How can ppl say evolution is true Evolutionists Please read this!!?

Question

Evolution assumes that man dropped out of the trees 1 to 5 million years ago and became fully human approximately 100,000 years ago. Yet archeological records show civilization arising only about 5,000 years ago (based on evolutionary thinking). In other words, by evolutionary reasoning, it took mankind 95,000 years after becoming fully human to figure out that food could be produced by dropping a seed into the ground!
It has been estimated by evolutionary anthropologists that the earth could have easily supported 10 million hunter/gatherer type humans. To maintain an average of 10 million people, spread over the entire plane, with an average life span of 25 years, for the last 100,000 years . . . .would mean that 40 billion people had lived and died. Archeological evidence clearly shows that these "stone age" people buried their dead. Forty billion graves should be easy to find. Yet only a few thousand exist. The obvious implication is that people have been around for far less time.
Another indication of both a young earth and a confirmation of the worldwide flood is the scarcity of meteors in sedimentary rock layers. Although some meteors have been found in sedimentary layers, they are relatively rare. Meteors are easily identifiable, and many thousands have been identified and recovered from recent impacts on the planet’s surface. If most of the rock layers were laid down rapidly during the one year period of a worldwide flood, you would not expect to find many meteorites buried in only one year. However, if the sediment was laid down over billions of years, there should be multiple billions of meteorites buried within this sediment. The fact that we find so few is another possible evidence for the rapid accumulation of the sedimentary layers and a young earth.
Suppose you walked into an empty room and found a smoking cigar. You could assume that the cigar was very old and that it had only recently burst into flames, but the more logical conclusion would be that someone had recently been there to light it. The universe is full of similar "smoking cigars":
1.All planetary rings still exhibit intricacies which Should Have long ago disappeared.
2.All known comets burn up their material with each pass around the sun and Should Have a maximum life expectancy of 100,000 years.
3.The outer solar system planets should have long ago cooled off.
4.The spiral galaxies Should Have long ago unspiraled, and the uneven dispersion of matter in the universe Should Have long ago dispersed.
Scientists working from the preconception that the universe is 10-20 billion years old have suggested controversial and complicated possibilities for how these types of transient phenomena could still exist but their explanations are based more on faith, not science. The simpler explanation is that these "smoking cigars" are smoking because they are young.
What about dating methods which do seem to indicate that things are very old ? As seen in the first article on dating methods, assumptions are everything. For instance, carbon-14 generation rate has never significantly changed. This method does not date the age of the earth but understanding it can have a profound effect on our interpretation of the "ice age" and the "stone age". A recent worldwide catastrophe would have caused an enormous change in the total amount of carbon on earth's biosphere. This event would completely invalidate one of the basic assumptions of the carbon-14 dating method (a known carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio throughout the measurement period) and lead to excessively old dates for organisms alive shortly after this flood. This problem with carbon-14 dating assumptions will be described in detail in another article.

Answer 1

You make certain assumptions which are not true. I will illustrate:

1. You assume that Civilization arose 5000 years ago. Certain known civilizations have been dated as such; however, the basic elements of civilization (ie; language, tool-making) would have pre-dated civilization. The basis of civilization is not the planting of a seed into the ground.

2. While some stone-age cultures may have buried their dead, it is wrong to assume that every single person on earth would have been buried and had their remains preseverd. Some people would have been consumed by animals. Many cultures throughout history observe cremation. Others were caught in fires and unintentionally cremated. Those that did observe burial may have not buried remains sufficiently deep enough to ensure preservation. Changes in earth's geology would destroy remains or make them inaccessible. Indeed, given all the variables, it's surprising that we're actually able to find ancient remains at all!

3. Most meteors burn up in the earth's atmosphere; only ones of significant size survive entry to make it to the surface. As such, this is the reason why you won't find a whole lot of them in layers of sediment. The fact that we have had sufficient time to evolve to where we are today is indicitive of the scarcity of meteors large enough to cause catostraphic damage and leave evidence.

4. The planetary rings are composed of particles and are caught in a planets orbit, as are its moon. They exist in a vacuum, and obey the laws of physics. There is no reason to assume that they would "Fade." If anything, over time, the "intricacies" that you speak of (I'm assuming you're talking about the gaps between the rings) should become more well-defined, just as undisturbed water becomes clear.

