Evolution or Creation?

Before you vote, please read the first paragraph at least.

First of all, I was only able to find very little discussion on this topic, and only one somewhat lengthy thread devoted to it.   And since that thread was quite old and didn't really cover the issue from the perspective that I would like to, I created a new thread.  Also considering this is pretty much the single most important issue we as humans could ever discuss, I feel it is worthy of more attention.  The poll options are pretty much self-explanatory.  If you have an option not listed, just provide it in your post.  Also, the option (Agnostic or atheist and does NOT believe in evoltion) was added so I could see if anyone actually fit this catergory.  My assumptions would be that almost noone would...because if not evolution or a god...then what?   Also, I did not intend this thread to be heavily based upon individual religions, but rather the broader concept of evolution and creation in general.  While discussions of a specific religion are fine, I'd rather it not be the focus of this thread. 

To be specific about my own beliefs: I am a creationist leaning heavily toward christianity and believing the bible is 100% accurate as written.  I do believe the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old and God made it in 6 literal days.  I believe in that which can be observed, studied, and tested but realize that certain concepts are beyond human understanding as not all can be explained in the natural world.  I believe in science, and that most things do have a logical explanation behind them.  I do not believe in any form of 'magic'.  I do not believe in superstitions.  I do not believe in fortune telling, ghosts (in the haunted house sense), astrology, or any of that nonsense.  So if you feel the urge to laugh after reading this last paragraph, please do post your objections and why you believe my ideas are scientifically innacurate.   

And when I say evolution, I am referring to the creation of all the matter in the universe from nothing (big bang).  I am referring to the creation of all of the elements from essentially nothing but hydrogen.  I am referring to the appearance of all celestial bodies by pure random chance from these chemicals (or lack thereof).  I am then referring to the evolution of the Earth itself, from a hot magma-covered crust, to the planet we see today.  I am referring to the evolution of living oranisms from non-living chemicals by pure random chance.  And finally, I am referring to macroevolution: the process by which 'primitive' organisms accumulate 'beneficial mutations' and  evolve into more complex ones over millions of years, and finally into humans.  Note that I am NOT referring to microevolution: the divergence of one kind of animal into many different kinds by means of natural selection resulting in a decline in genetic complexity, as this is a proven scientific fact and one that is actually required in order for certain religious texts to make logical sense (how roughly 16,000 animals on Noah's ark could repopulate the world and give rise to the millions of varieties we see today for instance). 

Alright, so to begin, I had been an evolutionist for about a decade until recently.  I was taught in school, all the way up to college, that evolution was a proven fact and that creationism was just a "feel good, illogical, supersticious, and unscientific" concept that had been proven wrong by 'science'.  However, after studying the issue lately, I have come to the conclusion that it is actually very much the opposite.  That there is almost never such a thing as conclusive evidence or facts that indicate a particular theory, and only that theory, is true.  All observable data is open to interpretation, and it is our preconceived belief system that determines how we view that data.   That being said, what exactly is this "overwhelming evidence" in favour of evolution we are being bombarded with constantly?  Why is evolution considered science, and creationism a religion?  How exactly is evolution not equally religious in nature as creationism?  Where is this massive evidence for evolution?  Does not all of the evidence from geology, paleontology, genetics, homology, chemistry, astronomy, anatomy, etc., commonly used in support of evolution equally support ( if not make far more sense from) a creationist perspective? 

That is what I would generally like to discuss in this thread from a more scientific and factual perspective.  And please, don't flame.  If you have an objection, please state it in a pleasant manner.  I realize this is a touchy subject, but let's keep it civil.   

DaLagga said:

To be specific about my own beliefs: I am a creationist leaning heavily toward christianity and believing the bible is 100% accurate as written.  I do believe the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old and God made it in 6 literal days.  I believe in that which can be observed, studied, and tested but realize that certain concepts are beyond human understanding as not all can be explained in the natural world.  I believe in science, and that most things do have a logical explanation behind them.  I do not believe in any form of 'magic'.  I do not believe in superstitions.  I do not believe in fortune telling, ghosts (in the haunted house sense), astrology, or any of that nonsense.  So if you feel the urge to laugh after reading this last paragraph, please do post your objections and why you believe my ideas are scientifically innacurate.   

Click to expand...

How do you explain carbon dateing then?

