Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

You're missing the point. There are too many dinosaur "types" alone. Never mind everything else! And what about food storage? And living quarters for Noah's family? There must be room for that also!

Dear Greg J.,

Check out Gen. 7:2KJV. Seven clean beasts, male and female {14 total} and two unclean beasts, male and female {4 total}. That's 18 of those of each type of beast. And He also said to take fowls also into the Ark. Also creeping things, two of each kind, male and female. And Gen. 6:21KJV, and Noah should take food for his family and all of the animals into the Ark. These animals all came to Noah. He didn't have to go out and get them. God led them to him and the Ark. And he did not have to go hunt down the butterflies and moths, and birds. They all came to him. God communicates with ALL animals with no problem. So that's the story! Hope it brings some peace to this adventure.

Much Love, In Christ,

Michael

:rapture: :angel: :cloud9:
​

 

[MichaelCadry]

Wow, talk about missing the point. I'll let Alwight put you straight, if that's possible, because, honestly, I haven't got Al's patience with you.

Dear Hedshaker,

I just got upset. Yes, Al is more patient. I'm trying to explain something that I find hard to put into words. That is the problem.

Many Good Times Find You,

Michael

 

[iouae]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth2.htm

"Conflicts between the Bible's
flood story and the fossil record


The theory of evolution requires a very old earth -- billions of years of age. A main part of this theory is the belief that fossil-bearing rock layers were laid down over an interval of hundreds of millions of years. Fossils thus represent evidence of the evolution of various species over a very long interval.

Many creation scientists are young-earth creationists. They interpret the Genesis account of creation as describing an young earth -- one which is only 6,000 to 10,000 years of age. A main component of this theory is that the flood of Noah, as described in Genesis 7, laid down layers of sediment that later hardened into the fossil bearing rock layers that we see today. This took only 150 days, and ocurred circa 2349 BCE according to the Schofield Reference Bible, in Genesis 7:24.

Most North American adults are quite certain that one of these theories is right and the other is wrong. They might assume that there are some indicators in the fossil records and/or in the rock layers which will indicate which is correct.

There appear to be two indicators that the flood is not the source of the fossil bearing sedimentary rock. We have never been able to find a valid rebuttal to either indicator. Of course, one may be found in the future.


A conflict based on the number of fossils observed:

Creation scientists teach that the fossil remains of land animals which have been found trapped in the many rock layers were all actually alive at the time of Noah's flood. These few generations of animals all drowned. Some turned into fossils and were trapped in the layers of sedimentary rock which were laid down during the 150 days of the flood.

With our present knowledge, it appears impossible to harmonize this belief with the actual number of fossils in existence.

Robert Schadewald wrote:

"Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has studied the Karroo Formation [in Africa]. He asserts that the animals fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 billion animals in the Karoo formation could be resurrected, there would be twenty-one of them for every acre of land on earth." 1

That is, if all of the fossils of animals in the Karroo Formation had been alive at one time, were drowned during the flood of Noah, and ended up evenly spaced around the entire land surface of the earth, there would be 21 animals per acre. 2 A very conservative estimate is that there are about 100 fossils elsewhere on earth for each fossil in the Karroo Formation in Africa. Thus, assuming that all of these animals were evenly distributed, there would have been over 2,100 living animals per acre of land - "ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs" when the flood hit. This is clearly impossible.

To make the creation science story even more unlikely, only a small percentage of animals ever form fossils when they die. Assuming that 1 of each 1,000 land animals is fossilized, (an outrageously high number) then there would have been about 50 land animals per square feet of land wandering around at the time of Noah. The Earth would have been packed "wall-to-wall" with creatures. Animals would have been stacked on other animals to form multiple layers. Even if, as many creation scientists believe, the land area on earth Earth was much greater than it is today -- that is, closer to 100% than to 25% -- the number of animals alive at the time of Noah would have had to be enormous -- massively beyond the ability of the Earth to support.

To make the creation science story even more unlikely, animals could not be evenly distributed around the entire land mass. This means that the piles of animals covering some areas would be even deeper.

Scientists have concluded that the world's fossils came from millions of generations of animal life spread out over many hundreds of millions of years. Since all of the fossils were formed over a very long interval, then only a very tiny fraction of the animals would have been alive at any one time. The Earth could and apparently did accommodate them all.

John Woodmorappe, writing in the CEN Technical Journal, 4 traces the 800 billion figure back to Robert Broom who estimated that the Karoo Formation covers a area of about 200,000 square miles, with an average of about 5 animal fossils exposed to view on the surface per square mile. Broom writes:

"For every fossil that is exposed to view there must be 1,000 hidden by dust and talus. ... there would be in the Karroo [Karoo], if the wind-blown sand and dust could be removed, 200,000,000 fossil animals exposed to view."

He notes that:

"The fossiliferous beds are of great thickness. In some areas they must be 4,000 - –5,000 feet [1,200 - –1,500 m] thick; in others perhaps only 2,000 feet [600 m]. It would be a very conservative estimate that would put the average thickness at 2,000 feet [600 m]. ... I thus estimate that in the whole Karroo [Karoo] formation there are preserved the fossil remains of at least 800,000,000,000 animals.’ 5

The area of the formation is known. The number of exposed fossils is apparently based on his experience in the field. The ratio of the number that are hidden by dust and talus to the number exposed is an estimate of unknown accuracy. The value for the depth of the fossil bed is conservative. If the ratio of hidden to exposed fossils is in error by a factor of, say, 10, then this would reduce the total number of animals from 800 billion to 80 billion. The conclusion would be the same: the fossils must have accumulated over hundreds of millions of years, not in a few generations.

