First off, I respect your guy's beliefs and you don't even have to read a single word of this if you don't want to. I'm just trying to prove to you that evolution isn't fact and that creationism is. I'm also going to act mature about this and not judge you guys by what you believe, so in return, I ask you do the same with me.
You're an idiot. You tell someone to prove evolution, then say creationism is correct. Irony at its finest.
I'm prepared to defend my point
with science and fact, how does that make this irony?
I would but I'm to tired right now, mabey someone else will. Anyway, what makes you think that god didn't make everything over time. The seven days don't acctually mean seven days, a lot of people believe them to stand for seven different periods, through which god slowly made man. I'm catholic, but I beleive in the theory of evolution, because the facts are right there in front of you, and around you.
That's called the Seven Day Theory. But if you have read Genesis 1, it defines the days of creation to be literal days (a number with the word “day” always means a normal day in the Old Testament, and the phrase “evening and morning” further defines the days as literal days).
Fossil Record - millions of specimens have been found each slightly different from one another and forming a pattern over periods of millions of years
Carbon Dating - The technology has not only proven that the earth is much older than creationists claim it to be, but also that the fossils mentioned above do correlate to distinct time periods.
By nature, religion typically cannot be disputed for it uses circular reasoning. Any odd occurrences or illogical happenings are simply part of "god's plan". Acts that defy all the natural laws we know and obey are seemingly none-existent in the face of this supposed omnipotent being.
What really matters, is the choice you make. Is it wiser to believe in something back by evidence and logic? or do you wish to put your faith in the words of a book and the words of a priest?
It's understandable if you choose the latter. We all fear the unknown at least a little.
It takes a strong man to put his faith in something he cannot see. It takes a stronger man to accept that he cannot know everything about this world and doesn't simply make up the answers to comfort himself.
Thanks for being understandable. But here is why it is wrong:
Carbon-14 dating is based apon the principle that all living things absorb Carbon-12 (Stable, meaning constant) and Carbon-14 (Unstable, meaning radioactive) when they are alive. As soon as something dies, the Carbon-14 Radioactive will decay (emit radiation) over time and become a different element. Carbon-14 has it's first half-life at 5,730 years and second half-life at 11,460 years. By knowing how fast a organism decays can show you when it first died, but without knowing how much Carbon-14 it had when it died won't tell you how many years the organism has been dead. This is where the Accelerator Mass Spectrometer (AMS) is used. Because Carbon-12 remains constant in an organism, the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 in the organism will be the same as in the atmosphere. The ratio turns out to be 1 Carbon-14 to 1 trillion Carbon-12. As soon as the organism dies, the ratio changes. Because the Carbon-12 stays the same and Carbon-14 becomes less and less, the ratio gets smaller. And the smaller the ratio, the longer the organism has been dead. Now here is where that method is wrong. It is assumed that the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS Carbon-14 dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining Carbon-14 to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates.What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of Carbon-14 being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of Carbon-14 in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine. Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. These assumptions are extremly importent. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion. In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no Carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 is not constant. The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of Carbon-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute. What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and Carbon-14 is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.
I got most of this info from
here incase you want to read the full article.
I can go on and prove the Fossil Record wrong, but that would make the post even longer and then noone would read it. So insted, I'll post some links to website articles that prove these things wrong.
Hasn't Evolution been Proven?Egg, cell evolved an- OH I'M SORRY, THE HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF SCIENCE ARE STILL INSIGNIFICANT COMPARED TO A BOOK WITH NO VALIDITY OR POSSESSED LOGIC. I dare you to prove creationism, when I can prove science has a 100% success rate, never lies, and is the inherit cause, build, and effect for everything.
Science isn't always 100% correct (As stated in my responce to Carbon Dating). Another example would be our solar system. It had been proven with the science of that time that everything revolved around the earth. Then some scientists said that it was the earth that rotated around the sun. Their ideas were rejected and said that science proves them wrong, but then in the end, their ideas were proven to be true. So in a way, you are both correct and incorrect about science.
Warning - while you were typing 7 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.For the sake of keeping things short (Well, shorter than it already is) I'm going to post an article reguarding the
fruit flies.
Just to cite my work,
here is where I'm getting my answers. If you're not lazy, I suggest you read some of them and compare your beliefs with mine.
Poll