Creation vs. Evolution

[Joey D]

I find it interesting that Cell Theory as taught in the classroom states that all cells are created or assembled by other cells. Where did the first cell come from? The Cell Theory doesn't explain that... Odd.

Basically we think the right combination of chemicals formed and created the cell. To me that is more believable then some unseen being or beings just making them. It's quite complicated and I don't really know the ins-and-outs of it.

To anyone who really wants a laymens overview of why the planet is the way it is today from a scientific view point look up Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything. It does a pretty decent job explaining some hard questions in a way most people can understand.

 

[Sureboss]

I find it interesting that Cell Theory as taught in the classroom states that all cells are created or assembled by other cells. Where did the first cell come from? The Cell Theory doesn't explain that... Odd.

For both sides..

Does everything have to have a creator? Or we as Humans cannot process in our heads the idea of something not having a creator?

I don't see why this thread should be limited to only the Christian creation myth, there are several other stories out there that can and should be discussed. This is the main reason why I'm against teaching creation in schools...if you teach one you really should teach them all since not everyone in the world is Christian and they do believe different things.

Problem with that, is that I don't know of many Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc on this forum. Of course it would be great to throw even more into the argument, but if we don't know much about said religion, adding it to the argument might dampen it.

 

[Joey D]

I'm sure there are other religions on here, it's just that they don't post in this particular thread.

Here is a question though, if creation is indeed right what makes the Christian version right and the other ones wrong? I've yet to hear an answer on this that actually has some meanings, most of the time its "God my savior and through him all things are possible" or something to that affect.

I know people are really into religion and that is fine, but think about back in the time of the Greeks or the Egyptians, they believed in multiple gods and they were just as into religion, if not more into, than people now-a-days. Same goes with their creation myths.

 

[Year.Zero]

Does everything have to have a creator? Or we as Humans cannot process in our heads the idea of something not having a creator?

We wrote the Bible, hence we are the creator(s).

 

[Joey D]

We wrote the Bible, hence we are the creator(s).

But you have to remember Christians state that the Bible is God's word through the people writing it...and technically we can't really disprove that. Were they inspired to write their stories? Sure I don't see why not, all good writes have inspiration but I do not believe for a second it's God's direct words. The Bible has also been translated so many times I wonder how much information has been changed along the way and if it really is just how it was back when it was written.

 

[Year.Zero]

But you have to remember Christians state that the Bible is God's word through the people writing it...and technically we can't really disprove that. Were they inspired to write their stories? Sure I don't see why not, all good writes have inspiration but I do not believe for a second it's God's direct words. The Bible has also been translated so many times I wonder how much information has been changed along the way and if it really is just how it was back when it was written.

But you have to remember the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, since logically, you can't wholly disprove anything.

However, since man is fallible, God could have said "Make Tuesday Pizza night, and I'll give you a plot of land", which could have turned into a huge drunken discussion spawning the Bible for all I know.

 

[Touring Mars]

Here is a question though, if creation is indeed right what makes the Christian version right and the other ones wrong? I've yet to hear an answer on this that actually has some meanings, most of the time its "God my savior and through him all things are possible" or something to that affect.

Although every religion has it's own version of the creation story, most of them are pretty much the same in the conclusions they make - even if the details differ. Most people account for these differences comfortably by emphasizing that the overall message is the same rather than focusing on the details, but alas not everyone does. There are many types of creationist, and some are more detail-oriented than others. The most vociferous type of creationist are 'literalists' who argue that every last word and detail of their specific religious text is indisputably true - even when they are palpably untrue. In this regard, it doesn't really matter what flavor of religion a literalist is - they are all as wrong as each other. By definition, a literalist of any persuasion cannot accept that any other religion other than their own is true (nevermind science!), hence why literalists paint themselves into a corner with just about everybody except their own kind.

A more sensible attitude is that religious texts are not 100% literally true but that they contain parts which are intended to be allegorical. This way, one can accept that other religions have equal validity to one's own, and at the end of the day, the overall message is the same. In the case of Christianity, most Christians don't have a problem with evolution, since only a literalist interpretation of The Bible contradicts evolution. In truth, The Bible specifically supports the most fundamental cornerstone of evolution theory - the theory of common descent. Ironically, Biblical literalists have no choice but to agree with it, since it says so in the Bible! It's even more ironic that by sticking to the word of the Bible so tightly, they are actually missing the point entirely. Amazingly, for a 2000-year old book, The Bible was on the right track, but the Biblical description of common descent was just the beginning... so sad that those who profess to 'uphold the authority of God's word' don't seem to realise that a strict adherence to literalism actually lessens the impact of those words.