We have not been able to find a convincing rebuttal for this conclusion by a creation scientist . This may be a "killer" observation that makes a major part of the young-earth creationism an untenable theory.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A second conflict based on the lack of mixing of fossils:

The theory of evolution and the the beliefs of young-earth creation scientists are in conflict over the distribution of species within the fossil record:

If creation science is correct, then the fossils and sedimentary rocks were formed quickly during the 150 day flood. Fossil-containing rocks which are closer to the surface will contain generally larger animals of all the species that have ever lived, while the deeper rocks will tend to contain more smaller species of animals. That is because the smaller animals would presumably drown first with the rising water level, while larger animals could survive longer before dying, and travel further from the rising flood waters. But there would be the occasional fossil from a large animal mixed in with the smaller animals deep in the fossil record. Remains of ground-hugging plants would tend to be in the deepest layers of rocks; larger trees would be in rocks closer to the surface. But there would be the occasional fossils of a fallen tree that would be trapped in a deep layer of sedimentary rock among "ground-huggers".
If you looked long enough, you would find (for example) the occasional dinosaur mixed in with human remains. You would find a Jurassic Cycad (an extinct tree) mixed with some more modern Maple trees. Trilobites would be found everywhere. As Charles Pellegrino stated:

"As we dug deeper and deeper beneath Thebes, everything would be the same; we would find hand axes, clams and dinosaurs mixed together all the way down."3

In addition, as you excavated through layers of rock, you would occasionally discover signs of human habitation at the bottom layer -- cities, towns, villages, cornerstones, etc. -- which were covered first by the flood. Scientists would find shaped rocks that were once part of buildings; remains of campfires; fabricated tools; fabricated timbers, graves, corner stones, etc. at the bottom of the fossil record.

If the theory of evolution is correct then the fossil record and sedimentary rocks were formed over many hundreds of millions of years, as species evolved. One would expect to see that deeper rocks would contain more primitive forms of live, and shallower fossils would be of more highly evolved species. The tens of thousands of geologists and paleontologists working over the past centuries would never find a single Jurassic Cycad fossil mixed in with a Maple tree fossil in the same rock layer. That is because Maples emerged during the more recent Cretaceous era when the Cycads were long extinct. Dinosaurs would never be mixed with the remains of humans, dogs, cats and other modern mammals. Only a primitive, small mammalian species would be found together in the same rock layer with Dinosaurs. The first human evolved tens of millions of years after the last dinosaur apparently died. And no mammals or dinosaurs at all would be found in the same rock layer as trilobites (an early form of life that was long extinct before the arrival of the dinosaurs). There would be no signs of human habitation at the lowest layer; only very primitive life forms. In fact, there are probably at least 1 million pairs of species that would never be found together in the same rock layer.
Many tens of thousands of geologists and paleontologists have been studying rocks and the fossils that they contain for centuries. They have found that the species of fossils in the rock layers do not resemble the scenario required by the flood of Noah. They match exactly the scenario required by the theory of evolution.

References:

Robert Schadewald, "Six 'Flood' Arguments Creationists Can't Answer," Creation/Evolution IV, (1992, Summer), Pages 12 & 13:
One acre is approximately equal in area to a square 209 feet by 209 feet. A detached house lot measuring 60' x 100'in a suburb of North America is about a seventh of an acre.
Mark Isaak, "Problems with a Global Flood," at: http://members.shaw.ca/
John Woodmorappe, "The Karoo vertibrate non-problem: 800 billion fossils or not," Ansers in Genesis, CEN Technical Journal, 14(2), 2000. Online at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/
R. Broom, "The Mammal-like Reptiles of South Africa," H.F.G. Witherby, (1932), Page 309."

 

[MichaelCadry]

Maybe not in our short lifetimes, but God's word is true and reliable. Remember, the Bible has never been proven wrong on one single point.

Dear patrick jane,

You're right on both counts!! You hit the nail on the head! It's not going to change now either. Hey, I've been giving you good rep pts., but it seems you don't need them. But I've been doing it anyway!! Chat with you again soon!!

Your Twin!!

Michael

:guitar: :singer: :cloud9: :cloud9: :angel: :angel:
​

 

[MichaelCadry]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth2.htm

"Conflicts between the Bible's
flood story and the fossil record


The theory of evolution requires a very old earth -- billions of years of age. A main part of this theory is the belief that fossil-bearing rock layers were laid down over an interval of hundreds of millions of years. Fossils thus represent evidence of the evolution of various species over a very long interval.

Many creation scientists are young-earth creationists. They interpret the Genesis account of creation as describing an young earth -- one which is only 6,000 to 10,000 years of age. A main component of this theory is that the flood of Noah, as described in Genesis 7, laid down layers of sediment that later hardened into the fossil bearing rock layers that we see today. This took only 150 days, and ocurred circa 2349 BCE according to the Schofield Reference Bible, in Genesis 7:24.

