The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Scofflaw

pH wrote: »

This pretty much sums up the creationist position in general and AiG in particular:

However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault. It’s important to remember that we have limited data, and new discoveries have often overturned previous ‘hard facts’.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp

When confronted with evidence of a tree cut down in 1964 that was 500 years old at the time of the so called 'flood'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone

Yes - essentially, "the Bible is right, and facts must be interpreted to fit it - but for political reasons, we must pretend that's not what we're doing".

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

pH wrote: »

answeringenesis wrote:

However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.

:eek:

That is quite simply pathological...when the scientific data contradicts the bible the data is wrong?

Lets look at the data:

Age of earth

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.

If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line. And from the slope of the line we can compute the amount of time which has passed since the pool of matter became separated into individual objects. See the Isochron Dating FAQ or Faure (1986, chapter 18) for technical detail.

A young-Earther would object to all of the "assumptions" listed above.
However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.
The resulting plot has data points for each of five meteorites that contain varying levels of uranium, a single data point for all meteorites that do not, and one (solid circle) data point for modern terrestrial sediments. It looks like this:

Pb-Pb isochron of terrestrial and meteorite samples.
After Murthy and Patterson (1962) and York and Farquhar (1972) .
Scanned from Dalrymple (1986) with permission.
Most of the other measurements for the age of the Earth rest upon calculating an age for the solar system by dating objects which are expected to have formed with the planets but are not geologically active (and therefore cannot erase evidence of their formation), such as meteorites.

>Above are methods for calculating the age of the earth. Is there anything a young earth creationist can offer than even comes close to this level of investigation or scrutiny?

At the bottom of the piece the young earth arguments are dealt with scientifically and honestly. They are debunked immediately, please read them guys.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You and I both have evidence that we come from ancient ancestors. That we can't produce a family tree more than a few generations does not mean they did not exist - they did, but we cannot specify exactly who they were.

And as such we can't make exact claims about them such as that they were on a wooden boat in the Middle East 4,000 year ago!

You can't tell me what species were on the Ark because you don't have any evidence that any species were on the Ark, or that the Ark even existed.

As such you can't say that the Ark was actually real.

Has the penny dropped yet.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But without this, as is the case mostly with fossils, it is pure speculation to ascribe descent to any particular one.

You keep saying that, and every time you say it you simple demonstrate that you don't understand evolutionary biology.

Evolutionary biologists can ascribe lines of descent to particular fossils because they understand the process that causes that descent (ie evolution) and as such can test the predictions of that theory.

Creationists can't because they don't have a process to get from one species to the next, and as such have no way of testing.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If one could be sure that C14 can deliver on that, then I have no problem doing so.

As has been explained to you they can because they use independent dating methods. If the results are wrong they won't match

wolfsbane wrote: »

Even the ice-core dating seems not to be as simple as it is projected

None of this is simple, its very complicated. But that doesn't mean these people don't know what they are doing.

wolfsbane wrote: »

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/icecore.asp

AiG have been proven to lie about science. Stop quoting them

wolfsbane wrote: »

You point to the fossils and say, "We came from them". I point to the fossils and say, "We came from some of their peers". I point to genetic bottle-necking as supportive of that. I point to dating methods that suggest a young earth. I point to global sedimentation.

You can point to anything you like. It is the fact that you can't explain any of those things that demonstrates you are just making it all up.

Explain to me the evidence that supports the idea that all land animals have a genetic bottle neck 4,000 years ago.

wolfsbane wrote: »

1. Thus the biblical kinds would have originally been distinct biological species, i.e. a population of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, but that cannot so breed with a different biological species.
2. the kind is larger than one of today’s ‘species’. This is because each of the original kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.
3. Creationists have pointed out that as long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are the same kind
4. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind[/COLOR]

What is that?

Those assertions (they aren't definitions by the way) contradict each other!! :rolleyes:

A Kind is a group of species that can hybridize with each other to produce viable offspring but also a kind is a species that cannot mate with a different species to produce viable offspring.

