Yes, "scientific evidence" that I'm getting round to refuting point by point. If you're going to make such spurious claims as this website you've posted, then as least back it up with peer reviewed work, such as scientific journals.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well this one lake in Canada has been around for 45,000 years. Maybe god made Canada first?

H. Kitagawa and J. van der Plicht, "Atmospheric Radiocarbon Calibration to 45,000 yr B. P.: Late Glacial Fluctuations and Cosmogenic Isotope Production," Science 279(1998):1187-1190

scottishinnz, Your a scientist, and know about the theory of evolution way more then I do, but would you mind listening to this video?


http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/aqoo/home.html

Its long clip, maybe you can just listen to it as you move in chess, and you might get a clearer picture of the evidence of Creationism (Intelligent Design). Im listening to it now 😛

Originally posted by flyUnity
scottishinnz, Your a scientist, and know about the theory of evolution way more then I do, but would you mind listening to this video?


http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/aqoo/home.html

Its long clip, maybe you can just listen to it as you move in chess, and you might get a clearer picture of the evidence of Creationism (Intelligent Design). Im listening to it now 😛

sure fly - will do. Thanks for the link.

Originally posted by flyUnity
scottishinnz, Your a scientist, and know about the theory of evolution way more then I do, but would you mind listening to this video?


http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/aqoo/home.html

Its long clip, maybe you can just listen to it as you move in chess, and you might get a clearer picture of the evidence of Creationism (Intelligent Design). Im listening to it now 😛

The more you listen to the more credible it becomes right? I would listen closely for the subliminal message, but it might be too late for you.

It is ironic that no other religion is pushing intelligent design, not even the Catholics. Just our good, old Christian right. Most religions have been able to fold evolution into their creation myths. I.E. The seven days were not literally 24hr days, the were god days and no one knows how long a god day is.

Proof of evolution is all around us, like my previous example of the third molar. We have less hair as few of us live in caves any longer and most of us wear clothes. Our little toe is getting smaller because it ihas become less critical for balance.

The same cannot be said of ID. If anything the proof around us refutes ID. If we were so intelligently designed, why do we spend so much time killing each other and developing more ingenious ways to kill each other?

Can you give me a real life, current example of intelligent design?

Originally posted by prosoccer
More on humans becoming less animal like-the loss of ears that adjust to where the sound is coming from. I forget the technical name for it...as we become less dependant on our senses and sophisticated adaptations, we begin to lose them.

hows about the fact that human babies are actually pretty crap as babies go. Horses, sheep etc can get their young up straight away - they need to for survival. Human babies take an age to mature after birth. The reason? We're technically undercooked - we need to be that way to get this bloody huge brain through our mothers pelvic bone. Hence a longer developmental period after birth when we rely on parents. Far longer then out else. If we're designed, why didn't god make womens pelvic hole bigger - or even better - the velcro sided uterus! It'd put an end to women dying in childbirth.

Originally posted by CliffLandin
Proof of evolution is all around us, like my previous example of the third molar. We have less hair as few of us live in caves any longer and most of us wear clothes. Our little toe is getting smaller because it ihas become less critical for balance.

Our little toe is getting smaller? whos are you comparing it to?

And from my experiance, People are wearing less clothes now days then before.

Less hair? you mean less then a monkey?

I wouldnt call anything you said in your post "proof" The Theory of Evolution, Its more of a theory, so is Intelligent design.

Also IMO when the monkey adapts to a human, the monkey should die off, in order for it to adapt it would have to, yet we have simple living cells, to very complex human beings