However, since man is fallible, God could have said "Make Tuesday Pizza night, and I'll give you a plot of land", which could have turned into a huge drunken discussion spawning the Bible for all I know.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Creationists plan British theme park
A business trust is looking at sites for a Christian showplace to challenge the theory of evolution

Jamie Doward
Sunday December 16, 2007
The Observer

The latest salvo in creationism's increasingly ferocious battle with evolution is about to be fired in Lancashire. Not in a fiery sermon preached from the pulpit, but in the form of a giant Christian theme park that will champion the book of Genesis and make a multi-media case that God created the world in seven days.
The AH Trust, a charity set up last year by a group of businessmen alarmed by the direction in which they see society heading, has identified a number of potential sites in the north west of England to build the £3.5m Christian theme park.

The trust claims it already has a number of rich backers who are keen to invest in the project, which will boast two interactive cinemas, a cafeteria, six shops and a television recording studio, allowing it to produce its own Christian-themed films and documentaries.
The 5,000-capacity park will be the first of its kind in Britain, but not in the world. In Orlando, Florida, hundreds of thousands of visitors make pilgrimages to the Holy Land Experience, where they can see a bloodied Jesus forced to carry his cross by snarling Roman soldiers.

Peter Jones, one of the Lancashire theme park's trustees, said the emphasis would be on multimedia rather than the costume re-enactments of famous biblical scenes favoured at Holy Land. 'It will be a halfway house for youngsters,' Jones said. 'Today all they do is binge drink. We will be able to offer them an alternative.'

By producing its own films, the trust believes it will be able to provide an antidote to modern culture. It says on its website: 'On television today there is so much sex and violence, it is no wonder our youth are binge drinking ... This is a revolutionary scheme requiring innovative people with the vision to bring about change and a new direction.'

It declined to say who the backers were, but admitted it is talking to a number of businessmen who have invested in city academies, leading to speculation that it may have approached Sir Peter Vardy, who has given millions of pounds to advance the claims of creationism - the belief that God created the world and that Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong.

While the plans for the park are still in their infancy, the trust has big ambitions. A business plan available to prospective investors suggests the park could bring in £4.8m a year - apparently 10 times its estimated overhead costs.

The trust also says it plans to apply for government grants and European funding to help it realise its dream of turning the television studio into 'an international leader in promoting family-oriented Christian programmes'.

Although concerns about the direction of modern society are the trust's main motivation for building the theme park, it is also in response to what the trustees identify as a sense of drift within the Church of England.

'The church in this country is in crisis and many church leaders living in Australia, America and Canada have openly proclaimed that God has left the church in England,' the trust states on its website.

'Evolution has falsely become the foundation of our society and we need the television studio to advocate Genesis across this land in order to remove this falsehood, which presently is destroying the church foundation.'

The theme park's anti-evolution bias and its emphasis on Genesis has raised eyebrows among planning officials, according to Jones, who originally wanted to build the park at the site of an old B&Q store but was refused permission by the council.

'Wigan council slammed the door in our faces. You mention the C [Christian] word, and people don't want to know,' Jones said.

This might have legs for its own thread but we'll just leave it in here. It's odd...funny...mocking maybe...

 

[Sureboss]

I love religion, I really do.

 

[Year.Zero]

It's odd...funny...mocking maybe...

Yeah, Islam World would totally make more money.

 

[Grand Prix]

Yeah, Islam World would totally make more money.

In Vancouver it would.

Although I think a Flying Spaghetti Monsterism Park would do just as well, to be honest.

 

[Year.Zero]

In Vancouver it would.

Triad World, too.

Although I think a Flying Spaghetti Monsterism Park would do just as well, to be honest.

I would be up for that. It would have to be somewhere where there's a higher demographic of people who "accept" His Noodliness, though—ie. somewhere in California, New York, anywhere in Canada or the EU.

 

[Sage]

Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

Oh, what great semantics irony – creationists will be defending natural selection (i.e., God’s natural way), while many atheists will be going for intelligent design (i.e., let man make synthetic living things).

