Think Tank: Disproving Creationism

[Freeman]

Ok, this has been plaguing me for some time, and I wanted to get something started to prove evolutionism(?) is correct with facts.

 

BTW, I am very familiar with the theory of evolution, and some biochemistry. So, just as a "pass time hobby", let's try to prove evolutionism correct!

[bloodhound]

adam eve -> sex -> egg sperm -> zygote -> life

[Freeman]

adam eve -> sex -> egg sperm -> zygote -> life

Well, can't argue with that logic

 

Btw, what was the atmosphere of ancient earth?

[timo]

had to browse through a 23-page thread in another forum to dig it out but maybe it´ll save you some time:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

especially

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

[Freeman]

That is a great site, thanks for the urls!

[bloodhound]

http://www.sex.com also shows the origin of life

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There are about a zillion threads on this already. If you did a quick search I'm sure you would find loads.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2577

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4014

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1931

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2882

 

And so on.

[Radical Edward]

Ok' date=' this has been plaguing me for some time, and I wanted to get something started to prove evolutionism(?) is correct with facts.

 

BTW, I am very familiar with the theory of evolution, and some biochemistry. So, just as a "pass time hobby", let's try to prove evolutionism correct![/quote']

 

It is important to note that one cannot prove scientific things correct. Proof is for maths and alcohol. What science can do however is falsify things, and creationism has been falsified. There are a variety of different forms of creationism from young earth creationism (6000 years old, 6 day creation) through to Gap theory (where they stick a few billion years in between a couple of verses in the bible) but largely speaking, they often rely on one event. Note also that Creationism, particularly Young Earth, encompasses the whole of the universe and all of science, and is not simply a biogenic theory like Evolution is.

 

The event that they tend to rely on most is Noah's flood (in the global sense, though some think of it as a local flood, these tend to be theistic evolutionists), since it is this event that they use to explain why fossils are sorted the way that they are, however Noah's global flood was disproved long ago. It cannot account for a large number of geological features, such as bioturbidity (evidence of biological alteration of features i.e. tunnels dug by worms, footprints and so on) large salt deposits, the structures of the Coconino sandstones, the Oklo Phenomenon and many more. It cannot account for the organisation of fossils, for example the bible says that grass was created early on, but grass is actually quite a late addition to the biosphere, and does not appear until well after most of the dinosaurs. It cannot explain the development of organisms through time, from tetrapods to therapsids. It cannot explain fossil sorting i.e. no modern animal bones are found with dinosaur ones.

 

It cannot explain biogeography; why the marsupials only inhabit the region around australia (and a couple in south America) or any other problems of this type, and how the massive diversity of highly specific organisms came to be.

 

Mathematically the flood can be falsified if we look at the volumes of water required to submerge all the mountains. It gives ridiculous numbers for atmospheric pressure and so on.

 

It cannot explain the matching banding patterns in the human and ape karyotypes, nor can it explain why human chromosome 2 has a telomere in the middle of the chromosome, and looks just like a fusion event between chimp/orang utan/Gorilla chromosomes 2p and 2q. nor can it explain endogenous retroviral sequences. nor can it explain identically crippled pseudogenes. nor can it explain ALU sequences, all genetic evidence of common ancestry with the other great apes. Nor can it explain the matched twin hierarchies between genetic evidence and fossil/morphological evidence.

 

It creates theological problems. The Creatonism God is an incompetent God

 

http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm

 

or a sadistic God

 

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designed_organisms/index.htm

 

The Creatonism God is a liar if we believe the appearance of age or "Oomphalos" arguments in which God made things "mature" or look old. ("Oomphalos means naval, and is the source of the great argument over whether adam had a naval or not, since if he did, then it would be "evidence" that he had a mother and God put features in the universe purely to decieve. sometimes these arguments are referred to as "Last Tuesdayism, since it is not possible to prove that the universe was not created last tuesday but just look old)

 

In short, Science shows that Creationism is wrong; it has been falsified already (barring Oomphalos arguments) and there is no need to "prove" evolution. Even if evolution were wrong, Creationism would still be falsified.