Well, thats clear :rolleyes:

As Scofflaw points out some of that is saying that a "kind" is simply a species as biologists (proper ones) understand, yet another part of it says that if two species can hybridize they are the same kind. Which is a nonsense definition.

Instead of quoting AiG (you really seem to have a problem with this) how about you explain it to me Wolfsbane.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The author goes on to make what I consider to be a telling observation:

It certainly is tell, it is support for the common believe that Creationists start with assumptions from the Bible and then refuse to do the ground work to show the science.

How do Creationists know that that is what a "kind" actually is if they haven't done the science to demonstrate that. How do they know that Kinds were on the Ark if they haven't any idea of what species were actually kinds?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't know if it is your bigotry or lack of logic that blinds you to the presence of the answers. One should be able to recognise our opponent's arguments, even if we disagree with them.

wolfsbane wrote: »

For example, oil deposits occur across vast areas of the Earth. Their formation requires very rapid and oxygen-deficient conditions Flood catastrophy would provide that, and since oil is world-wide, it suggests a world-wide flood.

Or it suggests lot of different ones across the Earth at different times :rolleyes:

Of course if most oil deposits were formed at different times, rather than at one single time, one would expect to find them at different levels of rock and in different rock formations. Of course we don't find that ... oh wait, WE DO! :rolleyes:

You are also (conveniently) ignoring the fact that because the oxygen has been removed it takes thousands of years for the organic matter to be compressed to crude oil.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your evidence that they came from one common with man is just an interpretation of what you see in the fossil record. Just like me.

Wolfsbane a 5 year old can look at some fossils and guess at what they are. All interpretation is not the same. Evolutionary biologists actually do "science" on their interpretations.

You guys don't, as you have already admitted, because that would just be "speculation"

No science, no scientific respect. Its that simple.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The fossils say nothing directly (other than rubbishing uniformitarian evolution).

How can you say it rubbishes uniformitarian evolution Wolfsbane if anything from a fossil is just speculation :rolleyes:

You seem to want your cake and eat it. You claim fossils can rubbish evolution, but you also claim that fossils can't support your theories because looking at fossils is just speculation.

Nonsense :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

You still aren't listening. OK, say we take the Microraptor. Was one of these species on the Ark? We don't know.

Of course you don't know!

But strangely that doesn't stop you saying "Yes there were an Ark, yes there were species on it, yes all life evolved from these species"

And you know this from science? Nope, you only "know" this from your holy book.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If it was on it, that species later died out. But the kind that produced the Microraptor may well have continued to speciate.

Or it may well have not. Or it may never have existed. You have no clue.

You have no clue if any species were on the Ark, or even what species were actually live at the time of the Ark.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Dating of fossils we covered above.

Actually it wasn't. I have repeatable asked you how Creationists date fossils and you have repeatable avoided answer the question, while criticising how evolutionary biologists date theirs.

Lets make this easy for you. Give a few specific examples of fossils that Creationists have dated and explain how these dates were arrived at.

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK; I haven't looked into the details on all species

What are talking about?

You haven't looked into the details on "all species" yet you are confident to say that there is this amazing uniform genetic bottle neck that demonstrates all modern species arrived from a single catastrophe 4,000 years ago?

If there isn't a uniform genetic bottle neck from 4,000 years ago then a genetic bottle neck isn't evidence that there was a uniform catastrophe 4,000 years ago!!

This is more Creationist nonsense, put forward an unsupported assertion and then scramble to find evidence of it.

Let me save you the trouble. You won't find evidence of a uniform genetic bottle neck 4,000 years ago because there wasn't a uniform catastrophe 4,000 years ago.

The last significant genetic bottleneck was the ending of the last ice age, about 10,000 years ago, and that was neither uniform across all species nor due to a catastrophe.

wolfsbane wrote: »

but such grouping doesn't prove anything

You are right it doesn't "prove" anything. But science is not about proving things, as you have been told. It is about building evidence and assessing how likely one theory is over the next.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creationists tell their own stories in support of their theory, and they can classify fossils with the best - but it is entirely subjective.

But you just said they don't classify fossils!!

