Evidence FOR Creationism

Like wise I am annoyed when evolutionist make claims about how "proven" evolution is when, at its very base, evolution is unprovable except over such rediculous amounts of time, that by the point the test was completed, no doubt the documentation of the test beginning could be questioned. This makes it inherently untestable as a whole.

And creationism, is based on the idea that creation occured all at once and is no longer occuring from our knowledge, and thus is equally untestable.

In my opinion this means that both fall into the realm of faith. Faith in the proper and correct view of the scientific facts.
 
Sword_Of_Geddon said:
So they are descendants of a single pair that Noah took on the Ark. (So sceptics’ ideas that Noah needed to look after ‘hundreds of thousands of species’ are not valid.) Note that even aside from this new information, only about 340,000 actual fossil specimens (estimated to represent about 250,000 species) have been found.

There is no boat that can hold 680,000 creatures ranging from field mice to huge dinosaurs. The US navy's air carriers only hold around 5,000 men. It also doesn't explain how Noah collected all these animals that were spread out all over the world. I also hate to break it to you, but for creationism to be true you have to have at least 5 animals per square foot back.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rapid oil
A new industrial process produces commercial oil from any organic waste—anything containing carbon, e.g. poultry/abattoir offal, crop residues, municipal garbage—in only a couple of hours.

Thus, temperatures and pressures need only be modest, because water helps to convey heat into the organic material.

Once more we see that the earth’s oil reserves did not need millions of years to form. The key ingredients needed for making oil in this new industrial process were all present at the time of the Flood (only about 4,500 years ago): uprooted plants and dead animals, moderate pressures (under layers of water-borne sediment) and, of course, water—all in abundance!

what can I say, but it feels good to be a homo sapien sapien. Sure we have built this but it doesn't happen that fast in nature.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is another reason why cloning should not be attempted for humans (see Creation 21(1):48–50, 1998).

what on earth does cloning have to do with creationism? and Who besides a few twisted people is advocating making human clones? The most I have heard is cloning human organs so that already alive humans can benifit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thumbs up for human Neandertals
Although Neandertals are known to have made and used tools, they have been presumed by many to have had limited ability to use their hands, based on interpretations of the anatomy of their thumb and forefinger.

But the latest research indicates no significant difference between Neandertals and people today in their ability to move thumb and index finger to give precise grip.
[/qoute]

Neandertals have a long forhead and large eyebrow ridges. They had larger brains and if what I've heard is correct they also aged faster as well as died faster.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Planet theories wrong
Hubble telescope pictures of ‘a giant gaseous object orbiting two burned-out stars’ is forcing a rethink of theories of the origins of planets. Astronomers say the gaseous object is the most distant and oldest planet yet found in the universe, as it appears to have formed 12.7 billion years ago, within a billion years of the theorized big bang origin of the universe.
The detection of this planet goes against evolutionary predictions, but its existence is consistent with the Bible. Note that the planet’s alleged age is not based on any evidence whatsoever—see New planet challenges evolutionary models.

it doesn't challenge evolution at all. Evolution and astronomy are 2 distinct scientific subjects. Evolution has to do with life evolving astronomy deals with the planets and space. Now god forbid humans don't know all the answers to the universe and make mistakes, it's all just an atheist plot to undermind the good christian.

Because this latest find resembles silk from the complex aerial webs of modern orb-weaver or comb-footed spiders, the fossils of which are found in rocks dated at 190 million years, [evolutionists say] complex web-weaving must be at least that old.

Spider silk is stronger and more efficiently produced than any man-made fibre (Creation 23(2):20–21, 2001). This is testimony to a Creator (Romans 1:20). But could spider silk really last for 130 million years? Preservation in amber is consistent with there having been a global Flood (Creation 25(2):52–53, 2003) around 4,500 years ago. Also, comb-footed spiders today are still the same as fossilized comb-footed spiders, testifying to reproduction ‘after their kind’, i.e. no evolution.

I don't know much about spiders or when they came around on the planet, but if bones can be fossilized I imagine spider webs could be also.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sniffer dogs
The wild dogs called jackals have a much sharper sense of smell than domestic dogs, but are less willing to be put to work.

So a Russian research group has crossed a jackal with a husky to breed the ‘ultimate’ sniffer dog. Now 25 of the new breed are used at a Moscow airport to sniff out drugs and explosives in planes and luggage. A further 10 ‘jacksy’ dogs are working in a forensic department.
It also shows that the selective breeding that produced domestic dogs removed information, in the case of the husky, its acute sense of smell.

