Evolution vs Creationism

First of all, disproving Evolution doesn't mean it automatically prove Creationism. It's easy as that. In order to prove creationism, you need evidence to start off with, which none of you seems to have. Unlike you, if evidence came along, I would consider to change my mind. For example let's say evidence did turn up, then I would believe the life was created. That's what scientist do. We change our minds when new evidence come along. We don't fix ourselves into single perspective. Scientific philosophy does not come from a book, it comes from a mixture of scientific opinion, which is questioned and debated, over generations of people. Scientists are certain about evolution, to the same degree historians certain about the existence of Napoleon. I'm surprised that a biology student not being able to grasp the theory of evolution, as you've made some bold statements about it. It is a common misconception, often used by theist to disprove evolution. Evolution is not random. How can you say Creationism and Evolution coincide? It's obviously contradict each other in so many levels. Biblical creationism claims that all life forms on earth was created within six days, 6000 years ago. Evolution supported by evidence claims all life forms were evolved from pre-existing species over a time period of 3.5 Billion years, not created by any supernatural force. How is this not contradicting? What we have here is two theories. It would be completely unscientific to think that both theories explain this phenomena, given that there's enormous amount of evidence on one side, and absolutely no evidence on the other. There's lots of transitional fossils which support a transitional period of evolution. So many, It would take even more than thousand words if I tried to explain it all here. I've attached a link[1] down below if you insist to know more about these transitional states. But since you've asked I would give you one example. It is evolution of whales. There's a picture[2] I've attached below which is one example of transitional states of evolution. I find evolution of the whale amazing. The idea that life could migrate habitat from land to water over time, is kinda amazing, at least to me it is. The fossils of Pakicetus to the fossils of Balaena to bones of modern whales, it is a perfect example of evolution over transitional stages. I would also like to point out a fun fact there. Note that modern whales have reduced form of hind limbs and pelvic girdle. This is one of the left overs of mammalian endoskeleton. This part is completely useless for the animal. But it is there, just to show that they are descendants of other mammals in the animal kingdom. If the whale was designed by a superior being, I wonder why he does such a clumsy job. Carbon 14 isn't the only dating system we have come across for dating fossils. In fact there's a whole list[3] of radiometric dating techniques. Argon-Argon, Fission track dating helium, iodine-xenon, Lanthanum-Barium, lead-lead, Lutetium-hafnium, neon-neon, optically simulated luminescence, Potassium-Argon, Rhenium-osmium and countless others. All these techniques points toward same time period within " 100 years of error margin. In fact all these techniques show, that the oldest rock we have found from the earth, is over 4.54 " 0.04 Billion years. Yes, all radioactive decays are 1st degree exponential curves, rates obviously fluctuate, the error caused by these fluctuations are insignificant, compared to billions of years. Agree, all does not point at the same single date, but the dates they all pointing falls into same period of history, period of the error margin. Again, the theory of evolution doesn't require age of the earth, in fact there has been no life on earth for the first billion years. And you are also correct, no one can give an absolute date, scientist don't give an absolute age of the earth. These values are extremely dynamic, for example if we find even an older rock, these values are obviously wrong. But we are absolutely certain that Earth is more than 4.5 Billion years old. This prove claims like 'Earth is 6000 years old' are wrong with absolute certainty. Reading your passage about Carbon-14 radiometric technique, gives me the impression that you have no idea how it is done. Let me educate you, in a polite way. Yes, the half-life of Carbon-14 does falls in thousands of year range (to be more precise it's 5,730"40 years). This is the least count of measure. Least count is the minimum measurement that can be taken from any scale. This 5,730 year range is the least count. Think of it in this way, take a standard meter ruler calibrated in centimetres. You can see the meter is divided into hundred, and again each centimetre is divided to ten. Therefore the least count of the meter ruler is 1 millimetre. This one millimetre is equivalent to 5,730 years in Carbon-14 scale. Although the least count limit to 5000 years or so, doesn't mean it can only measure 5000 years. I hope this explanation educate you about the dating mechanism to some extent. You claimed some evidence of red blood cells in a Tyrannosaurus bone, which is obvious because blood cells are produced by the red bone marrow of long bones and destroyed in the spleen, as a biology student you already know this. The life span of red blood cells change from species to species, in humans it is around 100-120 days. I'm little unclear about your point there, I don't know how it would even remotely disprove evolution. But If it is science, please provide a genuine source. Science always tries to prove anything that contradict it. That's how new science is born. If a new phenomena disprove the old phenomena, science builds new modules to explain the new phenomena. That is Science. No, Theories follows guidelines because they are factual, not the other way around. Scientific method starts form observation of evidence, not by theories. I have to say, your approach to scientific method is completely reverse. Theory of evolution doesn't have any laws, I'm pretty sure it does not. Theory of evolution has overwhelming amount of evidence, only thing lacking here is your open mindedness to look it these evidence, which make you a shameful representative of science yourself. Again, Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, I don't know why you are repeating this, but i've given world scientific view on it, on the previous argument. Laws of thermodynamics are formulated for isolated systems, by definition[4]. Prove me wrong. And the big bang itself is defined within the physical framework, so it can't deny any physical laws because currently accepted module of the big bang is formulated using laws of thermodynamics and other physical quantities. Don't you think, even if there is a contradiction, scientist would have thought it through before claiming? Again, you are approaching these scientific ideology completely in the reverse order. The property of disorder you are claiming in your last paragraph is called entropy (W10;S), which we study under thermodynamics. It is physical quantity of randomness. As the equation suggests (W10;G=W10;H - TW10;S) Yes, the universal entropy is increasing but in closed systems it could increase or decrease in same probability. When water freezes, its entropy reduce. When crystals are formed, its entropy is reduced. There you go, not one but two examples, order from disorder spontaneously. I would like to stress this point, Disproving Evolution doesn't mean it automatically prove Creationism. So far, you have made no argument to prove that creationism is correct. Your train of arguments is only going in one direction. Shall we explore the world view according to creationism? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://bio1151.nicerweb.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...