Evolution of Eden

Anderson Cooper 360 -

Very Interesting program tonight. Discussing Evolution vs. Eden (which I know has been discussed at length already) however, there is a new theory out aparently - that the earth is only 6, to 10 thousand years old, instead of millions of years old that scientists currently teach us.

What do you guys think? Opinions? Is it possible that Dinosaurs co-existed with man in the garden of Eden? Is it true that God truely created everything, including dinosaurs and humans, all at the same time?
Or is evolution the end all / be all of creationism? Thoughts?
I'd like to know if there's a scientific basis backing the whole 6 to 10 thousand years old theory, and evidence that conflicts with it. Interesting stuff!

Very Interesting program tonight. Discussing Evolution vs. Eden (which I know has been discussed at length already) however, there is a new theory out aparently - that the earth is only 6, to 10 thousand years old, instead of millions of years old that scientists currently teach us.

It's not new, it's thje literal interpretation of the bible all the fundamentalists believe in.

What do you guys think? Opinions? Is it possible that Dinosaurs co-existed with man in the garden of Eden?

No it's not. The bible never even talks about dinosaurs.

Is it true that God truely created everything, including dinosaurs and humans, all at the same time?

Who knows? It all relies on what you believe in, because you'll never get evidence for or against god's existence, it's not something tangible that science can study.

Or is evolution the end all / be all of creationism? Thoughts?

There are many christians that accept the big bang and evolution, but still believe in god. They are not in conflict.

I'd like to know if there's a scientific basis backing the whole 6 to 10 thousand years old theory, and evidence that conflicts with it. Interesting stuff!

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that supports creationnism, in fact scientific data goes completely against it

Cool, thanks for the thoughts -
do you have any sources for your remarks regarding no scientifc basis (not trying to sound rude dude, just want to see sources)?

Thanks

Originally posted by zeeon
Cool, thanks for the thoughts -
do you have any sources for your remarks regarding no scientifc basis (not trying to sound rude dude, just want to see sources)?

Thanks

You can visit various creationist sites and they will show you "evidence" for their beliefs. However the evidence they put forward just doesn't hold up.

example

Let's take Evidence number 3 :

3. The Global Flood... The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. 5 M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. 6 Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers..7 It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.8

It is true that you can find sea life fossils on mountain tops, but this isn't because there was a great flood 4000 years ago, but because millions of years ago the land now at the top of the mountain used to be under the sea, before the mountain range was formed by plate tectonics.

Well, evidence number 3 sounds logical, and reasonable.

How can you prove that the mountains rose above sea level, thus fossilizing the sea life present on it?
There would be geological record of the mountain rising wouldn't there?
Wouldn't there also be fossilized sea life at almost all levels of sedientary - or are you saying that the mountain rose so fast out of the sea that it isn't present but only towards the top of the mountain?

I've looked at this before, and I'm not seeing any conclusive evidence either way. Even radiologic dating techniques aren't 100% solid and conclusive, because fossils could have been exposed to certain enviromental conditions that could have changed the half-life and sub-atomic structures of said fossil which corrupts our so called dating techniques.

If radiologic dating is flawed, it wouldn't be the first time in history that a standard scientifc method has been found to be flawed (there always certain assumptions that go along with theories) and those assumptions - while holding true for awhile, can (and do sometimes) turn out to be incorrect in light of new thoughts and ideas.

I still haven't seen any conclusive proof to support the idea of evolution. As a matter of fact - has there been ANY significant evolutionary change that we've seen in the history of man? and I'm not talking about different spots on a leopard - or something small. SIGNIFICANT like forming another finger or another leg, or eyes or something that equals or comes remotely close to the extent of monkeys becoming men.

- zeeon

Originally posted by zeeon
Well, evidence number 3 sounds logical, and reasonable.

How can you prove that the mountains rose above sea level, thus fossilizing the sea life present on it?

By plate tectonics. When two plates hit each other the pressure caures soil that used to be under the sea the rise above ground, forming a mountain range. A good example of this is the himalayas.

Wouldn't there also be fossilized sea life at almost all levels of sedientary - or are you saying that the mountain rose so fast out of the sea that it isn't present but only towards the top of the mountain?