Removed? didn't it improve it's sense of smell? Or did I just read that wrong. Either way I don't see how you can possibily twist selective breeding of a dog into creationist argument.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don’t blame the asteroid
Many say that an asteroid smashing into the earth 65 million years ago caused the dinosaur extinction. But this may be misplaced, say paleontologists.

They claim to have found evidence of global climate change before the asteroid hit. So they say the dinosaurs were already in sharp decline, and the impact winter simply finished them off quickly.

Discovery Channel News, <dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20030714/dinodead_print.html>, 28 July 2003.

Evolutionists assume the fossil record shows the order of evolution and extinction. The biblical perspective is that vast numbers of creatures perished in the Flood (with many of their remains being fossilized under layers of sediment, which later hardened into rock), but all the kinds of land animals and birds survived aboard the Ark (including dinosaurs), repopulating the earth afterwards. Since then, many creatures have gone extinct, not just dinosaurs, in an ongoing display of the Curse on creation.

Nonsense for the creationist argument to be correct there has to be at least 5 animals per square foot which is an impossibility.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Germ degeneration
When new disease-causing bacteria appear, it is commonly thought that it is because they gained [‘evolved’] new genes, thus enabling them to attack particular animal species or humans. But a recent study of three species of Bordetella whooping cough bacteria shows just the opposite, i.e. the bacteria have lost genes. This ‘substantial gene loss and inactivation’ makes the bacteria even more dependent on their unfortunate animal or human ‘host’.

So, the appearance of new disease-causing Bordetella bacteria resulted not from an ‘upwards’ genetic gain, but a ‘downhill’ loss of genes. As The Scientist dubbed it: ‘Survival of the not-so-fit’.

The Scientist, Daily News, <www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030814/02>, 2 September 2003.

We have earlier reported evidence that losing an ability can make germs more dangerous (Creation 24(4):8, 2002). Remember, too, that germs were originally not harmful in the ‘very good’ world God made, but benign or useful.

evolution is evolution and sometimes simpler is better I suppose. Of course it could have just been a fluke mutation or something I don't really know.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The legs that weren’t
The fossilized skull and other fragments of a whale unearthed in California, USA, are forcing a rethink of some aspects of whale evolution.

In particular, paleontologists are surprised that such a ‘primitive’ whale ‘lived about 20 million years later than it should have’. They say, ‘the creature may have had small rear legs, though this remains speculative because the rear part of the whale was not found’.

Orange County Register.com, <www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=53794>, 9 September 2003.

A fishy story—even telling us what size these imaginary legs were likely to have been!

Evolutionary theory is a theory it's been wrong before and will be wrong again. Stop acting like we treat it as the infailable word of god we all know it's probably not 100% correct in it's current form.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aardvark ancestry?
An international team of researchers claims that every mammal, including man, is descended from a common ancestor genetically similar to the modern aardvark.

Comparing chromosomes of mammal species shows that the aardvark has the greatest number of genetic features in common with other mammals. The researchers conclude that the aardvark is the closest living relative of our common ancestor.

Proceedings of the NAS, 4 February 2003, pp. 1062–1066.

Evolutionists assume that common features are evidence of common ancestry. Creationists explain such similarities in living things as evidence of a common Designer (Romans 1:20). See Are look-alikes related? Creation 19(2):39–41, 1997.

well I have no qualms decending from aardvarks, but I imagine aardvarks stem from a now extinict spieces like humans. So I imagine you will have to go further back to see where we came from.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even faster diamonds
While many people still think natural diamonds need millions of years to form, the technology to rapidly synthesize diamonds continues to improve. [See Creation 25(3):7, 2003; 25(1):9, 2002.]

Researchers have now made diamonds by reacting carbon dioxide with metallic sodium in a pressurized oven at only 440ºC—the lowest temperature reported so far for diamond synthesis—and 800 atmospheres. (Other methods require pressures up to five million atmospheres and temperatures up to 1,400ºC.) It took just 12 hours.

New Scientist, 26 July 2003, p. 17.