Most North American adults are quite certain that one of these theories is right and the other is wrong. They might assume that there are some indicators in the fossil records and/or in the rock layers which will indicate which is correct.

There appear to be two indicators that the flood is not the source of the fossil bearing sedimentary rock. We have never been able to find a valid rebuttal to either indicator. Of course, one may be found in the future.


A conflict based on the number of fossils observed:

Creation scientists teach that the fossil remains of land animals which have been found trapped in the many rock layers were all actually alive at the time of Noah's flood. These few generations of animals all drowned. Some turned into fossils and were trapped in the layers of sedimentary rock which were laid down during the 150 days of the flood.

With our present knowledge, it appears impossible to harmonize this belief with the actual number of fossils in existence.

Robert Schadewald wrote:

"Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has studied the Karroo Formation [in Africa]. He asserts that the animals fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 billion animals in the Karoo formation could be resurrected, there would be twenty-one of them for every acre of land on earth." 1

That is, if all of the fossils of animals in the Karroo Formation had been alive at one time, were drowned during the flood of Noah, and ended up evenly spaced around the entire land surface of the earth, there would be 21 animals per acre. 2 A very conservative estimate is that there are about 100 fossils elsewhere on earth for each fossil in the Karroo Formation in Africa. Thus, assuming that all of these animals were evenly distributed, there would have been over 2,100 living animals per acre of land - "ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs" when the flood hit. This is clearly impossible.

To make the creation science story even more unlikely, only a small percentage of animals ever form fossils when they die. Assuming that 1 of each 1,000 land animals is fossilized, (an outrageously high number) then there would have been about 50 land animals per square feet of land wandering around at the time of Noah. The Earth would have been packed "wall-to-wall" with creatures. Animals would have been stacked on other animals to form multiple layers. Even if, as many creation scientists believe, the land area on earth Earth was much greater than it is today -- that is, closer to 100% than to 25% -- the number of animals alive at the time of Noah would have had to be enormous -- massively beyond the ability of the Earth to support.

To make the creation science story even more unlikely, animals could not be evenly distributed around the entire land mass. This means that the piles of animals covering some areas would be even deeper.

Scientists have concluded that the world's fossils came from millions of generations of animal life spread out over many hundreds of millions of years. Since all of the fossils were formed over a very long interval, then only a very tiny fraction of the animals would have been alive at any one time. The Earth could and apparently did accommodate them all.

John Woodmorappe, writing in the CEN Technical Journal, 4 traces the 800 billion figure back to Robert Broom who estimated that the Karoo Formation covers a area of about 200,000 square miles, with an average of about 5 animal fossils exposed to view on the surface per square mile. Broom writes:

"For every fossil that is exposed to view there must be 1,000 hidden by dust and talus. ... there would be in the Karroo [Karoo], if the wind-blown sand and dust could be removed, 200,000,000 fossil animals exposed to view."

He notes that:

"The fossiliferous beds are of great thickness. In some areas they must be 4,000 - –5,000 feet [1,200 - –1,500 m] thick; in others perhaps only 2,000 feet [600 m]. It would be a very conservative estimate that would put the average thickness at 2,000 feet [600 m]. ... I thus estimate that in the whole Karroo [Karoo] formation there are preserved the fossil remains of at least 800,000,000,000 animals.’ 5

The area of the formation is known. The number of exposed fossils is apparently based on his experience in the field. The ratio of the number that are hidden by dust and talus to the number exposed is an estimate of unknown accuracy. The value for the depth of the fossil bed is conservative. If the ratio of hidden to exposed fossils is in error by a factor of, say, 10, then this would reduce the total number of animals from 800 billion to 80 billion. The conclusion would be the same: the fossils must have accumulated over hundreds of millions of years, not in a few generations.

We have not been able to find a convincing rebuttal for this conclusion by a creation scientist . This may be a "killer" observation that makes a major part of the young-earth creationism an untenable theory.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A second conflict based on the lack of mixing of fossils:

The theory of evolution and the the beliefs of young-earth creation scientists are in conflict over the distribution of species within the fossil record:

If creation science is correct, then the fossils and sedimentary rocks were formed quickly during the 150 day flood. Fossil-containing rocks which are closer to the surface will contain generally larger animals of all the species that have ever lived, while the deeper rocks will tend to contain more smaller species of animals. That is because the smaller animals would presumably drown first with the rising water level, while larger animals could survive longer before dying, and travel further from the rising flood waters. But there would be the occasional fossil from a large animal mixed in with the smaller animals deep in the fossil record. Remains of ground-hugging plants would tend to be in the deepest layers of rocks; larger trees would be in rocks closer to the surface. But there would be the occasional fossils of a fallen tree that would be trapped in a deep layer of sedimentary rock among "ground-huggers".
If you looked long enough, you would find (for example) the occasional dinosaur mixed in with human remains. You would find a Jurassic Cycad (an extinct tree) mixed with some more modern Maple trees. Trilobites would be found everywhere. As Charles Pellegrino stated:

"As we dug deeper and deeper beneath Thebes, everything would be the same; we would find hand axes, clams and dinosaurs mixed together all the way down."3

In addition, as you excavated through layers of rock, you would occasionally discover signs of human habitation at the bottom layer -- cities, towns, villages, cornerstones, etc. -- which were covered first by the flood. Scientists would find shaped rocks that were once part of buildings; remains of campfires; fabricated tools; fabricated timbers, graves, corner stones, etc. at the bottom of the fossil record.