The fossils don't only exist a the summit, because the formation of a mountain is a long process.

Even radiologic dating techniques aren't 100% solid and conclusive, because fossils could have been exposed to certain enviromental conditions that could have changed the half-life and sub-atomic structures of said fossil which corrupts our so called dating techniques.

Radiologic dating isn't the only dating procedure though.

I still haven't seen any conclusive proof to support the idea of evolution.

some evidence for evolution

As a matter of fact - has there been ANY significant evolutionary change that we've seen in the history of man? and I'm not talking about different spots on a leopard - or something small. SIGNIFICANT like forming another finger or another leg, or eyes or something that equals or comes remotely close to the extent of monkeys becoming men.

- zeeon

It takes too long for a new species to form, it's not something you can observe in a laboratory. New legs don't just pop out.

[edit on 8-4-2007 by DarkSide]

Originally posted by zeeon
How can you prove that the mountains rose above sea level, thus fossilizing the sea life present on it?
There would be geological record of the mountain rising wouldn't there?
Wouldn't there also be fossilized sea life at almost all levels of sedientary - or are you saying that the mountain rose so fast out of the sea that it isn't present but only towards the top of the mountain?

The mountain is geological record. There are mountains that are growing right this moment. That mountain ranges grow and move is undisputed, because we can measure the things.

The sea life was already dead and fossilized when the mountain rose. You can find them loose and scattered because the stone that composes fossils is almost always harder than the surrounding sedimentary layers, and erodes slower.

I've looked at this before, and I'm not seeing any conclusive evidence either way. Even radiologic dating techniques aren't 100% solid and conclusive, because fossils could have been exposed to certain enviromental conditions that could have changed the half-life and sub-atomic structures of said fossil which corrupts our so called dating techniques.

Perhaps if they were dead-center at a nuclear test site. Can external conditions mess up radiological tests? Sure. Of course considering how many thousands of stones and fossils have been dated this way, you would need massive global nuclear catastrophes every couple hundred years or so to have them ALL flawed. The majority are, one can easily presume, exactly as old as the tests say they are.

If radiologic dating is flawed, it wouldn't be the first time in history that a standard scientifc method has been found to be flawed (there always certain assumptions that go along with theories) and those assumptions - while holding true for awhile, can (and do sometimes) turn out to be incorrect in light of new thoughts and ideas.

It's worked pretty well so far. Of course, this is the part wehre some people come in with arms waving about a worldwide conspiracy among godless men of science to destroy Jesus...

I still haven't seen any conclusive proof to support the idea of evolution. As a matter of fact - has there been ANY significant evolutionary change that we've seen in the history of man? and I'm not talking about different spots on a leopard - or something small. SIGNIFICANT like forming another finger or another leg, or eyes or something that equals or comes remotely close to the extent of monkeys becoming men.

- zeeon

By "significant change," you mean growing extra organs. However, this is not what evolution does, so you shoot the horse before it can even try to break its leg. Evolution works with what's already there. Different spots on a leopard IS a significant change - Particularly if the change in spots is representation of a genetic code that is no longer fully compatable with the original, such as the case with the clouded leopards of Java, and the clouded leopards of mainland Asia.

Monkeys did not become men. Monkeys are a separate lineage altogether. Somewhere in the last two million years, the ancestors of modern pongonids (chimps and bonobos) and modern hominids (Humans and Australopithecines) split into those two groups. How it likely happened is that the forest-dwelling ancestor of both got caught in Africa's expanding savanna. Those on the savanna had to adapt to a flat, open space, and did so by developing more upright spines, while those that remained in the forests maintained their quadrupedal position. When you look at the remains of these ancient humans and ancient chimps, the main difference is the hole on the back of the skull where the spinal column is attached.

Were you to look at the early hominids, and then travel a few hundred miles to meet their pongonid neighbors, you would SEE very few differences. Both would have spent plenty of time on four limbs, would have heavily prognathous faces, and be covered in dark hair. You would see both, and think "chimp". The only difference, really, is that the hominids would occasionally stand upright to look around, and would appear comfortable doing so, whereas a chimp would stoop and look awkward. This is perhaps a less obvious change than a leopard's spots getting altered, but it is quite a bit more significant.