You said this because I asked you for examples of fossils that Creationists have classified as part of lines of descent from the Ark to modern day animals.

If Creationists classify fossils based on lines of descent give me examples of those classifications.

I want to know the fossils that form a line of descent from an animal species on the Ark to a modern day animal species.

And before you ask, yes evolutionary biologists do this :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

So anyone can place this fossil in that camp or the other, depending on what characteristic one considers most significant. All it gets is a file. It doesn't prove anything.

Can we take it from the fact that you keep saying this over and over again to mean that you don't actually have any clue if Creationists classify fossils or how they do it, and you are just trying to buy time until we give up asking you?

Anyone can classify a fossil. My 5 year old next door neighbor can classify a fossil. He can also explain why the sun moves across the sky. What he doesn't do is do this scientifically.

wolfsbane wrote: »

They challenge claims of radiometric dating on the basis that the methods make presuppositions e.g, constant rates - that have been shown not to hold, and of proven massive errors.

"proven massive errors"

Give me the error rate of radiometric dating please.

Not specific examples where it has gone wrong, but the average number of times that it does.

Any scientific test will go wrong some of the time. Any test. The point isn't that it goes wrong some of the time, the point is that some of the time it goes right. And Creationists can't handle that because it only has to go right once to disprove young earth creationism. And scientists can verify when they have a right answer by testing the material again using different tests. Same date in all tests? Correct date.

The reason Young Earth Creationists hate radiometric testing is because they are at a loss to explain it when it goes right.

So they work the lie that it in fact has never ever gone right. That every single radiometric date that is older that 6,000 years is a false reading.

Which has been consistently demonstrated to be nonsense. You can list me off all the times radiometric dating has given a false date all you like Wolfsbane. But you can't explain the correct verified dates.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Proof again of your blindness -
From the article:
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
8. Biological material decays too fast.
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
10. Too much helium in minerals.
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
13. Agriculture is too recent.
14. History is too short.

Do you not get that those ARE NOT DATING METHODS!! :eek::eek::eek:

What is your problem!! It is a simple question. I am not asking how Creationists attack scientific dating. I don't care. I am asking how Creationists date things

The fact that you seem completely incapable of giving me that, or even understand the difference, leads me to the conclusion that creationist simply don't date things, they just attack current scientific dating methods.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not so - I only said I couldn't tell the small time frame differences. I can tell they are not decades of thousands, much less millions of years old. As I said, most were from c4300 years ago.

And you know this how? How do you date them to 4300 years ago?

robindch

Scofflaw wrote:

Yes - essentially, "the Bible is right, and facts must be interpreted to fit it - but for political reasons, we must pretend that's not what we're doing".

It's not essentially, it is. Take a look again at AiG's self-important "Statement of Faith" here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

(diploma-mill) Dr Ken Ham wrote:

No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

I mean, he's not exactly hiding the fact that he's cheerfully ignoring anything that suggests that his interpretation of his chosen holytext could be wrong.

It's as though declamation were equal to proof. Which I suppose it is in the banal, vain and evidence-free parallel universe of the imagination that Ham and his dizzy acolytes choose to create and inhabit.

J C

Originally Posted by robindch
The easiest way is by digging. The 15kya ancestor will be deeper down than a 4.3kya ancestor.

Originally Posted by J C
......would it not depend on how deeply they buried the bodies in the first place.......surely somebody who was found in a shallow grave could be thousands of years older than somebody buried 'eight feet under' last week????!!!

robindch wrote: »

Without getting too technical, the general principle here is that when something dies it stops moving and later dead things will probably fall on top of it....

........and metre of dirt could represent a thousand years or six months.....depending on the rate of deposition......and sometimes the overburden gets completely washed away!!!!

The depth of burial can tell very little about the age of something actually!!!:D

Originally Posted by J C
The 'unqualified Ham', as you describe him actually HAS as Science degree.....and taught Science in Australia for many years...............
...........and he also has access to some of the leading radiometric dating experts on Earth.....and they confirm everything that he has said about it's limitations....and it's benefits!!!

robindch wrote: »

which does not have any obvious relation to radio-dating -- see the course description here (scroll down to 'environmental science'), hence he is unqualified to speak on the topic.

