Its the evolutionist turn. Can u disprove anything here?

@lhvinny

#4 on the list: Mitochondrial Eve ...

When used with MEASURED rates of mutation Mitochondrial Eve is ~6000 years old. The "190,000 years" comes from ASSUMING that humans and chimps had a common ancestor 5M years ago.

#5 is for the same reason. Y-Chromosome Adam ...

Is dated to 142,000 +/- 142,000 years old. In fact the variation is too low to make any meaningful estimate. Inconsistent with long evolution.

#9 Evolution does not state that creatures must go through large scale morphological changes over time.

It does not state they must but once you understand the theory properly you will find they will probably either change or go extinct. Creatures remaining unchanged over millions of years is NOT a prediction of evolution, even if the environment were unchanging, which it wasn't.

#11. Trees are not the oldest known living organisms.

They are the oldest for which direct estimates can be made. Algae and bacteria living in the perma-frost (and salt deposits) are dated on the ASSUMPTION that the layers they are found in are that old.

#13. This point's idea that the rock needed to be folded before it had time to solidify...

Conditions of increased temperature and pressure that could have made the rocks plastic would also have metamorphosed those rocks.

Work up a sweat and check the facts before you spout off.

@Everard

“For the theory that bacteria do not cause stomach ulcers to be a fake the following conditions would have to be fulfilled:

> Every medical school in the world would have to be in on the deception.

> Every gastroenterologist would have to be a liar.

> Every teacher of medicine would have to be in on it.

> And most of the other sciences too.

> The majority of drugs could NOT have been invented…

> Nor would they work.”

But guess what? It was only recently that it was proved that ulcers WERE caused by bacteria. Widespread acceptance of a paradigm is not proof it is true.

I read some of the "age of the earth" document at creation.com and listened to that guy give a warm welcome for my first visit, but I found myself quite confused at what was written there. I strongly feel that evolution is the most sensible understanding of how species has developed over the years and I firmly believe in the logic behind carbon dating, red shift and other universally accepted forms of age measurement. It may be because of this that I found the content of creation.com somewhat difficult to agree with - there was admittedly an immediate shunning of the information provided that I had to try and overcome. However, I would note the following things:

1. It is laid out professionally and well-presented which seems to offer it some credence, especially if this is what you think you are looking for.

2. There is a big list of so called reasons for why the age of the earth might be younger but very little substance to them.

3. It offers many words and yet little to support them.

Most of the examples used merely state that these things "suggest" the earth is younger, but none seem to elaborate on how they do this or indeed concede that certain geological features can be inconsistent because there are multiple facets (remained unexplored by the writer). In fact most of the data collated there seems sourced for the convenience of the word to be preached and hardly academic (debatably).

I would offer you a rudimentary example of my own for the argument for evolution:

Imagine you dig a great pit 7 feet deep within the shadow of a huge mountain. You notice that throughout the depth of the trench there appears to be many layers in the soil. You analyse the solid in a layer not too far from the surface and find distinct traces of volcanic ash. Local historic records confirm that the mountain, once an active volcano last erupted 300 years ago covering the land with ash. It would therefore seem that as the soil has compacted in layers over the years, the level of the volcanic ash you found can be dated 300 years old. This of course prompts the question, how old is the deepest layer? And thus begins scientific quest to age the earth itself...

A very simplified version of the idea, but you can understand how it works.

I'm not entirely anti-creationist. I just think that if there is a master planner behind the master plan, then the plan involves evolution.

Only 5? Easily.

#4 on the list: Mitochondrial Eve is not supposed to be the first woman, but simply the common ancestor for all humans still alive today. This does not account for all the human genetic lines that have gone extinct (tribes or ancestries completely wiped out by natural or human causes). #4 is a direct lie. Also, #4 ignores the fact that Mitochondrial Eve is supposed to have lived over 190,000 years ago, which is well over the 6k age you are suggesting.

#5 is for the same reason. Y-Chromosome Adam is also just the common ancestor for all humans alive today. He also lived about 142,000 years ago, and thus was separated from Mitochondrial Eve by about 50,000 years. How can this possibly be evidence for your 6k year old earth?