Once again good for us, but that doesn't mean that such a thing occurs naturaly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi-tech Ötzi
Further analysis of the frozen corpse of Ötzi, the ‘ice man’ found in the Austrian-Italian Alps in 1991, shows that his society, three thousand years ago, had a high level of technology. Ötzi’s equipment included a framed backpack, a copper axe, dried fruit and other foods, and a fire-making kit that included flint and ores for making sparks.

‘Ötzi was extremely well equipped, each object fashioned from the material best suited to its purpose’, said the Ötzi researchers. For example, Ötzi’s longbow was made of yew—‘the best wood for such a purpose because of its great tensile strength’.

Longbows of yew gave the English army a crucial advantage at the battle of Agincourt in 1415—thousands of years after Ötzi’s society had discovered their power. Ötzi was also carrying plants with powerful pharmaceutical properties, e.g. birch bracket fungus—in other words, his own first aid kit.

Ötzi’s last meal included goat meat and bread cooked in a charcoal oven. Said one commentator: ‘Clearly Stone Age Europeans were sophisticated individuals who exploited local resources and led lives that were far from brutish or short.’

Scientific American, May 2003, pp. 60–69.

The Observer, 4 May 2003, p. 7.


I have always been under the impression that 3,000 years ago wasn't the stone age and that the stone age was much before that.

Yet evolutionist start out this very same way every time. They start out with evolution, and equally unprovable theory.

Trying to differentiate your theory from mine, is impossible, they are both untestable scientific theories with large bodies of evidence, and with eatch side rejecting the other as dogma. Both can't be right, but we can NEVER "prove" one or the other, you have to take it on faith. faith that your calculations are correct, faith that you have not made mistakes, faith that you are right even though you cannot know, nor test it. Are we really so different, the creationist and the evolutionist?

EDIT: actually according to the scientific method, evolution is not even at the point of theory, it is eternally hypothesis, you cannot test human evolution. The times required are to great.

hmm I was under the impression that Darwin was a christian, and considering the theory of evolution didn't come about until around the 19 century after thousands of years of different creationist stories one would be hard pressed to assume he just closed his mind to all other possibilities.

*note large protions of quoted material was removed because I was exceding the message length allowed
 
There was once a researcher who studied the behaviour and intelligence of fleas. He actually managed to train theese tiny insects into obeying simple commands as "Jump!". One day he performed an experiment:

He commanded the flea to jump. The flea obeyed and jumped some 30 cm (1 ft.) into the air. He then removed one of the flea's legs. He repeated the command, this time the flea jumping a little less. He continued to remove legs until there were none. Upon that time he once more ordered the flea to jump. Nothing happend. He repeated the command. Again, nothing happend. Startled, he noted in his journal: "Upon losing his legs the flea also loses his ability to hear".


Creationists have no problem combatting scientists like theese. But their success as meaningless as a win of Garry Kasparov against a 5 year old.
 
At the end of the day - The creationist faction really only have a fan-fiction novel to back them up.

Evolution may be a theory, but at least the dynamics of it can be understood in a lucid, real-world sense.

Creationists must present proof of their god, etc - Before trying to sell us genesis fables.

.
 
Creationists must present proof of their god, etc - Before trying to sell us genesis fables.
I'll sell whatever I please, its a free country (for now)

You should provide proof of human evolution before you shove it down our childrens throats at school (thankfully the home schooling movement is slowly taking over christian childrens education, no more government indoctrination)
 
Sword_Of_Geddon said:
Focus—news of interest about creation and evolution
Fossil figures fall
The number of species living in the past, as estimated from fossils, is not as great as once thought, according to a new study seeking to catalogue every fossil ever dug up.

So far, the researchers have found that a number of fossils have been misidentified as being separate species, whereas in fact they are the same species. Poor communication between taxonomists in different countries can often lead to fossils being wrongly given their own species status.

Accordingly, it is now estimated that the overall number of species in the fossil record is inflated by 32–44%.

New Scientist, 23 August 2003, pp. 32–35.
Ummm, that's a communication problem among taxonomists, not in anyway evidence against evolution or for creationism

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
‘Species’ is not the same as ‘kind’. Lions and tigers are different ‘species’, but they can interbreed to produce ligers and tigons (Creation 22(3):28–33, 2000).

So they are descendants of a single pair that Noah took on the Ark. (So sceptics’ ideas that Noah needed to look after ‘hundreds of thousands of species’ are not valid.) Note that even aside from this new information, only about 340,000 actual fossil specimens (estimated to represent about 250,000 species) have been found.
Fine, prove Noah's ark and the great flood

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
A common claim that 99% of fossil species have become extinct is based on the assumption of evolution, i.e. that billions of intermediate species once existed.
Actually based on the large amount of fossils discovered that aren't extant species.