If the theory of evolution is correct then the fossil record and sedimentary rocks were formed over many hundreds of millions of years, as species evolved. One would expect to see that deeper rocks would contain more primitive forms of live, and shallower fossils would be of more highly evolved species. The tens of thousands of geologists and paleontologists working over the past centuries would never find a single Jurassic Cycad fossil mixed in with a Maple tree fossil in the same rock layer. That is because Maples emerged during the more recent Cretaceous era when the Cycads were long extinct. Dinosaurs would never be mixed with the remains of humans, dogs, cats and other modern mammals. Only a primitive, small mammalian species would be found together in the same rock layer with Dinosaurs. The first human evolved tens of millions of years after the last dinosaur apparently died. And no mammals or dinosaurs at all would be found in the same rock layer as trilobites (an early form of life that was long extinct before the arrival of the dinosaurs). There would be no signs of human habitation at the lowest layer; only very primitive life forms. In fact, there are probably at least 1 million pairs of species that would never be found together in the same rock layer.
Many tens of thousands of geologists and paleontologists have been studying rocks and the fossils that they contain for centuries. They have found that the species of fossils in the rock layers do not resemble the scenario required by the flood of Noah. They match exactly the scenario required by the theory of evolution.

References:

Robert Schadewald, "Six 'Flood' Arguments Creationists Can't Answer," Creation/Evolution IV, (1992, Summer), Pages 12 & 13:
One acre is approximately equal in area to a square 209 feet by 209 feet. A detached house lot measuring 60' x 100'in a suburb of North America is about a seventh of an acre.
Mark Isaak, "Problems with a Global Flood," at: http://members.shaw.ca/
John Woodmorappe, "The Karoo vertibrate non-problem: 800 billion fossils or not," Ansers in Genesis, CEN Technical Journal, 14(2), 2000. Online at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/
R. Broom, "The Mammal-like Reptiles of South Africa," H.F.G. Witherby, (1932), Page 309."

Dear iouae,

There are many instances in your post here that would require careful examination and confirmation of the 'facts' that have been purported here. Can't wait to see all of these 80 billion fossils. Or 800 billion fossils. That's A LOT of fossils. I really doubt it, but I will give it time to be studied more carefully.

Michael

 

[6days]

linger: STU, we will miss you ...........

Duke and 6days are in agreement once again.

 

[Hedshaker]

Maybe not in our short lifetimes, but God's word is true and reliable. Remember, the Bible has never been proven wrong on one single point.

No, sorry, I don't remember, nor have I seen any evidence to suggest the Bible is any ones word other than men.

 

[iouae]

Dear iouae,

There are many instances in your post here that would require careful examination and confirmation of the 'facts' that have been purported here. Can't wait to see all of these 80 billion fossils. Or 800 billion fossils. That's A LOT of fossils. I really doubt it, but I will give it time to be studied more carefully.

Michael

Hi Michael

I was browsing the web and came across that article which I thought was a little thought provoking.

I am getting really interested in going and looking for some fossils for myself. Sounds a lot of fun. And if there are as many as they say lying around in certain areas, then maybe it is not as hard as it looks. I wonder if one is allowed to keep what one finds? I used to collect, cut and polish semi-precious stones, but gave that up a long while back.

Hope you are making some interesting dishes this time of year. Recently I made a very nice microwave macaroni in under half an hour.

Cheers

 

[Hedshaker]

Dear Hedshaker,

Shame on you! You're supposed to be a friend!! When I say soon, it could be one year or five years. That is soon compared to 25 years, isn't it. How soon do you want it to be? Tomorrow? Then you wouldn't have to wait any longer for an answer. It doesn't work that way and you know it. No man knows, not even the Son, Jesus, but the Father only, God, He knows which day and hour. Certain things have to be taken care of first to fulfill the scriptures and then, it will be. You'll just have to have some patience. I can't pull a rabbit out of a hat and say it will happen next Tuesday. Sorry!!

No friend would watch you talk this nonsense without saying something. I've told you again and again, it isn't going to happen because there is no evidence to suggest it being anything other than an ancient myth.

But you insist that it's real and then play your get-put-of-gail-card..... "soon".

How many times must you be told.... soon means nothing. Every time you say, it's coming soon..... you haven't told us something as a matter of fact, you've just fudged the issue. Keep repeating to yourself, soon is meaningless... a year, five, a century, ten, a million years, a billion, a trillion???????

Soon now you will trip and fall into a bath of custard, remember? No? Well you'll be sorry when you're dripping in warm sticky custard, won't you? Please tell me you see how ridiculous that sounds? Now apply that to your own "soon". Geddit?

You are entitled to believe what you want but to pass it off as real requires evidence, not just your say so.

 

[Caino]

Maybe not in our short lifetimes, but God's word is true and reliable. Remember, the Bible has never been proven wrong on one single point.

The bible has been proven wrong on many points, it's just that people who believe God wrote the bible cannot be honest about it because they confuse faith and trust in God with faith and trust in books about God written by humans.


Jesus knew the scripture was human and imperfect.

 

[Caino]

No, sorry, I don't remember, nor have I seen any evidence to suggest the Bible is any ones word other than men.