Ken’s degree is in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology). He also holds a diploma of education from the University of Queensland (a graduate qualification necessary for Ken to begin his initial career as a science teacher in the public schools in Australia).
.....and Environmental Biology just happens to encompass Ecology and Natural Selection ......so Ken is a fully qualified EXPERT on 'Evolution'......and, as I have said before he has access to some of the best radiometric dating experts available!!:D

Originally Posted by J C
Thanks Wicknight.......
.....great to get some support ..........nearly ALL of the Christians on the Boards are deafening me .......with their silence......or occasionally 'popping up' to take a verbal 'pot shot' at me!!!!

robindch wrote: »

Have you ever considered there might be a reason for this?

Yes, there IS a reason for this ......
.....it indicates that many Christians have become so complacent that they no longer debate the great issues of Christianity......and they seem content to leave that to the Atheists!!!!!:eek::D

Ekancone

Good vids these.

On the origin of life...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4

and evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4

Scofflaw

More naughty misdirection from God - making it look like we've spotted a 10-million year old planet. As if planets just, you know, formed from the dust discs round stars, rather than needing to be specially created. Outrageous!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

daithifleming wrote: »

Good vids these.

On the origin of life...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4

and evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4

Good vids.

Particularly like the bit about the modern day chicken who has evolutionary ancestors who used to have teeth, we know that from the fossil record. And low and behold when researchers came to look at a chicken's DNA they found that the DNA to turn on those teeth was still buried inside the chickens DNA and could actually be switched back on again. Would love to see Ken Ham explain that one

Fascinating stuff.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote: »

Good vids.

Particularly like the bit about the modern day chicken who has evolutionary ancestors who used to have teeth, we know that from the fossil record. And low and behold when researchers came to look at a chicken's DNA they found that the DNA to turn on those teeth was still buried inside the chickens DNA and could actually be switched back on again. Would love to see Ken Ham explain that one

Easy! Let me switch my critical faculties off for a moment, and give you a good Creationist explanation:

Yes, the originally created ancestor of chickens had teeth. That the genes are still there shows how modern forms have been created by degeneration of the ancestral created forms - exactly what Creation Science predicted!

with most of my cerebral cortex tied behind my back,
Scofflaw

Ekancone

Here is another video that criticises 'intelligent' design, though i must warn it is a tad graphic in parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXfIop5ZOsY

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote: »

Easy! Let me switch my critical faculties off for a moment, and give you a good Creationist explanation:

Yes, the originally created ancestor of chickens had teeth. That the genes are still there shows how modern forms have been created by degeneration of the ancestral created forms - exactly what Creation Science predicted!

with most of my cerebral cortex tied behind my back,
Scofflaw

Yes it is funny how Creationism is becoming pretty much rapid evolution.

They have gone from saying that there is no evidence for evolution and no transitional fossils, to admitting that there is loads of evidence for evolution, and loads of transitional fossils, but that all this happened not in 4 billion years, but in 4,000 years.

pH

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes it is funny how Creationism is becoming pretty much rapid evolution.

They have gone from saying that there is no evidence for evolution and no transitional fossils, to admitting that there is loads of evidence for evolution, and loads of transitional fossils, but that all this happened not in 4 billion years, but in 4,000 years.

That would be true Wicknight if we'd just discovered say lions, tigers, deer and elephants this year, however ancient civilizations such as Romans, Greeks, Egyptians etc show that these species existed long ago.

No, I think we've established (and wolfsbane agreed) that the kinds released from the ark must have 'evolved' into the species we see today in a couple of centuries - 200 or 300 years not 4,000.

Ekancone

pH wrote: »

That would be true Wicknight if we'd just discovered say lions, tigers, deer and elephants this year, however ancient civilizations such as Romans, Greeks, Egyptians etc show that these species existed long ago.

No, I think we've established (and wolfsbane agreed) that the kinds released from the ark must have 'evolved' into the species we see today in a couple of centuries - 200 or 300 years not 4,000.