5. The outer planets of the solar system are still caught within the gravity of our sun, and are exposed to the energy radiating from our sun; why would you assume they would cool off?

6. On what basis do you determine that huge spiral galaxies should have long ago dispersed? Evidently, you're attempting to apply your "Small picture" thinking to something so incredibly vast, complicated, and huge, you only serve to demonstrate your own ignorance.

7. Scientists work from information they have learned from the tools of science. If a theory is based on faith, it would be very easy to discredit it and such theory would be dismissed.

Your logic is flawed. I suggest you re-examine the facts, but this time do so with skepticism. It would save you from embarassment in the future.

Answer 2

Modern humanity began appearing 50,000 - 100,000 years ago. Agriculture appeared about 20,000 years ago, and was invented independently many times in many places. Some cultures never got agriculture at all.
In a lot of places, skeletons will crumble to nothing in a matter of years or decades.
1. Planetary rings are young, evidence of recent catastrophes. They're not as old as the solar system.
2. Comets, similarly, aren't the same ones today that were around millions of years ago. Some chance combination of gravity sends a few every now and then from the Oort cloud into the "inner system." For a while, it was postulated that there was a "planet x" way out there that sent them in.
3. Why should the outer planets have cooled off? Gravitational collapse and radiation keep them warm.
4. Gravity keeps stars orbiting in galaxies. Granted, galaxies hold together better than theory would suggest, which is why cosmologists are contemplating a fudge factor, "exotic dark matter." It's not a good explanation, but it beats the heck out of "Young Earth Creationism."

Answer 3

Ha your'e way off from the start. Man did NOT drop from the trees. Man emerged from ancestoral genetics. Civilization is older than 5000 years old.

Just ask yourself these questions : 1. Do you believe that neanderthals existed and walked the earth, but do not exist now? When did they live? before the Egyptians?

2. Do you believe in Earthquakes? Why do they happen? How are mountains formed? Is mount everest 6000 years old?

3. Do you get flu virus shots every year or only once? Why do we need new flu shots every year?

If you can't answer these questions reasonably then you're kidding yourself and no one will take you seriously....

Answer 4

It would be helpful if you posted the link of your source (http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=6). Here are responses from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html (search for the identifier in parentheses on that page and click on the link):
1. 5,000 years to develop culture: (CB620) man’s evolution and social structures developed over millions of years leading to society/culture
2. Lack of graves (CC381) –
3. Meteor scarcity - (CD110, CD111)
4. Planetary rings – (CE240)
5. Comets: (CE261 )
6. outer solar system planets cooling – (CE231)
7. spiral galaxies - (CE380)
8. carbon dating - (CD011, CD011.1)

Answer 5

If you put as much effort into using real facts and learning real science as you put into this -- you might be able to accomplish something interesting.

Unfortunately, most of your "facts" are false, your logic is faulty and your "science" is bad.

Here is one example: Just because the Earth could support 10MM hunter gatherers doesn't mean that there will be that many over a 100,000 period. If true (and I doubt that it is) it only means that there would be that many people AT MOST.

Answer 6

First off, just because the earth can support a population, it doesn't mean that population existed.

The rest of your rant has nothing to do with evolution, it's space. It also shows an embarrassing lack of scientific knowledge.

Answer 7

I commend your passion for this subject; but you seem a bit obsessed! Man did not "drop out of a tree" as you so eloquently put it; nor was man fashioned out of dirt! Man "evolved" ; hence the term "evolution". Animals evolved as well, and there is evidence of this; fossils! How can you deny the fossil records?

Answer 8

Have you even bothered to take courses in biology, geology, cosmology etc? If so, were you conscious during those courses?

Absolutely every question you have has a well researched and logical answer. I know you won't believe me. I can only ask that YOU do the research so that you can reason for yourself. Don't believe me and don't believe those who you are quoting above. GET OFF YOUR LAZY *** AND FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF!

Take the courses and perform the lab work.

Answer 9

Why are you cutting and pasting from "Dr." Kent Hovind, a tax cheat with a fake diploma, who other creationists are ashamed of?

Added: He's also anti-semitic

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/intelligence_project.htm

Answer 10

Don't you think God is powerful enough to manifest his Creation by means of evolution? I do, and it doesn't disturb my faith a bit.