CITY BEAT CITY TALK  

Today we're talking about Evolution vs Creation and I'm listing this site with the intention of making the issue a little clearer for those who posses, like myself a basic knowledge of Theology and Science. I'm posting this information from a website hat has the opinions and ideas of both sides in the hope that the important and salient points will rise up and become clearer. 

What is the Creation vs Evolution Battle About

The crux of the battle concerns the origins of humans; where we have come from and why we are like the way we are. Its no small issue and holds ramifications for the progress of our species into the future. Such a hugely significant subject has led to the very clear demarcation of each side - There are no grey areas here. So what are the issues:

Evolution: All contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is thus the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth.

Read more about Evolution 

Creation:  Humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe was created over a period of six days, around 6,000 years ago by a God. About 4,300 years ago The Earth was devastated by a global flood sent by the God. A handful of people survived by building a huge boat into which they and all the animals of the planet sheltered. These people, together with the animals populated the planet.

 Read more about Creation

Who's Who in the Battle

The sides involved in the Creation vs Evolution battle are, on the surface, easy to generalise into the Scientists carrying the banner of Evolution and the Creationist cause held aloft by the Fundamentalists found within the Abrahamic Religions: Christianity, Judaism & Islam. This distinction is a general one and its possible to find followers of either camp aligning themselves with the oppisite viewpoint.

Evolution - - -

Creationism - - -

The creationists or young earth creationists base their claims on the infallable word of the Bible and use this as a presupposition for arguing:

• Creation of the Universe

·          

• 6000 years ago a god created the Universe, and everything in it in a period of six days and populated a small rocky planet orbiting a non descript star found in an outer spiral arm of an unremarkable galaxy somwhere in that universe. On that rocky planet he created man, woman and all the animals.

• Noahs Flood
• 4352 years ago the god caused the rocky planet to be completely consumed by a flood. All the creatures and people and plants were destroyed. However before this flood the god had chosen a person called Noah to be the builder of a great wooden boat. This boat was filled with Noah, his family and all the animals the god had created and floated on top of the flood waters protecting the occupants until the water receded.

• Tower of Babel
• 3757 years ago the god made the poeple of the rocky planet speak different languages as a punishment for building a stone tower. These people then spread out across the rocky planet to inhabbit and form the races of humans.

• The Exodus
• 3350 years ago in Egypt a great group of humans called the Israelites, who were slaves, started a great exodus to find somwhere to live that lasted 40 years and involved a great deal of hardship living in harsh environments. One day, up a mountain the god spoke to the leader of these people, a man named Moses, and told him that they could live in a place called Israel but they would need to remove the people who were there. The god also created some stone tablets upon which were carved guidelines and rules that moses and his people would have to live by. These guidelines were called the ten commandments.

Evolution vs. Creation: The Great Debate
The Evolution vs. Creation debate is often referred to as the "Great Debate." It's the emotion-packed question of "Origins" -- why, how, and where did everything come from? 20th century science has made the compelling discovery that, at some point, the universe began. Both sides of the Great Debate now agree that the universe has not existed eternally. However, this is where the agreement ends. As far as the "why" and "how" of the "origin event," this is where the division and contention begin. There are two basic theories in this Great Debate. The first is the historical default - the Creation Model of Origins. This theory maintains that the intricate design permeating all things implies a Designer. The second theory is the more recent, atheistic explanation - the Evolution Model of Origins. This theory postulates that the intricate design permeating all things is a product of random chance and excessive time.

Evolution vs. Creation: The Contentions
Evolution vs. Creation is indeed the Great Debate of our scientific times. In any scientific debate, the theories must be tested according to the evidence. We propose that the burden of evidence should be upon the Evolutionists, since Creation has been the historic and inherent default throughout virtually all cultures and religions until roughly the last 200 years. Of course, Evolutionists, who view themselves as the only "scientists" in the debate, insist that the burden of evidence be upon the Creationists. Evolutionists reason, we cannot see the Creator, we cannot hear the Creator, and we cannot touch, taste or smell the Creator. Therefore, we are unable to test for the Creator with any form of scientific equipment developed thus far. Creationists retort, we cannot see, hear, touch, taste, or smell the human mind. We cannot test for the human mind with any form of scientific equipment developed thus far. When we run an electroencephalogram, we are measuring salt flow and electrical activity within the human brain. We cannot so much as even locate the human mind. Yet we watch as human carcasses run about, making order of disorder, conscious decisions according to subconscious criteria. We see the design and complexity that result from the operation of the brain through the invisible realm known as the mind. Thus, we know with certainty that the human mind exists. Therefore, it's absolutely logical for Creationists to postulate the existence of a Creator based upon the same "evidence." The design we see all around us came from one, grand concept, and such a concept can only come from a complex Mind. Furthermore, the mathematical and physical laws inherent in all things (including, most dramatically, the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Cause and Effect) effectively validate this evidentiary claim.