Oh for science sake! What will they come up with next? :rolleyes:

stevejazzx

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes it is funny how Creationism is becoming pretty much rapid evolution.

..and who knows perhsps in 4 billion years they might even have something intelligent to say!:)

ph wrote:

That would be true Wicknight if we'd just discovered say lions, tigers, deer and elephants this year, however ancient civilizations such as Romans, Greeks, Egyptians etc show that these species existed long ago.

..if this thread was an episode of scooby doo (which it's occasionally not far off being) then I suppose the atheists here would be 'those pesky kids!'

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

That would be true Wicknight if we'd just discovered say lions, tigers, deer and elephants this year, however ancient civilizations such as Romans, Greeks, Egyptians etc show that these species existed long ago.

No, I think we've established (and wolfsbane agreed) that the kinds released from the ark must have 'evolved' into the species we see today in a couple of centuries - 200 or 300 years not 4,000.

Very true, it is 4 billion years condensed into a few hundred if not a few decades.

How anyone seriously accepts this is beyond me, but then I would imagine that deep down, JC, Wolfsbane, Ken Ham and all the Creationists don't actually seriously accept this.

It seems to be more about deluding themselves than deluding the rest of us.

Scofflaw

pH wrote: »

That would be true Wicknight if we'd just discovered say lions, tigers, deer and elephants this year, however ancient civilizations such as Romans, Greeks, Egyptians etc show that these species existed long ago.

No, I think we've established (and wolfsbane agreed) that the kinds released from the ark must have 'evolved' into the species we see today in a couple of centuries - 200 or 300 years not 4,000.

Given the diversity of some 'kinds', farming must have been a pretty demanding job for that couple of centuries. You'd start off with a flock of proto-goats, and within your own lifetime you'd have something quite different. Your family's proto-dogs might wind up as German shepherds, but there'd be an equal risk of wolves, or jackals....and don't let the cats breed out of sight, or you could have a leopard problem within a couple of generations!

Still, the chicken farmers must have been pretty pleased when their proto-chickens lost all their teeth - although I'm sure there was an element of worry, too, when you realised they'd no longer be able to eat the proto-mice (not necessarily a problem, because the proto-mice had probably turned into capybara), and the grass you were growing in your fields still hadn't evolved into wheat.

Interesting times...hardly surprising no-one had the leisure to write any of it down. Oh wait, there's the Bible...hmmm...no, none of this is in the Bible either. How odd!

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote: »

Given the diversity of some 'kinds', farming must have been a pretty demanding job for that couple of centuries. You'd start off with a flock of proto-goats, and within your own lifetime you'd have something quite different. Your family's proto-dogs might wind up as German shepherds, but there'd be an equal risk of wolves, or jackals....and don't let the cats breed out of sight, or you could have a leopard problem within a couple of generations!

Still, the chicken farmers must have been pretty pleased when their proto-chickens lost all their teeth - although I'm sure there was an element of worry, too, when you realised they'd no longer be able to eat the proto-mice (not necessarily a problem, because the proto-mice had probably turned into capybara), and the grass you were growing in your fields still hadn't evolved into wheat.

Interesting times...hardly surprising no-one had the leisure to write any of it down. Oh wait, there's the Bible...hmmm...no, none of this is in the Bible either. How odd!

cordially,
Scofflaw

....while all the time the rate of human evolution remained as normal!

Ekancone

stevejazzx wrote: »

....while all the time the rate of human evolution remained as normal!

Perfect! Well thats it, im sold. Creationism is right. :rolleyes:

stevejazzx

Is that checkmate then?

Ekancone

stevejazzx wrote: »

Is that checkmate then?

Surely, even JC must realise that evolution on that scale is impossible? But then again, this is JC we are talking about.

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

More naughty misdirection from God - making it look like we've spotted a 10-million year old planet. As if planets just, you know, formed from the dust discs round stars, rather than needing to be specially created. Outrageous!