DaLagga said:

To be specific about my own beliefs: I am a creationist leaning heavily toward christianity and believing the bible is 100% accurate as written.  I do believe the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old and God made it in 6 literal days.  I believe in that which can be observed, studied, and tested but realize that certain concepts are beyond human understanding as not all can be explained in the natural world.  I believe in science, and that most things do have a logical explanation behind them.  I do not believe in any form of 'magic'.  I do not believe in superstitions.  I do not believe in fortune telling, ghosts (in the haunted house sense), astrology, or any of that nonsense.  So if you feel the urge to laugh after reading this last paragraph, please do post your objections and why you believe my ideas are scientifically innacurate.   

Click to expand...

You're kidding right?

http://www.evilbible.com/wforum/viewforum.php?f=33&sid=d1ba33ebdddf66ec891fae32f5085b23
That might be a better place for this.

sneakey pete said:

How do you explain carbon dateing then?

Click to expand...

God playing a prank on us obviously!

And lets not mention all the dinosaur bones, as those are obviously planted all around the world by those shifty paleontologists to lead the faithful astray! Either that or Adam and Eve must have lived in serious terror, having to hide all the time from those bloody raptors.

How do you explain carbon dateing then?

Click to expand...

Excellent question.  It's an interesting idea invented by Willard Libby in the 1950's that is simply not accurate by any meaning of the word.  First, carbon dating cannot be used to date anything over about 50,000 years old by evolutionist understanding due to the relatively rapid decay of Carbon 14 with a half life of 5730 years.  Carbon 14 is created by solar rays bombarding our atmosphere and striking Nitrogen.  Plants take in the Carbon 14 and animals eat the plants.  It is assumed that the level of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere, plants, and animals to all be about the same at .0000765%.  When an organism dies, it stops accumulating Carbon 14 and so a "timer" is set.  So the way the system works is by testing the percent of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere with how much is remaining in a dead organism.  Since its decay rate is known, in theory you can study how much remains and determine how long the organism has been dead.  If for instance a dead organism has half the C14 in its system than in the atmosphere, we would conclude that it is 5730 years old.  However, there are a few serious flaws with this as many assumptions must be made.

1.  The original Carbon 14 content of the organism must be known.
2.  The rate of decay must be assumed to be constant.
3.  That there was no contamination within the sample.

The troubling thing is, the Carbon 14 content in the atmosphere has not been the same.  As Carbon 14 is being created by the sun, it is also decaying.  It has been determined that it would take approx. 30,000 years for the C14 content in the atmosphere to reach equilibrium starting from zero C14.  Problem for the evolutionists is, the ratio of C14 in the atmosphere is actually rising.  Which first off means that the earth cannot be more than 30,000 years old.  It also means that older organisms took in much less C14 since there was much less in the atmosphere.  Which means that naturally these organims will date much older than they actually are.  Furthermore, the dating system is simply not reliable at all.  Many living organisms (snails, molusks, penguins, etc.) have been Carbon dated to be several thousand years old.  When dating two seperate portions of the same organism, which should yield the same age, they often arrive at dates several thousand years apart.  A good example of this is a baby mammoth found in Syberia (named Dima).  One part dated 40,000 years old, and another part dated 26,000 years old, and the wood immediately around the mammoth dated 10,000 years old.  

Furthermore, samples of wood burried in rock estimated to be several hundred million years old by evolutions was tested for C14.  Since most of the C14 should deteriorate in 50,000 years, you would expect there to be none left in the wood and thus it should deliver an infinite age if tested.  No dating lab will accept samples believed to be millions of years old because of this.  Yet this wood gave ages ranging from 20,000-35,000 years old.  While the dates are obviously inflated based upon what I stated earlier, this proves that these layers of rock are not millions of years old.  Ironic that their own dating system would actually support creationism.  Here's a link with some detailed information on the wood proving the rock is not millions of years old.  Here's another and here's another.  

You're kidding right?

http://www.evilbible.com/wforum/viewforum.php?f=33&sid=d1ba33ebdddf66ec891fae32f5085b23
That might be a better place for this.

Click to expand...

Oh good, such an unbiased source you have found.  I have used that site to debate against creationists back when I supported evolution, so there is nothing surprising there.  First, as I should have stated in my first post, you cannot just post links to websites except as references.  Turning this into a "battle of the links" will accomplish nothing.  Second, please post specific issues.  If you want to use them from that site, that is perfectly fine.  But post an issue and state how it is contrary to creationism or the bible in your own words at least.  

God playing a prank on us obviously!

And lets not mention all the dinosaur bones, as those are obviously planted all around the world by those shifty paleontologists to lead the faithful astray! Either that or Adam and Eve must have lived in serious terror, having to hide all the time from those bloody raptors.