Anyway, I’m surprised that nobody has posted this article yet. Finally, somebody makes a whole damn chromosome! The potential in biotechnology is so exciting it makes me giddy.

 

[BayConRong]

I find it interesting that Cell Theory as taught in the classroom states that all cells are created or assembled by other cells. Where did the first cell come from? The Cell Theory doesn't explain that... Odd.

i think i have the answer to that one:idea:

it is debated heavily but one of the more senseable reasons is that a lot of small bubblesmanage to keep thier shape through a lot of pounding *aka floating* and as the bubble maintains it's shape for a few years stuff gets inside of it. as this stuff gets inside of it. they start to form up against the walls and re-enforce them through surface tension. and phantastic things start to come inside cause's it's cool *note the lack of reason now* and they start to disolve creating more of the stuffs holding the bubble together. and then a special mineral comes accross that reacts with other phantastic minerals and causes those to degrade quickly into walls and as time goes on you see this magical thingy that floats around sucking up minerals to rebuild itself.

 

[Small_Fryz]

Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

Oh, what great semantics irony – creationists will be defending natural selection (i.e., God’s natural way), while many atheists will be going for intelligent design (i.e., let man make synthetic living things).

Anyway, I’m surprised that nobody has posted this article yet. Finally, somebody makes a whole damn chromosome! The potential in biotechnology is so exciting it makes me giddy.

If you can even half understand the potential of that its simply amazing.

Imagine the technology in 20 years....

 

[TheCracker]

Creationists plan British theme park
A business trust is looking at sites for a Christian showplace to challenge the theory of evolution

FAIL

This will fail big time. There's been plenty of theme park type projects built in the north of England - all with interesting, non-fiction based themes that have failed or struggle to stay open. Most of these venues make what little money they can from school trips. I very much doubt English schools would allow trips to a creationist theme park.

Lancashire is hardly a tourist hot-spot in the same vein as Orlando is it.

 

[Touring Mars]

FAIL

This will fail big time. There's been plenty of theme park type projects built in the north of England - all with interesting, non-fiction based themes that have failed or struggle to stay open. Most of these venues make what little money they can from school trips. I very much doubt English schools would allow trips to a creationist theme park.

Lancashire is hardly a tourist hot-spot in the same vein as Orlando is it.

Fail?? I think it's a great idea myself. We all need a good laugh, don't we? I mean, they could have some cracking rides like "Triceratops Racing" (presumably a sport that we humans used to indulge in when we used to ride Triceratopses like they were horses, complete with dino-saddles) or a "Time Machine" ride that takes you on a magical whistle-stop tour of the whole of human history (short version). The managing director of Chessington World of Adventure is surely going to be quaking in his boots this Christmas - I mean, how on Earth is Griffin's Galleon (in the "Land of the Dragons" section at CWOA) supposed to compare to the Bloodied Jesus And The Nasty Romans attraction? There could even be a high-tech booth called "Have A Talk With God" where you can actually speak to Ken Ham on Skype. Fail? FAIL? How can it possibly fail?

I tip my hat to Peter Jones. He's right. The last time I went to Alton Towers, the place was literally awash with the vomit of children who had binge-drunk themselves into a coma. What these delinquent scum need is some proper, wholesome activities to take their minds off the drugs, alcohol and underage sex, and focus their minds on being proper human beings who don't do that sort of thing. These wholesome activities include such instructional videos and workshops as "Boycott A Biology Class", "I'm No Kin To A Monkey, No-No-No!! (and a monkey's no kin to me, yeah yeah yeah!)" and "How To Trap Baby Dinosaurs And House Them On A Boat For 40 Days" (you could even build the boat yourself with stuff left over from the old B&Q store they have!). And you think people won't be interested in that? I can tell you, I'd pay a fiver for that last workshop alone (you never know when it might come in handy)... and if that's not enough, the evening's entertainment comes complete with a concert by Jesus Cross and The Cruel Nails. Fail? No chance. For as long as Britons have a sense of humour, Creationism will always have a special place in our hearts.

The AH Trust, a charity set up last year by a group of businessmen alarmed by the direction in which they see society heading

*snip*

'Evolution has falsely become the foundation of our society and we need the television studio to advocate Genesis across this land in order to remove this falsehood, which presently is destroying the church foundation.'