Evolution vs. Creation: Origins
In the Evolution vs. Creation conflict, Evolutionists do quite well in terms of theoretical science, but fail to find empirical evidence. Evolutionists theorize that the universe, with all that it contains (space, time, matter and energy), exploded from nothing. This is contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics. Where did space, time, matter and energy come from in the first place? Thus, for Evolutionists, the ultimate question of Origins remains unsolved. To complicate the Evolutionary position, this original explosion of everything from nothing is unable to explain all of the complexity and fine-tuning in the universe, including cosmic "voids" and "clumps", retrograde motion of the galaxies, etc. Despite numerous problems, this explosion from nothing has been dubbed the "Big Bang" and is the accepted theory among the majority of Evolutionists. Evolution is a very unique "science." Typically, scientists observe evidentiary data and then formulate their conclusions. Evolutionists have formulated their conclusion, and now look for the missing data.

Evolution vs. Creation: Complexity
The Evolution vs. Creation debate further seeks to solve the riddle of complexity. Creationists believe the universe was designed to be complex by an Intelligent Designer. Evolutionists, in their effort to exclude a designer, contend that complexity has developed from simplicity over time. Evolutionists view time as their solution. However, hard science tells us that time is the enemy of complexity. This fact has been so well documented that it has obtained the stature of a physical law, the "Second Law of Thermodynamics."

Evolution vs. Creation: The Resolution
Evolution vs. Creation -- Until Evolutionists find the evidence they've sought since the beginning of the modern Evolutionary movement about 150 years ago, there is actually no debate at all. Creation is the default. Evolutionists insist that complexity developed from simplicity despite the contradiction to known physical laws. Moreover, Evolutionists maintain that this simplicity just sprang into existence without any cause at all. Let's collect the evidence, and then we can start a debate.

Investigate More Now!

Age of the Earth: A Feasibility Study
Age of the Earth - Is it possible to determine such a thing with any certainty? The formation of the Earth is what is known as a "singularity." The event cannot be repeated in a lab and is not occurring in nature now. In determining the Age of the Earth, scientists must make assumptions that seem reasonable based on observable data. Certainty and assumption are contrary to each other. Therefore, the study of the Age of the Earth is a "feasibility study."

Age of the Earth: Young Earth vs. Old Earth
The scientific community presents the Age of the Earth from two distinct camps: The "Young Earth" advocates and the "Old Earth" advocates. There are various natural chronometers that seem to indicate either a Young Earth or an Old Earth. Both camps use such chronometers to back their position. They both claim their model is most feasible. How then will the dispute be settled?

Age of the Earth: Limiting Factors
The answer to the Age of the Earth question is found in "Limiting Factors." While it may be impossible to be certain when the Earth formed, we may determine when the Earth did not form. Limiting Factors are best explained with this illustration: A boat sinks. On board is a chest full of gold coins. As time passes, the wreck is forgotten. Centuries later, the boat is discovered, and the chest full of coins is recovered. How can we determine when the boat sank? We may not be able to pinpoint the date, but we are able to determine when it did not sink by looking at the dates on the coins. If a coin is marked with 1756, we know the boat did not sink in 1755 or 1730 or 1610, etc. It must have sunk after the coin was minted. The coin is a "Limiting Factor."

Age of the Earth: Factors Pointing to a Young Earth
There are many Limiting Factors limiting the possible Age of the Earth. Here are a few:

Magnetic Field. The Earth's magnetic field is essential to life on Earth for many reasons. One reason is that it deflects much of the cosmic radiation that destroys life. Precise measurements of the Earth's magnetic field have been made since 1829, all over the world. During that time, it has deteriorated exponentially -- that is, it has followed a predictable curve. By graphing this curve, we extrapolate that life would have been impossible before 20,000 BC (the field would be as strong as the Sun's at that point) and will cease to exist after 10,000 AD (there will be, for all practical purposes, no field left, and the Earth will be fried by cosmic radiation).