When the Hebrews were rewriting the history of the Israelites they were unable to trace their bloodlines back to Adam on an old evolved earth. They used a commonly known local flood legend to drown the whole world in it's own wickedness to salve the dilemma. They made no claim of writing the Word of God.

 

[alwight]

Dear Hedshaker,

I just got upset. Yes, Al is more patient. I'm trying to explain something that I find hard to put into words. That is the problem.

Many Good Times Find You,

Michael

Michael this was my post earlier, the last post on the previous page.

:sigh:
Michael you simply haven't got a clue, I could almost think you were deliberately missing the point or getting it wrong on purpose.

Yes I could be here until doomsday and I don't think you'd get it.

Species as a whole evolve gradually, individuals do not. I never suggested that they all do it in unison. Individual members of a species are simply participants in the same genepool, they are typically not important regarding evolution. The best adapted members of the species will produce the next generation from which, by natural selection, the best of those will produce the next generation, and so on. The less well adapted will simply die out because they will not be reproducing. The species evolves gradually by small changes over many generations, there has never been a time when a species as a whole has ever suddenly changed into another type of being or species.
Yes I realise that I am probably wasting my time trying to explain it to someone who clearly doesn't want to understand, who can only contemplate sudden magical mystical changes. But in a natural world there are no such sudden magical changes, just a slow process of gradual adaption over time within the interbreeding species/population as a whole, whereby natural selection sorts out the best adapted individuals to pass on their genes to the next generation of that species.

I'll admit that even my patience is running a bit thin here.
I'm not lying to you or making stuff up, the reason you are having difficulties in responding is because what I am telling you is based in facts, evidence and the accepted science, while you are floundering with nothing but miraculous assertions that you so want to be true but which in truth have no substance at all.
I honestly have no intention of being nasty or unpleasant to you, but sometimes I have to tell it like it is. If you think I am wrong about something I said then you will need rather more than your religious beliefs, you will need to actually learn something about Darwin's theory.

 

[Hedshaker]

When the Hebrews were rewriting the history of the Israelites they were unable to trace their bloodlines back to Adam on an old evolved earth. They used a commonly known local flood legend to drown the whole world in it's own wickedness to salve the dilemma. They made no claim of writing the Word of God.

Well, none of us was actually there. All we have to go on is what was written and by whom. I say best take much of it with a pinch of salt.

A warning sign should be when you find yourself believing in things as absolute truth because you want them to be true.

We know people make stuff up. They still do it to this day. Apply healthy scepticism to all ancient and mystical writing and you won't go far wrong.

 

[Jose Fly]

Creationists generally agree that all supposed ape-men fossils are, in fact, either ape or fully human. Species names within the taxonomic genus homo are viewed as fabricated classes invented to support evolutionary theory, and should be regarded as mere instruments of propaganda. The majority of Homo erectus fossils represent the populations of humans that lived following the global flood and the Tower of Babel, and should be considered true Homo sapiens
http://creationwiki.org/Homo_erectus

IOW, when confronted with fossils that show exactly what we would expect under evolutionary common ancestry between humans and other primates, creationists wave them all away as being part of the largest and longest-running conspiracy in the history of mankind.

But then, that's what we should expect, given that creationism doesn't contribute anything to science, but instead sits on the sidelines and tries to heckle the actual science being done.

 

[6days]

Creationists generally agree that all supposed ape-men fossils are, in fact, either ape or fully human.*Species names within the taxonomic genus homo are viewed as fabricated classes invented to support evolutionary theory, and should be regarded as mere instruments of propaganda. The majority of Homo erectus fossils represent the populations of humans that lived following the global flood and the Tower of Babel, and should be considered true Homo sapiens
http://creationwiki.org/Homo_erectus

IOW, when confronted with fossils that show exactly what we would expect under evolutionary common ancestry between humans and other primates, creationists wave them...

Fossils show exactly what we expect in the Biblical creation model. We see sudden appearance.....sophisticated, intelligently designed features.....and billions of dead things laid down in sedimentary rock throughout the entire world.*

But then, that's what we should expect, given that creationism doesn't contribute anything to science, but instead sits on the sidelines and tries to heckle the actual science being done.

It seems you dont know what science is.... and it seems you are a history denier.

Your beliefs and my beliefs about the past are not science. However, the evolutionary belief system has at times hindered the progress of science. And...as you know modern scence was largely founded by Biblical creation scientists; and their belief that Gods Word tells of an orderly creation, making science possible.*

 

[Jose Fly]

Fossils show exactly what we expect in the Biblical creation model.

I don't know how you can say that, since you can't even say what the "Biblical creation model" is.

It seems you dont know what science is.... and it seems you are a history denier.

Do tell....

Your beliefs and my beliefs about the past are not science.

Because you say so? Who are you that you expect to be able to make such assertions and expect everyone to accept them as unquestionable gospel?

However, the evolutionary belief system has at times hindered the progress of science. And...as you know modern scence was largely founded by Biblical creation scientists; and their belief that Gods Word tells of an orderly creation, making science possible.*

As we've been over before, creationism hasn't contributed anything to science in at least a century. All it's done in that time is sit on the sidelines and throw rocks at actual science.

 

[6days]

As we've been over before, creationism hasn't contributed anything to science in at least a century.