This is the real brass-tacks of the problem. It is not about biology, evolution, statistics, Darwin, DNA or Dawkins - it's pure and simple scape-goating. They seek to blame all of society's ills on 'evolutionists', 'materialists', 'atheists', purveyors of sex and violence on the TV, binge-drinkers (I blame Wetherspoons personally) and other assorted nefarious scum as if there own agendas and policies are any better. Why do they beat around the bush complaining about evolution and not just cut to the chase and tell us exactly how they think we should live our lives? By coupling the good name and ancient traditions of Christianity in the UK with the abhorrent joke that is modern-day Creationism, these guys are taking one hell of a risk. Why must a Christian theme park denounce the science of evolution as if it is a fraudulent scam? Since when did Christianity equate to Creationism?

There's one sure-fire way of losing your own credibility and that is to treat people like they are thick. Knowingly and brazenly lying to people's faces and treating people as if they are dumb is pretty far from the moral ideal that I thought Christianity was supposed to be all about... apparently the AH Trust disagree.

Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

Oh, what great semantics irony – creationists will be defending natural selection (i.e., God’s natural way), while many atheists will be going for intelligent design (i.e., let man make synthetic living things).

Anyway, I’m surprised that nobody has posted this article yet. Finally, somebody makes a whole damn chromosome! The potential in biotechnology is so exciting it makes me giddy.

Ha, the irony is beautiful. Who needs Chuck Darwin when you have Craig Venter?

Footnote: This is my 7000th post at GTP, and my 250th in this thread 👍

 

[Stevisiov]

Fail?? I think it's a great idea myself. We all need a good laugh, don't we? I mean, they could have some cracking rides like "Triceratops Racing" (presumably a sport that we humans used to indulge in when we used to ride Triceratopses like they were horses, complete with dino-saddles) or a "Time Machine" ride that takes you on a magical whistle-stop tour of the whole of human history (short version). The managing director of Chessington World of Adventure is surely going to be quaking in his boots this Christmas - I mean, how on Earth is Griffin's Galleon (in the "Land of the Dragons" section at CWOA) supposed to compare to the Bloodied Jesus And The Nasty Romans attraction? There could even be a high-tech booth called "Have A Talk With God" where you can actually speak to Ken Ham on Skype. Fail? FAIL? How can it possibly fail?

I tip my hat to Peter Jones. He's right. The last time I went to Alton Towers, the place was literally awash with the vomit of children who had binge-drunk themselves into a coma. What these delinquent scum need is some proper, wholesome activities to take their minds off the drugs, alcohol and underage sex, and focus their minds on being proper human beings who don't do that sort of thing. These wholesome activities include such instructional videos and workshops as "Boycott A Biology Class", "I'm No Kin To A Monkey, No-No-No!! (and a monkey's no kin to me, yeah yeah yeah!)" and "How To Trap Baby Dinosaurs And House Them On A Boat For 40 Days" (you could even build the boat yourself with stuff left over from the old B&Q store they have!). And you think people won't be interested in that? I can tell you, I'd pay a fiver for that last workshop alone (you never know when it might come in handy)... and if that's not enough, the evening's entertainment comes complete with a concert by Jesus Cross and The Cruel Nails. Fail? No chance. For as long as Britons have a sense of humour, Creationism will always have a special place in our hearts.


This is the real brass-tacks of the problem. It is not about biology, evolution, statistics, Darwin, DNA or Dawkins - it's pure and simple scape-goating. They seek to blame all of society's ills on 'evolutionists', 'materialists', 'atheists', purveyors of sex and violence on the TV, binge-drinkers (I blame Wetherspoons personally) and other assorted nefarious scum as if there own agendas and policies are any better. Why do they beat around the bush complaining about evolution and not just cut to the chase and tell us exactly how they think we should live our lives? By coupling the good name and ancient traditions of Christianity in the UK with the abhorrent joke that is modern-day Creationism, these guys are taking one hell of a risk. Why must a Christian theme park denounce the science of evolution as if it is a fraudulent scam? Since when did Christianity equate to Creationism?

There's one sure-fire way of losing your own credibility and that is to treat people like they are thick. Knowingly and brazenly lying to people's faces and treating people as if they are dumb is pretty far from the moral ideal that I thought Christianity was supposed to be all about... apparently the AH Trust disagree.


Ha, the irony is beautiful. Who needs Chuck Darwin when you have Craig Venter?