Click to expand...

Actually, the prank is evolutionists passing poor assumptions and biased determinations off as science.  And as for dinosaurs, that's a topic that we could easily spend 20 pages discussing.  Did you know that many dinosaur bones are found only partially or only beginning to fossilize?  If they had really been extict for 65 million years this would not be the case.  Also, dinosaur blood has been found inside dinosaur bone.  This is entirely impossible unless they are only a few thousand years old.  Many cultures from all around the world throughout history as well as the bible have described or drawn pictures of creatures that only fit the description of a dinosaur.  One of the Ica Stones depicts a dinosaur with circle patterns on it.  Did you know that only in the 1990's was fossilized dinosaur skin discovered...and it had circle pattern on it?  I would sure like to hear an evolutionist explanation for how all this is possible unless these people actually saw dinosaurs. 

DaLagga said:

And when I say evolution, I am referring to the creation of all the matter in the universe from nothing (big bang).  I am referring to the creation of all of the elements from essentially nothing but hydrogen.  I am referring to the appearance of all celestial bodies by pure random chance from these chemicals (or lack thereof).  I am then referring to the evolution of the Earth itself, from a hot magma-covered crust, to the planet we see today.  I am referring to the evolution of living oranisms from non-living chemicals by pure random chance.  And finally, I am referring to macroevolution: the process by which 'primitive' organisms accumulate 'beneficial mutations' and  evolve into more complex ones over millions of years, and finally into humans.

Click to expand...

All more or less proven scientific fact. Sure, our understanding might of these things might not always be perfect, and there might be a few holes here and there at times, but that does in no way mean it isn't fact. And there is no such thing as pure random chance involved there. Hell, "pure random chance" does not even exist at all.

Note that I am NOT referring to microevolution: the divergence of one kind of animal into many different kinds by means of natural selection resulting in a decline in genetic complexity, as this is a proven scientific fact and one that is actually required in order for certain religious texts to make logical sense (how roughly 16,000 animals on Noah's ark could repopulate the world and give rise to the millions of varieties we see today for instance). 

Click to expand...

Microevolution and natural selection is just as much, or as little if you want, scientific fact as all the previous things mentioned.

Where is this massive evidence for evolution?

Click to expand...

How about all over the damn place? Where ISN'T there massive evidence for evolution?

Does not all of the evidence from geology, paleontology, genetics, homology, chemistry, astronomy, anatomy, etc., commonly used in support of evolution equally support ( if not make far more sense from) a creationist perspective?

Click to expand...

.....
Please, explain how all that could POSSIBLY support creatonism. Please do, I'm really very curious to see what you could possibly come up with here.

But if people want to believe in creatonism, that's fine with me, just as I'm fine with people believing in leprechauns and santa and whatnot. But ffs, they shouldn't start teaching any of this in schools in favour of evolution.

All more or less proven scientific fact. Sure, our understanding might of these things might not always be perfect, and there might be a few holes here and there at times, but that does in no way mean it isn't fact. And there is no such thing as pure random chance involved there. Hell, "pure random chance" does not even exist at all.

Click to expand...

Crying loudly that it is a fact does not make it so.  Where is your evidence for this?  And if you want to know something about randomness I'd love to share my idea behind what implications it has if everything can be explained by the natural world. 

Microevolution and natural selection is just as much, or as little if you want, scientific fact as all the previous things mentioned.

Click to expand...

Not true at all.  Again, stating it over and over is not going to get you anywhere.  Macroevolution has never been observed and there is no reason to believe it could occur.  Except that to the evolutinist it simply must.

How about all over the damn place? Where ISN'T there massive evidence for evolution?

Click to expand...

Do not shift the burden of proof.  Provide evidence.

Please, explain how all that could POSSIBLY support creatonism. Please do, I'm really very curious to see what you could possibly come up with here.

Click to expand...

What exactly supports evolution?  And please, one topic at a time.  Do not list 20 and force me to go through them individually and end up with a 5 page post that nobody will ever bother to read because of its length. 

But if people want to believe in creatonism, that's fine with me, just as I'm fine with people believing in leprechauns and santa and whatnot. But ffs, they shouldn't start teaching any of this in schools in favour of evolution.

Click to expand...