Evolutionism not only has not contributed anything to science but at has at times hindered the progress of science. False beliefs about vestigial and "useless" organs caused researchers to ignore organs they didn't understand. False beliefs about "Junk" DNA stifled research. False beliefs about transitionals waste billions of dollars seeking things that don't exist. False beliefs about stellar evolution waste millions of dollars looking for aliens.

Scientific American summed up how evolutionism harms science when they said "the failure to recognize the importance of introns (Evolutionists thought of this as a form of junk DNA) may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."

Honest evolutionists have admitted that common descent is a superfluous idea.
Dr Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School stated “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”

Evolutionist, Larry Witham wrote a book 'Creationists and Evolutionists in America' in which he says “Surprisingly, however, the most notable aspect of natural scientists in assembly is how little they focus on evolution. Its day-to-day irrelevance is a great ‘paradox’ in biology, according to a BioEssay special issue on evolution in 2000. ‘While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas’, the editor wrote. ‘Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.’"

 

[MichaelCadry]

Scientific Evidence for Creation
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.

Continued:

III. All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.

Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record.6 None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between "lower" mammals and primates.7 While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archoeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered questionable by more detailed data. Fossils and living organisms are readily subjected to the same criteria of classification. Thus present kinds of animals and plants apparently were created, as shown by the systematic fossil gaps and by the similarity of fossil forms to living forms. A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set (which the creation model recognizes).

IV. Mutation and Natural Selection Are Insufficient To Have Brought About Any Emergence of Present Living Kinds from a Simple Primordial Organism.

The mathematical probability that random mutation and natural selection ultimately produced complex living kinds from a simpler kind is infinitesimally small even after many billions of years.8 Thus mutation and natural selection apparently could not have brought about evolution of present living kinds from a simple first organism. Mutations are always harmful or at least nearly always harmful in an organism's natural environment.9 Thus the mutation process apparently could not have provided the postulated millions of beneficial mutations required for progressive evolution in the supposed five billion years from the origin of the earth until now, and in fact would have produced an overwhelming genetic load over hundreds of millions of years that would have caused degeneration and extinction. Natural selection is a tautologous concept (circular reasoning), because it simply requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most offspring. Thus natural selection seemingly does not provide a testable explanation of how mutations would produce more fit organisms.10

V. Man and Apes Have a Separate Ancestry.

Although highly imaginative "transitional forms" between man and ape-like creatures have been constructed by evolutionists based on very fragmentary evidence, the fossil record actually documents the separate origin of primates in general,11 monkeys,12 apes,13 and men. In fact, Lord Zuckerman (not a creationist) states that there are no "fossil traces" of a transformation from an ape-like creature to man.14 The fossils of Neanderthal Man were once considered to represent a primitive sub-human (Homo neanderthalensis), but these "primitive" features are now known to have resulted from nutritional deficiencies and pathological conditions; he is now classified as fully human.15 Ramapithecus was once considered to be partially man-like, but is now known to be fully ape-like.16 Australopithecus, in the view of some leading evolutionists, was not intermediate between ape and man and did not walk upright.17 The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two "missing links" that were later proved to be a fraud in the case of Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) and a pig's tooth in the case of Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus).18

VI. The Earth's Geologic Features Were Fashioned Largely by Rapid, Catastrophic Processes that Affected the Earth on a Global and Regional Scale (Catastrophism).

Catastrophic events have characterized the earth's history. Huge floods, massive asteroid collisions, large volcanic eruptions, devastating landslides, and intense earthquakes have left their marks on the earth. Catastrophic events appear to explain the formation of mountain ranges, deposition of thick sequences of sedimentary rocks with fossils, initiation of the glacial age, and extinction of dinosaurs and other animals. Catastrophism (catastrophic changes), rather than uniformitarianism (gradual changes), appears to be the best interpretation of a major portion of the earth's geology. Geologic data reflect catastrophic flooding. Evidences of rapid catastrophic water deposition include fossilized tree trunks that penetrate numerous sedimentary layers (such as at Joggins, Nova Scotia), widespread pebble and boulder layers (such as the Shinarump Conglomerate of the southwestern United States), fossilized logs in a single layer covering extensive areas (such as Petrified Forest National Park), and whole closed clams that were buried alive in mass graveyards in extensive sedimentary layers (such as at Glen Rose, Texas). Uniform processes such as normal river sedimentation, small volcanoes, slow erosion, and small earthquakes appear insufficient to explain large portions of the geologic record. Even the conventional uniformitarian geologists are beginning to yield to evidences of rapid and catastrophic processes.19