Earth Rotation. The Earth's spin is slowing down. We experience a "leap second" every year and a half. If it is slowing down, at one time it was going much faster. A faster spin would create a stronger Coriolis Effect, and life would be impossible as we know it.

Moon Drift. The moon is drifting slowly away from the Earth. If it is getting further away, then at one time it was much closer. The Inverse Square Law in physics states that if the moon was half the distance away, its gravitational effect on our tides would be quadrupled. One third the distance and it would be 9 times stronger. We would all drown twice a day. 1.2 billion (1,200 million) years ago, the moon would have been touching the Earth.

Age of the Earth: Young is Not Unreasonable
There are a number of additional Limiting Factors regarding the Age of the Earth that scientists are discovering on a more and more frequent basis. Interestingly, they all seem to indicate a Young Earth, or certainly, not one that is millions or billions of years old. Contrary to the general thinking of the last century, many scientists now accept that it is reasonable to view the Earth as fairly young.

Discover More Now!

Radiometric Dating - A Brief Explanation
Radiometric dating is the primary dating scheme employed by scientists to determine the age of the earth. Radiometric dating techniques take advantage of the natural decay of radioisotopes. An isotope is one of two or more atoms which have the same number of protons in their nuclei, but a different number of neutrons. Radioisotopes are unstable isotopes: they spontaneously decay (emitting radiation in the process -- thus making them radioactive). They continue to decay going through various transitional states until they finally reach stability. For example, Uranium-238 (U238) is a radioisotope. It will spontaneously decay until it transitions into Lead-206 (Pb206). The numbers 238 and 206 represent these isotopes' atomic mass. The Uranium-238 radioisotope goes through 13 transitional stages before stabilizing into Lead-206 (U238 > Th234 > Pa234 > U234 > Th230 > Ra226 > Rn222 > Po218 > Pb214 > Bi214 > Po214 > Pb210 > Bi210 > Po210 > Pb206). In this instance, Uranium-238 is called the "parent" and Lead-206 is called the "daughter". By measuring how long it takes for an unstable element to decay into a stable element and by measuring how much daughter element has been produced by the parent element within a specimen of rock, scientists believe they are able to determine the age of the rock. This belief is based upon three significant assumptions.

Radiometric Dating - The Assumptions
Many of the ages derived by radiometric dating techniques are highly publicized. Nevertheless, the fundamental assumptions employed are not. Here are the three major assumptions for your consideration:

·  The rate of decay remains constant.

·  There has been no contamination (that is, no daughter or intermediate elements have been introduced or leeched from the specimen of rock).

·  We can determine how much daughter there was to begin with (if we assume there was no daughter to begin with, yet there was daughter at the formation of the rock, the rock would have a superficial appearance of age). Are these foundational assumptions reasonable? Recent findings seem to indicate that though we ourselves have not been able to vary the decay rates by much in the laboratory, the decay rates may have been accelerated in the unobservable past [1]. If this were the case, the first assumption would be deemed unreasonable. This would completely upset our current standardized view of earth's history. Dr Carl Wieland summarizes the recent findings: "When uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas which readily escapes from rock. Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead. By measuring the amount of uranium and 'radiogenic lead' in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the geologic 'age' assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.) There is a significant amount of helium from that '1.5 billion years of decay' still inside the zircons. This is at first glance surprising, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with its tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. There should hardly be any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating. Drawing any conclusions from the above depends, of course, on actually measuring the rate at which helium leaks out of zircons. This is what one of the recent RATE [2] papers reports on. The samples were sent… to a world-class expert to measure these rates. The consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years' worth (at today's rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data has since been refined and updated to give a date of 5680 (+/- 2000) years." [3]

Learn more now!

Footnotes:

1.    D. Russel Humphreys, Steven A. Austin, John R. Baumgardner, Andrew A. Snelling, Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay; Article available online at http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf.

2.    The "RATE" project stands for, "Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth"

3.    Carl Wieland, RATE Group Reveal Exciting Breakthroughs, 2003

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/