How many species have changed in human history? Well, I presume that you're only counting the five vertebrate classes when you say "species." Since, after all, we have watched protists, bacteria, and insects speciate. Trouble with vertebrates is, they have long generations, and most of them are well-adapted to where they live. In order to see changes in them, you would have to alter their environment in some way. This of course, has the obvious effect of rendering that population extinct, more often than not.

If you want to see evolution, you need to watch genetic codes. The Linnaean classification system, based on physically visible differences, is being shaken pretty hard by mapping out DNA. Did you know that the adelie penguins of New Zealand, though physically identical to the adelie penguins of Antarctica, are almost totally incompatable on the genetic level, due to rapid genetic change between the two separated populations? On the other hand, the red wolf, grey wolf, dogs (including the dingo), coyotes, and jackals are all very physically different... But nearly identical on the genetic level.

You can't cross a New Zealand adelie penguin with an antarctic one, but if you put a schnauzer in a pen with a golden jackal, you're getting puppies with all the working bits. Weird, huh?

Some good responses

I'm familiar with the concept of plate tectonics - I just wanted to see what your response would be.

So we agree that fossilized sea life would be on almost every level of sedentary on a mountaintop, not just at any one point. This neither validates or in-validates either theory (creation vs evolution).

For the record, I'm more of a science believer than anything else. I'm intrigued by the two concepts - God creating everything that is, was, and will be - or evolution (even including the big bang theory) of the universe.
I'm torn honestly.

Anyway - man has been around for what - atleast 3 to 4 thousand years, approximately (written record)? And we haven't seen one, not ONE major evolutionary jump, in ANY of the myriad of species present on planet earth? Not one? This in my mind, almost invalidates evolution - its hard to prove something that can't be seen or documented throughout all of human history - yet as incorrect and faliable as the bible is (or could be?) it is STILL a documented historical record. This to me, is almost more believable (based on the fact that it is a proven historical record) than a theory of evolution with no basis for backing up it's claims.

The page you cited seems to try and pass off adaptation as evolution, which is just not the case. IE. "the missing link" - which has yet to be discovered (and in all probability won't be, ever.) The argument that evolution is a series of minute changes eventually leading to a large jump in change is not only false, but misleading. It IS common knowledge that almost all species will adapt to their enviroment (or niche) in order to survive - some might call this evolution - I call it survival of the fittest and adaptation. This is not, in my mind, evolution.

Evolution requires change on such a large scale, as to acutally EVOLVE into something completely different from what it orginally was. I tend to think of evolution as a species born with legs (or maybe wings?), but in their natural enviroment doesn't use them (nor does it need to), to actually changing into a walking species as a whole, and completely changing their enviroment - IE evolving from a water bound species to a land base species (rather than only one of the species changing and then dying and the rest of the species carries on as before, with no evident change.)

Point being is that we, with thousands of years of written historical record, have not witnessed nor found any conclusive proof to substiantiate this theory (atleast, not that I've found so far). We've proved that species will adapt to their enviroment - that species will adapt or die - that species will change their genetic and biological structure minutely as to better suit their natural (and naturally changing) enviroment - but have we witnessed a species EVOLVING into something completely different and actually changing its own natural enviroment? I think not.

This neither validates or in-validates either theory (creation vs evolution).

It doesn't validate evolution since evolution studies how life adapts to changing environments, no plate tectonics.

But it certainly doesn't validate inteligent design, as there is record of mountain "growth", and none of flood.

Anyway - man has been around for what - atleast 3 to 4 thousand years, approximately (written record)?

the genus Homo is more than one million years old, Homo sapiens being ~200 000 years old.

And we haven't seen one, not ONE major evolutionary jump, in ANY of the myriad of species present on planet earth? Not one? This in my mind, almost invalidates evolution

1) 4000 years old is nothing on an evolutionary scale.

2) people during these 4000 years didn't know about evolution, didn't know about heredity, so they wouldn't even bother to try and observe changes since they firmly believe in their gods and that species were static, Moreover, they were surely more concerned about the next crop than biology.

