Two coexisting paradigms:
Evolution theory and creation history
Both are belief systems. Nobody was there, there are no witnesses; everything beyond an age of 3000 is pure speculation.
I would very much hope no one would take a claim like that seriously. That kind of reasoning is a form of very irresponsible intellectual anarchy.
The claim might have some amount of credence if there existed no traces from the past older than 3000 years.
Nothing is achieved when trying to call Evolution and Creationism "belief systems" or say they require some amount of faith to believe.
There are 2 types of faith:
1. Blind Faith
2. And Evidenced Faith
The only thing Blind Faith requires is blind belief. Blind Faith can never be used to assert positive belief or disbelief, it is perfectly justifyable for "personal belief". It doesnt mean anything in terms of determining what is "true" or "untrue".
Evidenced Faith requires evidence. A good logical analysis of your observations or objective testable data makes for perfectly fine evidence.
However, when you assert a positive claim that requires evidence, but the Evidenced Faith is contradicted by currently existing evidence, you must reject the faith. Refusing to do so, and that Evidenced Faith becomes labeled with a term called "Willful Ignorance".
I often find using the "Blind Faith vs. Evidenced Faith" analogy is good for defeating arguments that sound like "Evolution requires just as much faith as Creationism". And that is absolutely correct, however readers of those kinds of arguments implicitly assume the faith being referred to is blind faith, but that is not the case. Evolution requires Evidenced Faith (or science), and I would hold Creationism to the same standards of Evidenced Faith. No evidence for Creationism, then Creationism must be abandoned.
200-year-old vulcanic rock has been dated as being 2 billion years old. The long periods of time (which evolution needs, or the construction of hypotheses collapses?) are purely speculative.
See
TalkOrigins. The "dating is inaccurate" claims are just silly.
That 200-year-old rock is likely contaminated. Geochronologists are very well aware of the dangers of contamination, and they take many precautions against using such samples (i.e. dont use weathered rocks is a given).
The evolutionist Arthur Keith claims:
Evolution cannot be proven. We believe in in because the alternative would be an act of creaion by god, and that is unthinkable.
As noted above, that quote is just silly.
The computer scientist Werner Gitt says - paraphrased -:
Wherever we find Codes, Structure and Planning, we know from experience there there must be intelligence at work...there is no information by chance.
If this is another misquote, it doesnt matter at the moment. Most Creationists make very similar claims to this.
Not only is "structure and planning" a purely subjective notion, the word "information" vaguely defined, I would think Natural Selection (The Blind Watchmaker) predicts development over time. The problem arises when Creationists falsely assume evolution's blind design is pre-planned.
Here is an example I think works perfectly for refuting "there is structure and order, must be intelligent design" arguments:
A stream rushes down a dry river bed. As the stream runs by, it shifts the position of the rocks on the bed. The rocks of larger size are found in water where the steam moves the fastest, and an even grade of rocks (from largest to smallest) forms as the velocity of the water slows more and more. The completely meaningless, reasonless, rhymeless, unintelligent movement of water has sorted a bed of rocks with careful precision.
(Anecdote: I heard a Creationist respond to that with "how do we define 'sorted', thats subjective", and the irony from the statement put a bounce in my step for the rest of the day.)
The oldest human remains, the Cro-Magnon, are identical with modern-day humans. Therefore all "Neandertal developments" are lapsed.
Bwahahahahaaa!!
That is silliness if I've ever heard it.
Cro-Magnon man
is a modern human. Its called Cro-Magnon Man because it was found in a cave in Cro-Magnon, France. The word "Cro-Magnon" is not species name.
Cro-Magnon Man is about 35 - 15 thousand years old.
According to
Guinness World Records, the oldest
modern human remains are about 160,000 years old.
ABCNews reports the oldest hominid remains found are about 6.7 million years old.
Furthermore, its unlikely Neaderthals are ancestors of humans at all.
More human evolution research if needed.
The current state of research: all remains found are either human or ape. (..) After countless fossil findings there is no link [betiween human and ape].
Homo habilus is our most recent ancestor.
The tutor's above statement is a perfect demonstration that she has never made an attempt at outside reading. Although there a few missing pieces, the evolution of humans is largely complete.
Although Wikipedia information should be taken with a grain of salt,
this human evolution article is fairly accurate (it makes a B+ effort grade for providing a good introduction to human evolution, by far not a relevant source to provide a great deal of the known information on evolution). Go to the library, pick up any decent book titled "Human Evolution", flip to a page with nice tree chart, and ask the tutor to read a book sometime.