VII. The Inception of the Earth and of Living Kinds May Have Been Relatively Recent.

Radiometric dating methods (such as the uranium-lead and potassium-argon methods) depend on three assumptions: (a) that no decay product (lead or argon) was present initially or that the initial quantities can be accurately estimated, (b) that the decay system was closed through the years (so that radioactive material or product did not move in or out of the rock), and (c) that the decay rate was constant over time.20 Each of these assumptions may be questionable: (a) some nonradiogenic lead or argon was perhaps present initially;21 (b) the radioactive isotope (uranium or potassium isotopes) can perhaps migrate out of, and the decay product (lead or argon) can migrate into, many rocks over the years;22 and (c) the decay rate can perhaps change by neutrino bombardment and other causes.23 Numerous radiometric estimates have been hundreds of millions of years in excess of the true age. Thus ages estimated by the radiometric dating methods may very well be grossly in error. Alternate dating methods suggest much younger ages for the earth and life. Estimating by the rate of addition of helium to the atmosphere from radioactive decay, the age of the earth appears to be about 10,000 years, even allowing for moderate helium escape. Based on the present rate of the earth's cooling, the time required for the earth to have reached its present thermal structure seems to be only several tens of millions of years, even assuming that the earth was initially molten.24 Extrapolating the observed rate of apparently exponential decay of the earth's magnetic field, the age of the earth or life seemingly could not exceed 20,000 years.25 Thus the inception of the earth and the inception of life may have been relatively recent when all the evidence is considered.26
"There is scientific evidence for creation from cosmology, thermodynamics, paleontology, biology, mathematical probability, geology, and other sciences."
"There are many scientists in each field who conclude that the scientific data best support the creation model, not the evolution model."

 

[MichaelCadry]

Footnotes, etc.: For the previous post:


"There is scientific evidence for creation from cosmology, thermodynamics, paleontology, biology, mathematical probability, geology, and other sciences."
"There are many scientists in each field who conclude that the scientific data best support the creation model, not the evolution model."

References
1. Slusher, Harold S., The Origin of the Universe, San Diego: Institute for Creation Research (ICR), 1978.
2. E.g., Kay, Marshall & Colbert, Edwin H, Stratigraphy and Life History, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965, p, 102;
Simpson, George G., The Major Features of Evolution, New York: Columbia University Press, 1953, p 360: [Paleontologists recognize] that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.
3. Note 6 infra.
4. E.g., Smith, Charles J. "Problems with Entropy in Biology," Biosystems, V.7, 1975, pp 259, 264. "The earth, moon, and sun constitute an essentialy closed thermodynamic system..." Simpson, George G., "Uniformitariarisrn," in Hecht, Max A. & Steeres, William C., eds., Essays in Evolution and Genetics, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970, p. 43.
5. Gish, Duane T., Speculations and Experiments Related to the Origin of Life (A Critique), San Diego: ICR, 1972,
6. E.g., Simpson, George G., "The History of Life," in Tax, Sol, ed. Evolution after Darwin: The Evolution of Life, Chicago:Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960 pp. 117, 149:
Gaps among known orders, classes, and phyla are systematic and almost always large.
7. E.g., Kitts, David S., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution V. 28 1974, pp.458, 467:
Evolution requires intermediate forms betvveen species and paleontology does not provide them. For examples of the lack of transitional fossils, Ommaney, F. D. The Fishes, New York: Time Life, Inc., 1964, p 60 (invertebrates to vertebrates); Romer, Alfred S., Vertebrate Paleontology, Chicago Univ. of Chicago Press, 31 ed., 1966, p.36 (vertebrate fish to amphibians) Swinton, W.E., Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, Marshall, A.J., ed., New York Academic Press, V.1, 1960, p.1 (reptiles to birds); Simpson, George G., Tempo and Mode in Evolution, New York: Columbia Univ., Press. 1944, p.l05 (reptiles to mammals); Simons, E.L., Annals N.Y. Acad. Science, V.167, 1969, p.319 (mammals to primates).
8. E.g., Eden, Murray. "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory," in Moorhead, Paul S. & Kaplan, Martin M., eds., Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Philadelphia: Wistar Inst. Press, 1967, p,109:
It is our contention that if 'random' is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilisticpoint of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws...
9. E.g., Martin, C.P., "A Non-Geneticist looks at Evolution," American Scientist, V. 41, 1954, p. 100
10. E.g., Popper, Karl, Objective Knowledge, Oxford: Clarendon Press 1975 p. 242
11. E.g., Kelso, A.J., Physical Anthropology, 2nd ed., Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott, 1974. p 142
12. E.g., Ibid., pp.150,151
13. E.g., Simons, E.L., Annals N.Y. Acad. Science. V.102, 1962, p.293, Simons, E.L., "The Early Relatives of Man," Scientfic American, V.211, July 1964 p 50
14. E.g., Zuckerman, Sir Solly, Beyond the Ivory Tower, New York, Taplinger Pub. Co., 1970, p.64.
15. E.q., Ivanhoe, Francis, "Was Virchow Right about Neandert[h]al?", Nature V. 227, 1970, p. 577
16. E.g., Zuckerman, pp. 75-94; Eckhardt, Robert B., "Population Genetics and Human Origins", Scientific American, V.226, 1972, pp.94,101.
17. E.g., Oxnard, Charles E., "Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones," American Biology Teacher, V.41, 1979, p.264.
18. E.g., Straus, William L., "The Great Piltdown Hoax," Science, V.119, 1954, p.265 (Piltdown Man); Gregory, William K., "Hesperopithecus Apparently Not an Ape Nor a Man," Science, V.66,1927, p. 579 (Nebraska Man).
19. E.g., Bhattacharyya, A., Sarkar, S. & Chanda, S.K., "Storm Deposits in the Late Proterozoic Lower Bhander Sandstone of ... India," Journal of Sedimentary Petrology. V.50,1980, p. 1327:
Until recently, noncatastrophic uniformitarianism had dominated sedimentologic thought reflecting that sediment formation and dispersal owe their genesis chiefly to the operation of day-to-day geologic events. As a result, catastrophic events, e.g.. storms, earthquakes, etc., have been denied their rightful place in ancient and recent sedimentary records. Of late, however, there has been a welcome rejuvenation of [the] concept of catastrophism in geologic thought.
J. Harlan Bretz recently stated, on receiving the Penrose Medal (the highest geology award in America), "Perhaps, I can be credited with reviving and demystifying legendary Catastrophism and challenging a too rigorous Uniformitarianism." Geological Society of America, "GSA Medals and Awards," GSA News & Information, V. 2, 1980, p.40.
20. E.g., Stansfield, Williarn D., The Science of Evolution, New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1977, pp. 83-84; Faul, Henry, Ages of Rocks, Planets and Stars, New York: McGraw-Hill Co., 1966, pp. 19-20, 41-49. See generally Slusher, Harold S., Critique of Radiometnic Dating, San Diego: ICR, 1973.
21. E.g., Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, New York: Pergamon Press, 1960, pp.138,139.
22. E.g., Faul, p.61.
23. E.g., Jueneman, Frederick, "Scientific Speculation." Industrial Research, Sept.1972, p.15.
24. Slusher, Harold S. & Gamwell, Thomas P., The Age of the Earth, San Diego: ICR, 1978.
25. Barnes, Thomas G., Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field, San Diego: ICR, 1973.
26. Slusher, Harold S., Age of the Cosmos, San Diego: ICR, 1980; Slusher, Harold S. & Duursma, Stephen J., The Age of the Solar System, San Diego: ICR, 1978.