Footnote: This is my 7000th post at GTP, and my 250th in this thread 👍

Well I must say, that was one hell of a way to do your 7000th post indeed, I would plus rep that, but I no longer can, so the best I can do is

 

[Year.Zero]

Well I must say, that was one hell of a way to do your 7000th post indeed, I would plus rep that, but I no longer can, so the best I can do is

I thought he was going to fall off the rocker near the end of that first paragraph but, he managed to real it all back in. . . with some puns and satire.

 

[nosferatu1]

Please could someboy with a rational mind help me with a question of the origins of the first life, I shall elaborate. I am currently in the process of writing a book on the origins of monotheism (a single god belief) and how it was created by humans as a replacement for the polytheistic cultures that preceded it. My question concerns the origin of human life within the scientific/anthropological/rational realm, as opposed to the theological/mythical realm. My question is: How did the first human survive, from infancy, to puberty, without the assistance of parents to guide it, feed it, and to protect it, I'm talking about before it grew to become the first parent. I just want some rational answers regarding those first steps of the first infants before growing into the first parents, rather than the theological ones that don't bare considering, I'm referring of course to, a creation mythology and regarding two naked fully developed humans. Can you please help and steer me in a direction that is based in this observable reality and rational facts. Thanking you, a freethinker, Ireland.

 

[Alfaholic]

Please could someboy with a rational mind help me with a question of the origins of the first life, I shall elaborate. I am currently in the process of writing a book on the origins of monotheism (a single god belief) and how it was created by humans as a replacement for the polytheistic cultures that preceded it. My question concerns the origin of human life within the scientific/anthropological/rational realm, as opposed to the theological/mythical realm. My question is: How did the first human survive, from infancy, to puberty, without the assistance of parents to guide it, feed it, and to protect it, I'm talking about before it grew to become the first parent. I just want some rational answers regarding those first steps of the first infants before growing into the first parents, rather than the theological ones that don't bare considering, I'm referring of course to, a creation mythology and regarding two naked fully developed humans. Can you please help and steer me in a direction that is based in this observable reality and rational facts. Thanking you, a freethinker, Ireland.

I see noone with a rational mind has responded yet so I suppose you'll have to make do with me instead for the time beaing

It sounds easy enough to me:

Evolution: Humans evolved gradually. Thus the first human might be difficult to identify since it would not be much different to its parents. It was therefore raised the same as any other offspring. Alternatively: First human was result of crossbreed between related species. Offspring was not rejected by parents and raised normally. A bit like a family today having a child with a slight abnormality, that turns out to be a competitive advantage.

Christian Bible: First human was given nice garden in which all other creatures obeyed him and therefore would not attack him unless instructed to. God provided food for human and mate for human V2.

 

[Sureboss]

..and lived for 930 years...

 

[Touring Mars]

My question is: How did the first human survive, from infancy, to puberty, without the assistance of parents to guide it, feed it, and to protect it, I'm talking about before it grew to become the first parent.

It's an excellent question - and I have to confess as to not having given the matter much thought before! As you rightly point out, the Creationist viewpoint conveniently sidesteps the issue (as usual) by telling us that the answer to this conundrum is that the first humans (and presumably everything else) were created as adults - the fact that this isn't true doesn't seem to be important. Perhaps understandably, an Evolutionist viewpoint doesn't support this idea - that the first humans grew up alone/unaided - either, but for very different (and arguably far more rational) reasons.

Evolution theory supports the view that humanity is the latest stage of a massively long process of development and that at no stage did an infant of any new species (let alone humankind) just suddenly pop out of nowhere with no parent(s) to support it (just as in Alfaholic's first answer above). However, there are plenty forms of life that have existed and even exist right now that do not require any support from their parents, but obviously that is not the way our species has developed... but the fact that it can and does happen elsewhere in the living world is significant. What that shows us is that parental support is not a prerequisite for life. It clearly is for many/most mammals/animals, but it is not like we 'learned it' or that mammals (such as ourselves) 'became so' by chance, but that the very roots of our species lie deep in an evolutionary lineage where survival and adaptation to our surroundings has dictated our nature... and one resulting aspect of that is our increasing dependency on parental care. It is difficult to know just how far back in that process you'd have to go to find the point where parental care didn't so drastically influence our chances of survival.