Actually, when you analyze the science, evolution is more on par with believing in leprechauns and santa.  You believe that all life magically evolved from nothing.  There is no explanation for how this occured and no evidence to demonstrate it.  Believe me, I know.  I defened evolution in debates for years.  Evolution is a dying religion proven more wrong by science every day.  That is why evolutionists are crying louder than ever that it is a fact of science and must be taught exclusively in public schools.  If they don't use tax dollars to indoctrinate kids when they're young, they will forever lose them to the scientific truth: that life only comes from life, and that original life must have been created. 

Agnostic, evolution implied.

The main reason I disagree with your views on creation is that human civilisation has been traced back before 6000 years ago, especially in India and Africa. Hinduism (in differing forms) was around for literally thousands of years before Christianity, if we take 0 CE as the birth of Jeebus himself. And this was just humanity in its current phase: We have the skeletons of several previous "versions" of humanity, like the Neanderthals. So, seeing as Homo Sapiens has beena round for at least 6000 years and we know that there were several species of humans before us, some of whom had some low level of civilisation (necklaces, tools etc), like Homo Erectus, I can't believe the Earth is really only 6000 years old. The numbers just don't add up for me.

DaLagga said:

Excellent question.  It's an interesting idea invented by Willard Libby in the 1950's that is simply not accurate by any meaning of the word.  First, carbon dating cannot be used to date anything over about 50,000 years old by evolutionist understanding due to the relatively rapid decay of Carbon 14 with a half life of 5730 years.  Carbon 14 is created by solar rays bombarding our atmosphere and striking Nitrogen.  Plants take in the Carbon 14 and animals eat the plants.  It is assumed that the level of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere, plants, and animals to all be about the same at .0000765%.  When an organism dies, it stops accumulating Carbon 14 and so a "timer" is set.  So the way the system works is by testing the percent of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere with how much is remaining in a dead organism.  Since its decay rate is known, in theory you can study how much remains and determine how long the organism has been dead.  If for instance a dead organism has half the C14 in its system than in the atmosphere, we would conclude that it is 5730 years old.  However, there are a few serious flaws with this as many assumptions must be made.

1.  The original Carbon 14 content of the organism must be known.
2.  The rate of decay must be assumed to be constant.
3.  That there was no contamination within the sample.

The troubling thing is, the Carbon 14 content in the atmosphere has not been the same.  As Carbon 14 is being created by the sun, it is also decaying.  It has been determined that it would take approx. 30,000 years for the C14 content in the atmosphere to reach equilibrium starting from zero C14.  Problem for the evolutionists is, the ratio of C14 in the atmosphere is actually rising.  Which first off means that the earth cannot be more than 30,000 years old.  It also means that older organisms took in much less C14 since there was much less in the atmosphere.  Which means that naturally these organims will date much older than they actually are.  Furthermore, the dating system is simply not reliable at all.  Many living organisms (snails, molusks, penguins, etc.) have been Carbon dated to be several thousand years old.  When dating two seperate portions of the same organism, which should yield the same age, they often arrive at dates several thousand years apart.  A good example of this is a baby mammoth found in Syberia (named Dima).  One part dated 40,000 years old, and another part dated 26,000 years old, and the wood immediately around the mammoth dated 10,000 years old. 

Furthermore, samples of wood burried in rock estimated to be several hundred million years old by evolutions was tested for C14.  Since most of the C14 should deteriorate in 50,000 years, you would expect there to be none left in the wood and thus it should deliver an infinite age if tested.  No dating lab will accept samples believed to be millions of years old because of this.  Yet this wood gave ages ranging from 20,000-35,000 years old.  While the dates are obviously inflated based upon what I stated earlier, this proves that these layers of rock are not millions of years old.  Ironic that their own dating system would actually support creationism.  Here's a link with some detailed information on the wood proving the rock is not millions of years old.  Here's another and here's another. 

Click to expand...

You...what...I....oh dear bob. *sighs*
C14 has been in the atmosphere for a damn long time already, definitely longer than 30000 years. It continously gets created, mainly under the influence of cosmic rays which constantly bombard us, and always decays too of course. Of course after a certain amount of time the amount of C14 in an organism gets too low to reliable date it. There's indeed also the fact that of contamination of samples, which is why they usually take multiple samples of the thing they want to date. Also animals eating certain other organisms, especially aquatic plants, can't always be dated reliably. But no one ever said carbon dating is perfect.

And dating methods aren't restricted to just carbon dating you know. When dealing with ages over 50000 years or so, yes carbon dating has no use at all anymore.
And that's when we move on to methods such as Potassium-Argon dating or the different Uranium dating methods, which can be used to date things upto many millions and even a few billions of years old.