"There are text materials and teacher handbooks for public schools that have been prepared for a fair presentation of the scientific evidences for both the creation model and the evolution model. There are also seminars and audiovisuals for training teachers to offer both models of origins."

The Authors:
*Dr. Gish earned his Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley in Biochemistry. He has worked as a research biochemist with Cornell University Medical College, the Virus Laboratory, University of California - Berkeley, and The Upjohn Co. Dr. Gish collaborated with one Nobel Prize recipient in elucidating the chemical structure of the protein of tobacco mosaic virus, and with another Nobel Prize winner in synthesis of one of the hormones of the pituitary gland. He presently is Vice President of the Institute for Creation Research.
**Other staff scientists at ICR who helped prepare this summary include Dr. Henry M. Morris, (PhD.), University of Minnesota, Hydraulics; Dr. Kenneth B. Cumming (Ph.D.), Harvard University, Biology; Dr. Gary E. Parker (Ph.D.), Ball State University. Biology; Dr. Theodore W. Rybka (Ph.D.), University of Oklahoma, Physics; and Dr. Harold S. Slusher (M.S.), University of Oklahoma, Geophysics.
***Dr. Bliss earned his Ed.D. from the University of Sarasota in Science Education, with a cognate emphasis in curriculum, instruction, and evaluation in science education. He wrote his dissertation on teaching the two-model approach (comparing evolution-science and creation-science) in public schools. He taught high-school physics, chemistry, and biology for many years and was the Director of Science Education for the large public school district in Racine, Wisconsin. He served as the science consultant for Educational Consulting Associates and for several major publishers of science textbooks, as well as for the University of Wisconsin Research and Development film series. He has written textbook materials for public school instruction in the creation model and the evolution noodel.
****Mr. Bird earned his J.D. from Yale Law School with numerous studies in Constitutional Law, publishing legal articles in the Yale Law Journal and the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy on the constitutionality of public schools teaching the scientific evidence for creation along with that for evolution. He was an Editor of the Yale Law Journal, and was the recipient of the Egger Prize of Yale Law School for his article published there.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hi Michael

I was browsing the web and came across that article which I thought was a little thought provoking.

I am getting really interested in going and looking for some fossils for myself. Sounds a lot of fun. And if there are as many as they say lying around in certain areas, then maybe it is not as hard as it looks. I wonder if one is allowed to keep what one finds? I used to collect, cut and polish semi-precious stones, but gave that up a long while back.

Hope you are making some interesting dishes this time of year. Recently I made a very nice microwave macaroni in under half an hour.

Cheers

Dear iouae,

That post was interesting. I would think that, wherever Noah's Ark was, you would find A LOT of human bones from them trying to get into the Ark too, to escape drowning. It's just a hunch. I originally posted Part I and Part II of Gish's article. Now, I have posted the rest, including afterwards, the references, etc.

I made Buffalo Wings for Christmas Day. I made a Raspberry Cream Cheese Pie and Ambrosia to go with it all. We filled up on wings and decided not to have some French Fries to go with them. It was wonderful. I am making a Pork Loin for New Year's Day. And mashed potatoes with gravy, and Italian Green Bean Casserole, and a Strawberry Cream Cheese Pie, and Ambrosia. Yum!!!! The pies and ambrosia are so delicious and they go fast!! So I make them for each holiday. Tomorrow, I am making a meat loaf. They are delicious too!! I will either make mashed potatoes or Fried Rice. See what happens. And a good veggie of course.

Okay, back on-topic. Enjoy what I've posted from Duane Gish. See what you think. I posted Parts I and II earlier. They were so long that I had to wait to post the remainder, which I just did. And I had to break that up into two posts!! Wow!! Well, C what U think!!

Praise The Lord!!

Michael