This is one question that shows why Creation Theory fails spectacularly as a reasonable explanation of our origins, since it tells us exactly nothing about where our species came from and why we are the way we are. Creation Theory "predicts" that since species are and always have been exactly as we see them today, adaptation is unnecessary/impossible/obsolete and that our survival has (and always will be) dependent on our current (eternal?) form. However, the truth is almost exactly the complete reverse. We have to adapt, we know how it can/has/does happen, and we are a result of this process of survival and adaptation. In other words, to answer your original question fully, it helps to bear in mind what scientific evidence and evolutionary theory tells us about how species form. Conversely, Creation Theory may conveniently have all the answers already - it's just a pity that they are mostly completely wrong.

 

[Joey D]

Wow TM, I wish we had the rep system so I could posi rep that post!

 

[Sureboss]

Just blow him a kiss. We are set to do Evolution in Science a week tomorrow. Doing DNA tomorrow, something to do with fruit.

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

since it tells us exactly nothing about where our species came from and why we are the way we are

Sounds like you don't know much about the first book of the bible. itsays exactly why. Whether or not you believe that is up to you, but it quite clearly explains it.
You have trouble believing there could be a God that always existed, without being created, I have trouble believing scientists that continually correct themselves and change their standpoint. (see, brontosaurous, sun revolving around earth, earth being center of universe, flat earth, etc, etc, etc, etc.)
Electricity, being the main component in the advance of science, has been around, oh say, 150 years? And in those years, scientists have "proven" (not scientifically of course), that the earth is approx 4.5 billion years old.
Fun fact of the day: in 4.5 billion years, 150 years is 1 out of 3,000,000. Yes, 3 million.
No margin for error there.

 

[Year.Zero]

Sounds like you don't know much about the first book of the bible. itsays exactly why. Whether or not you believe that is up to you, but it quite clearly explains it.
You have trouble believing there could be a God that always existed, without being created, I have trouble believing scientists that continually correct themselves and change their standpoint. (see, brontosaurous, sun revolving around earth, earth being center of universe, flat earth, etc, etc, etc, etc.)
Electricity, being the main component in the advance of science, has been around, oh say, 150 years? And in those years, scientists have "proven" (not scientifically of course), that the earth is approx 4.5 billion years old.
Fun fact of the day: in 4.5 billion years, 150 years is 1 out of 3,000,000. Yes, 3 million.
No margin for error there.

GTP's scientific community is going to rape that post of yours to pieces. Better have a good rebuttal ready.

 

[Sureboss]

You're right, it's far easier to say "God did it".... Who wants a hard life anyway?

 

[Famine]

GTP's scientific community is going to rape that post of yours to pieces. Better have a good rebuttal ready.

No, there's really no need to. I think this will suffice:

 

[Danoff]

Sounds like you don't know much about the first book of the bible. itsays exactly why. Whether or not you believe that is up to you, but it quite clearly explains it.
You have trouble believing there could be a God that always existed, without being created, I have trouble believing scientists that continually correct themselves and change their standpoint.

Yes, much better if someone just asserts that he is right from the beginning and is never willing to back down - no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

(see, brontosaurous,

Because the Church has such a great record on dinosaurs.

sun revolving around earth, earth being center of universe, flat earth, etc, etc, etc, etc.)

Hmmm.... I believe the scientists that discovered these things were actually hanged/burned by the church for heresy. That's the same church you're asking me to put faith in.

Electricity, being the main component in the advance of science, has been around, oh say, 150 years? And in those years, scientists have "proven" (not scientifically of course), that the earth is approx 4.5 billion years old.

What's not scientific about the dating methods used to determine the age of the Earth? And who said electricity was "the main advance" in science? I'd think maybe "fire" or "the wheel" would have something to say about that.

Fun fact of the day: in 4.5 billion years, 150 years is 1 out of 3,000,000. Yes, 3 million.
No margin for error there.

Ok this makes no sense. You're taking the ratio of the amount of the last 150 years (for some reason) to the age of the earth and calling that the odds of getting the age of the Earth right? What does that 150 years have to do with anything? Now I want to hit you with a ratio.

You think human beings have been around for what? 6000 years? Same age as the Earth? If you assume that the average lifespan is 60 years (pulling that number out of thin air), that's what 100 human lifetimes.

I want you to go out to a field every year and dig a hole for the next 60 years. Observe the changes in cross section that you see over that 60 years and tell me if you think it is in any way possible that all of the layers of dirt (fossils, etc.) below you represent only 100 human lifetimes.

No, there's really no need to. I think this will suffice

Of course, it can also be fun to tee off.