Oh bob, I'm not gonna bother any further, as you're just one of those types that only twists science to his own ends, making it agree with everything he thinks of as true, regardless of how many glaring errors there are in all of his theories.

In respons to dalagga, sure, carbon dating isn't that accurate. and sure it get's unrelyable over 50000 or so years. But even then it's not going to be 30000 years off the mark!!!

THERE'S NO 'E' IN CARBON DATING GOD DAMN IT.

Now that's out of my system. (Sorry, that bugs me so bad)

I'm going to leave this thread before blood starts coming out of my eyes and ears.

TehGherkin said:

THERE'S NO 'E' IN CARBON DATING GOD DAMN IT.

Now that's out of my system. (Sorry, that bugs me so bad)

I'm going to leave this thread before blood starts coming out of my eyes and ears.

Click to expand...

HAPPY NOW???!!!!111ONE

i've had a long day too....

Another thing, how the **** is it possible for humanity to... procreate that fast. from 2-6000000000 in 6000 years? no.

also, how could you go from 2 people without... inbreeding.

Chimpanzees.

Agnostic, evolution implied.

The main reason I disagree with your views on creation is that human civilisation has been traced back before 6000 years ago, especially in India and Africa. Hinduism (in differing forms) was around for literally thousands of years before Christianity, if we take 0 CE as the birth of Jeebus himself. And this was just humanity in its current phase: We have the skeletons of several previous "versions" of humanity, like the Neanderthals. So, seeing as Homo Sapiens has beena round for at least 6000 years and we know that there were several species of humans before us, some of whom had some low level of civilisation (necklaces, tools etc), like Homo Erectus, I can't believe the Earth is really only 6000 years old. The numbers just don't add up for me.

Click to expand...

Actually, it hasn't.  Ever wonder why all books dealing with human civilization begin at about 4000B.C.?  And how these civilizations began highly developed and out of nowhere?  And why that if evolution were true, and homo sapiesn existed for over 100,000 years did we run around doing nothing for so long?  Why did it take so long to figure out how to put a cow in a pen and raise them yourself than chase them around for a hundred millenia?  What did 'modern' man do for so long?  Also, what happened to our population levels?  Why is it that if you consider the flood 4400 years ago and starting again with 8 people the population growth curve fits perfectly?  Coincidence?  There is no reason to believe man existed more than 6000 years ago.  

And we could go on forever about missing links.  First, Neanderthals are the only 'missing links' that are human, and the difference between them and modern humans is purely racial.  They are not missing links and are in no way inferior to us.  To cover other missing links briefly:

1. Java man - consists of only a (gibbon's) skull cap and a human leg bone. Yet on these a complete face and body have been reconstructed.

2.  Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - One tooth was found in America and was claimed to be a new ape-man. A complete detailed picture was published in the London Illustrated News of the ape-man and his wife. The tooth was later found to be that of an extinct pig! Little publicity was given to this fact.

3.  Piltdown man - A known hoax believed to be done by Teilhard de Chardin.  Basically an Orangutan's jaw bone was filed down to fit a human skull.  Because evolutionists are so blinded by their religion, this went unnoticed for nearly half a century as was taught as absolute proof of evolution during that time.

4.  Pekin man - This was put together from a few skull fragments.  Furthermore, human skulls and advanced tools were found alongside these 'missing links'.  

5.  Pithecanthropus erectus - In 1890 Dubois found a skull cap (of a giant gibbon) and a human leg bone 45 ft. away (Fig. 5).  He put them together and said he had found a "walking ape". For thirty years he kept secret two skulls and other fossils of modern men he had found at the same time. The Selenka Trinil Expedition could find no further trace of Dubois' ape-man. Von Koenigswald found only a few broken skull pieces and parts of jaws which he claimed confirmed Java man's existence.  Four years before he died Dubois admitted that he had only found the skull of a large gibbon, but this was dismissed by experts as Java man had become too well established!

6.  Australopithecenes - In a symposium, edited by Sir Julian Huxley, Sir Solly Zuckerman completely rejects these fossil apes. Similarly Oxnard claims that they are not ancestral to man.

7.  Ramapithecus - The only fossils of this ape are some thirty jaws and teeth.  The famous "Lucy" fossil was confirmed to be a pure ape.  The knee joint that Johanson claimed to prove lucy was a missing link because it confirmed she was beginning to walk upright was found over a mile away from the rest of the skeleton.  