3) new species appear gradually, not in leaps. For example a wolf never gave birth to a greyhound, altough all dogs descend from wolfs originally, as they were domesticated by early man.

yet as incorrect and faliable as the bible is (or could be?) it is STILL a documented historical record

In what way is it accurate? I fail to see how it is

It IS common knowledge that almost all species will adapt to their enviroment (or niche) in order to survive - some might call this evolution - I call it survival of the fittest and adaptation. This is not, in my mind, evolution.

Your playing on words. That is evolution.

I tend to think of evolution as a species born with legs (or maybe wings?), but in their natural enviroment doesn't use them (nor does it need to), to actually changing into a walking species as a whole

Of which the Ostrich is a perfect example

I was referring to beginning of written record as the start of mankind, as obviously, thats what I'm basing my opinions on, not the start of the genus Homo, or homo sapiens.

Millions of years old is based on carbon and radiological dating, which I have previously suggested as possibly inaccurate. As we currently know it, the Earth and it's inhabitants are much older, but this is not 100% absolute proof.

During Rome and Ancient times they were indeed documenting animals and their relationships and changes in their enviroments. I can't find any sources now, but when I do i'll post them.

3) new species appear gradually, not in leaps.

As predicted by evolution - you can't use your own theory, to, prove your own theory.

In what way is it accurate? I fail to see how it is

The existance of the dead sea scrolls to mention one. Ancient places such as Jerusalem, etc. These things the bible states, and have been proven true.

Your playing on words. That is evolution.

No, you are. Look up the definition of adaptation vs. evolution. They are similar, but if I remember correctly (and granted, I may not) they differ in regards to a subsect of the species, rather than the species as a whole (former being adaptation, latter being evolution.)

Originally posted by zeeon
Millions of years old is based on carbon and radiological dating, which I have previously suggested as possibly inaccurate.

how can measurements based off of observed constants be innaccurate? we know the rate of decay of these isotopes and we figure out the age of something by measuring decay.

where is the problem?

Madness, do you know that the constants are "constant"? Could you possibly prove that, say, C-14 did not decay at faster or slower rate in the past?

I'm not saying it IS, just that it could be.
It's fact that at one time or another, a fossil could have been exposed to elements that can effect the dating process. I'm also stating that not all 'accepted' measurments are completely acurate. I can't remember the particular example, but recently an accepted method for something was disproven because of an age old assumption that was proven false.
I wish I could remember the instance, but the point is that it COULD be possible that our current dating techniques aren't 100% acurate.

Thats all I'm trying to say guys ... jeeze !

Originally posted by zeeon
I was referring to beginning of written record as the start of mankind

Hmm didnt the Sumerian start writing about 3100 BCE or the Harappans (sp) about 3500 BCE ish?

Millions of years old is based on carbon and radiological dating, which I have previously suggested as possibly inaccurate. As we currently know it, the Earth and it's inhabitants are much older, but this is not 100% absolute proof.

SO thats a good enough reason to state that god did it 6000 years ago, no other explanation will suffice?

During Rome and Ancient times they were indeed documenting animals and their relationships and changes in their enviroments.

Yes and they done it before that as well - its known as animal husbandry or animal domestication

The existance of the dead sea scrolls to mention one. Ancient places such as Jerusalem, etc. These things the bible states, and have been proven true.

And thats a basis to take everything in it as truth? Every fictional book is based on fact somewhere but do you believe everything you read. Plus the DSS make no mention of jesus or anything that jesus did - so cant fully 'authenticate' the bible

G

Hello zeeon,

Evolution of Eden

there is a new theory out aparently - that the earth is only 6, to 10 thousand years old, instead of millions of years old that scientists currently teach us.

As has been pointed out already this is not a new idea. Young Earth Creationism [YEC] begins with Bishop Ussher's chronology in the mid-17th century. Some people think YEC was the original position or interpretation of Scripture. Later, they'd tell you, an old-Earth interpretation was adopted when scientific evidence (geology mostly) pointed towards an old Earth. This is simply not true; YEC is a product of the 17th century. [ see here for more details ] (the wiki/Ussher link has info to counter my 'OE/YE: which came first statements