#9 Evolution does not state that creatures must go through large scale morphological changes over time. What it states is that allele frequencies will change over time. If you compare the genome of these ancient creatures with the modern versions, you will see plenty of genetic drift.

#11. Trees are not the oldest known living organisms. The oldest known living organisms are species of algae and bacteria living in the perma-frost.

#13. This point's idea that the rock needed to be folded before it had time to solidify is simply wrong. Rock layers can become plastic under multiple conditions of increased pressures and temperatures (which one would expect within layers of the earth over time). The folding happens after the layers first laid down.

There ya go; 5 debunked without even breaking a sweat. Just let me know if you want me to continue.

1) "because DNA could not last more than thousands of years." - Where is the citation or proof to show that DNA cannot last this long? You cannot just assert something as fact without being able to back up that statement.

2) "bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old." Again, another unfounded claim. I am sure that the bacteria on my skin is much younger than my skin which is far younger than some other parts of my body. It would be ridiculous to testify my age based on the age of the bacteria.

3) Shows a significant lack of understanding how evolution works with detrimental mutations being weeded from the population.

4) Again, an unfounded statement with no citation.

5)

No, enough already. This is just a list of unsupported claims with no evidence whatsoever. As Christopher Hitchens said "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

I hate links, but I did click on that one. The sites very first sentence blew it right out of the water. It said "No scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here." If they believe that nothing can be proven then they have proven nothing and are ignoring all the data that provides proof..

Btw, evolution is the study of the development of life not the study of the age of the earth.

Yeah. Assuming that the laws of nature didn't suddenly decide to turn on their head 6 000 years ago is a HUGE assumption.

O.K. how about this:

God is the greatest thing one can imagine (starting point for St. Anselm's proof of the existence of God).

Can't argue with that, can you?

God is the Creator of the Universe.

Still in agreement, right?

But may we not imagine a being such as that being is the sum of God and the Universe?

And if so, must we not conclude that a God that is separated from the Universe is NOT the greatest thing one may imagine?

Therefore, such a being is NOT the greatest thing one may imagine and therefore is NOT God.

Thus, a creating God can not exist.

“Fact = verifiably accurate data

Law = statement which is always true under specific circumstances

Hypothesis = testable, potentially falsifiable, explanation of facts/laws

Theory = unifying framework explaining all of the above.”

“All the available evidence from any source anywhere supports permits or aligns with evolution unanimously and exclusively… there is no factual evidence against evolution but if there was that would not be evidence for creationism.”

“For evolution to be a fake the following conditions would have to be fulfilled:

> Every university in the world would have to be in on the deception.

> Every biologist would have to be a liar.

> Every teacher of science would have to be in on it.

> And most of the other sciences too.

> The majority of drugs could NOT have been invented…

> Nor would they work.”

Don't forget that the scientific community's entire basis as a meritocracy would have to be pretend as well, since any scientist who *could* show evolution to be false would earn fame and fortune beyond the dreams of avarice.

Which would mean that every single biologist on Earth would necessarily have to possess some really bizarre and utterly selfless ulterior motive for joining the "conspiracy".

Xians “are really against anything that discredits their religion…

And evolution does exactly that.

If evolution is true, then the story of Adam & Eve didn't literally happen, and if Adam & Eve didn't happen then Eve wasn't around to commit the "original sin" which means Jesus didn't need to die on the cross, and at that point their entire religion basically falls apart.”

~

It doesn't matter what you think - it doesn't matter what a website called creation.com thinks. I would like to see these points on a website that's not called creation.com.

Why can't you spell out words? Do you have to pay for each letter you type? You see, this is how I know you aren't very bright and not worth the effort.

Yes, everthing that we know about physics shows that the universe is over 13 billion years old and that billion of billions or stars formed and "died: before our solar system formed around 4 billion years ago.

Even without looking at evolution, it is clear that the Bible is wrong about the age of the earth, shows no concept of the universe, and has a completely wrong order of the sequence of events.

Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. Evolution has passed this test with flying colours.