.....more like fallen Mankind trying to exclude God and confusing thmselves with speculative big numbers !!!!!!:):D

stevejazzx

J C wrote: »

.....more like fallen Mankind trying to exclude God and confusing thmselves with speculative big numbers !!!!!!:):D

Jeez! you're like that the john cleese character that just won't give up!

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Good vids.

Particularly like the bit about the modern day chicken who has evolutionary ancestors who used to have teeth, we know that from the fossil record.
And low and behold when researchers came to look at a chicken's DNA they found that the DNA to turn on those teeth was still buried inside the chickens DNA and could actually be switched back on again. Would love to see Ken Ham explain that one

Fascinating stuff.

IF there is the genetic information to turn on teeth within the chicken genome......it only proves the amazing density of information provided in the first created Chicken Kind by God.......
......and I will look carefully before extending my hand to any unknown chickens in future!!!!:D:)

The following 'chicken joke' seems appropriate.....

Why did the chicken eat the Evolutionist?
.......because the Evolutionist 'turned on' the chicken's TEETH!!!:D:)

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, the originally created ancestor of chickens had teeth. That the genes are still there shows how modern forms have been created by degeneration of the ancestral created forms - exactly what Creation Science predicted!

You really are becoming an excellent Creation Scientist, Scofflaw!!

stevejazzx

J C wrote: »

IF there is the genetic information to turn on teeth within the chicken genome......it only proves the amazing density of information provided in the first created Chicken Kind by God.......
......and I will look carefully before extending my hand to any unknown chickens in future!!!!:D:)

You've just plagarised Scofflaw now...

J C

pH wrote: »

That would be true Wicknight if we'd just discovered say lions, tigers, deer and elephants this year, however ancient civilizations such as Romans, Greeks, Egyptians etc show that these species existed long ago.

No, I think we've established (and wolfsbane agreed) that the kinds released from the ark must have 'evolved' into the species we see today in a couple of centuries - 200 or 300 years not 4,000.

.....and pH is becoming an excellent Creation Scientist as well!!!!:D:)

stevejazzx

J C wrote: »

.....and pH is becoming an excellent Creation Scientist as well!!!!:D:)

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Given the diversity of some 'kinds', farming must have been a pretty demanding job for that couple of centuries. You'd start off with a flock of proto-goats, and within your own lifetime you'd have something quite different. Your family's proto-dogs might wind up as German shepherds, but there'd be an equal risk of wolves, or jackals....and don't let the cats breed out of sight, or you could have a leopard problem within a couple of generations!

Still, the chicken farmers must have been pretty pleased when their proto-chickens lost all their teeth - although I'm sure there was an element of worry, too, when you realised they'd no longer be able to eat the proto-mice (not necessarily a problem, because the proto-mice had probably turned into capybara), and the grass you were growing in your fields still hadn't evolved into wheat.
Interesting times...hardly surprising no-one had the leisure to write any of it down.

They were very interesting times indeed.....and you forgot about the pyramid builders......who also didn't write down their methods EITHER.......
...... and their workmanship still eludes modern engineers!!!:D

Scofflaw wrote: »

Oh wait, there's the Bible...hmmm...no, none of this is in the Bible either. How odd!

The Bible isn't a science textbook....it is focussed on people .....and not the natural history of animals......

Creation Science deals with the scientific evaluation of the RESULTS of Creation .........and it is based on the observable evidence.:D

J C

stevejazzx wrote: »

Is this a photo of YOU.....or some other Evolutionist, perhaps!!!:D:eek::)

.......and is this the latest Evolutionist 'Tome' that he is holding???!!!:D:eek::)

stevejazzx

J C wrote: »

They were very interesting times indeed.....and you forgot about the pyramid builders......who also didn't write down their methods.......
...... and their workmanship eludes modern engineers!!!:D



The Bible isn't a science textbook....it is focussed on people .....and not the natural history of animals......

Creation Science deals with the scientific evaluation of the RESULTS of Creation .........and it is based on the observable evidence.:D

...I give up...take me to your leader!


....so it's based observable evidence? What is the observable evidence for magic? When you observe and explain the process you obviate the magician ...that is how science works..you should try it sometime