What all did I miss?  There simply are no missing links.  It is vivid evolutionist imagination at work and nothing more.  

You know, maybe they should just ban people without the proper qualifications from discussing such things, on the penalty of a good stabbing. It's silly when people with their high school knowledge of biology, chemistry, geology and the likes and start twisting theories and such evolved over years, decades, centuries and thought up by people 10x as smart as them just to prove their own points.
Hell, I know I'm not qualified to properly discuss this.

sneakey pete said:

also, how could you go from 2 people without... inbreeding.

Click to expand...

Well it would sure explain 97% of the world's population nowadays.

You...what...I....oh dear bob. *sighs*
C14 has been in the atmosphere for a damn long time already, definitely longer than 30000 years. It continously gets created, mainly under the influence of cosmic rays which constantly bombard us, and always decays too of course. Of course after a certain amount of time the amount of C14 in an organism gets too low to reliable date it. There's indeed also the fact that of contamination of samples, which is why they usually take multiple samples of the thing they want to date. Also animals eating certain other organisms, especially aquatic plants, can't always be dated reliably. But no one ever said carbon dating is perfect.

And dating methods aren't restricted to just carbon dating you know. When dealing with ages over 50000 years or so, yes carbon dating has no use at all anymore.
And that's when we move on to methods such as Potassium-Argon dating or the different Uranium dating methods, which can be used to date things upto many millions and even a few billions of years old.

Click to expand...

And where is your evidence that it has been in the atmosphere for over 30,000 years?  The fact is it would take that long to reach equilibrium, and it has still not hit that point.  And of course there are other dating methods.  They too are bound by the same assumptions and I would be happy to go over them in more detail of you really wish.  But as I also said, C14 dating proves the ones that deliver millions of years to be false.  Furthermore, the dates attained are never conclusive and vary greatly depending on what test is done.  You should look up information on the "dating game".

Oh bob, I'm not gonna bother any further, as you're just one of those types that only twists science to his own ends, making it agree with everything he thinks of as true, regardless of how many glaring errors there are in all of his theories.

Click to expand...

Please do show me one error thus far.  Perhaps the fact that many smart men in lab coats believe something is good enough for you, but it simply isn't for me.    

Another thing, how the **** is it possible for humanity to... procreate that fast. from 2-6000000000 in 6000 years? no.

Click to expand...

First, its 8 people in 4400 years.  And yes, it is easily possible, especially when you factor in the biblical ages of those shortly after the flood.  For instance, the world population in year 1810 was about 1 billion.  In Jesus's day it was about 250 million. 

also, how could you go from 2 people without... inbreeding.

Click to expand...

This situation only occured with Adam and Eve.  One of the most commonly asked questions is "who did Cain marry?".  The simple answer is, his sister.  Since there would have been no deteriorations in our genetic code at the time of creation this would not have been a problem.  Also, it wasn't until thousands of years later when Moses gave the law against it.  Whether you believe in creationism or evolution, you believe in inbreeding.  Especially when you consider evolutionists believe we all came from a rock.  

You know, maybe they should just ban people without the proper qualifications from discussing such things, on the penalty of a good stabbing. It's silly when people with their high school knowledge of biology, chemistry, geology and the likes and start twisting theories and such evolved over years, decades, centuries and thought up by people 10x as smart as them just to prove their own points.
Hell, I know I'm not qualified to properly discuss this.

Click to expand...

And there you have it.  To question the uniformitarian paradigm means that you simply must be ignorant because we know evolution has occured.  You sit there throwing insults with no basis.  Either debate scientific evidence or pipe down.  In any case, I'm off to bed.  I'm glad this thread has attracted attention and look forward to further discussion. 

Oh, and if you want to see something very interesting here's a very good site showing the origins of the Chinese religion.  It's a nice flash animation thingy, so its not pages and pages of reading or anything.  I'd like all of you to check it out and post your responses. 

DaLagga said:

And there you have it.  To question the uniformitarian paradigm means that you simply must be ignorant because we know evolution has occured.

Click to expand...

What the hell does THAT even mean???
And what I was saying is that one shouldn't really discuss things when one doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about.
I do NOT mean things like this shouldn't be discussed at all, because if that was the case we'd probably still believe the sun revolves around the earth.

And oh yeah, I'm curious, but please explain all the dating methods used to date things millions and more years old and that in no way use carbon 14. Or do you just conveniently use the fact that in YOUR opinion C14 dating proves that the earth is a few thousand years old as an excuse for saying other dating methods are false?