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
Rapid oil
A new industrial process produces commercial oil from any organic waste—anything containing carbon, e.g. poultry/abattoir offal, crop residues, municipal garbage—in only a couple of hours.

Scientists have developed other methods to rapidly convert waste products into liquid fuel. But such processes are expensive and inefficient, requiring extremely high pressures and temperatures. ‘The chief difference in our process is that we make water a friend rather than an enemy’, said Brian Appel, CEO of Changing World Technologies, describing his company’s waste-into-oil installation in Missouri, USA. ‘The other processes all tried to drive out water. We drive it in, inside this tank, with heat and pressure. We super-hydrate the material.’

Thus, temperatures and pressures need only be modest, because water helps to convey heat into the organic material.

Discover, <www.discover.com/may_03/featoil.html>, 2 May 2003.

Once more we see that the earth’s oil reserves did not need millions of years to form. The key ingredients needed for making oil in this new industrial process were all present at the time of the Flood (only about 4,500 years ago): uprooted plants and dead animals, moderate pressures (under layers of water-borne sediment) and, of course, water—all in abundance!
Except that TDP is a complex multipstep process that doesn't occur geologically

http://itotd.com/index.alt?ArticleID=205

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
More clone deaths
There are new fears about cloning after three cloned pigs collapsed and died of heart failure at less than six months of age.

The ‘adult clone sudden death syndrome’, as one researcher called it, struck down all surviving members of a litter cloned using a variant of the ‘Dolly’ cloning technique. This is where a whole adult cell was forced into a fertilized egg that had been emptied of its own genetic material. (A fourth piglet had died only a few days after being born.)

These untimely deaths are a reminder of the problems plaguing cloned animals (see ‘Dolly dead’, Creation 25(3):8, 2003), with many falling ill or dying just after birth.

Nature Science Update, <www.nature.com/nsu/030825/030825-2.html>, 28 August 2003.

New Scientist, 6 September 2003, p. 12.

This is another reason why cloning should not be attempted for humans (see Creation 21(1):48–50, 1998).
Has nothing to do with evolution/creationism

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
Thumbs up for human Neandertals
Although Neandertals are known to have made and used tools, they have been presumed by many to have had limited ability to use their hands, based on interpretations of the anatomy of their thumb and forefinger.

But the latest research indicates no significant difference between Neandertals and people today in their ability to move thumb and index finger to give precise grip.

So anatomical evidence and archaeological evidence both indicate Neandertals were just like humans today, manufacturing and handling a range of implements and tools.

Nature, 27 March 2003, p. 395.

Evolutionists aren’t sure what to do with Neandertal man—whether he is a precursor of modern man or an offshoot that died out. But fossils of Neandertals don’t present a problem for creationists—Neandertals being fully human, descendants of the first man, Adam, who was created in the image of God. (More at Thumbs up for Neandertals.)
Good now explain Ardipithicus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus robustus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus!

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
Planet theories wrong
Hubble telescope pictures of ‘a giant gaseous object orbiting two burned-out stars’ is forcing a rethink of theories of the origins of planets. Astronomers say the gaseous object is the most distant and oldest planet yet found in the universe, as it appears to have formed 12.7 billion years ago, within a billion years of the theorized big bang origin of the universe.

But these conclusions challenge the belief that planets could not have formed so early because of insufficient heavy elements at that time. So the astronomers say this discovery shows that all theories of planetary formation may have to be revised.

The Washington Times, <washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030710-093314-3718r.htm>, 9 September 2003.

The detection of this planet goes against evolutionary predictions, but its existence is consistent with the Bible. Note that the planet’s alleged age is not based on any evidence whatsoever—see New planet challenges evolutionary models.
Actually it challanges astronomy not evolution, and not enough to consider it void. It challanged the old view of accretion disks as the source of planetary and instead gave much evidence to a new thoery of disk instabilities. Just another example of science's self-correcting nature.


Sword_Of_Geddon said:
What a web they weave
Spider silk has been found preserved in a piece of amber ‘dated’ at 130 million years old, eclipsing the previous date for the oldest preserved silk of 40 million years old.

Because this latest find resembles silk from the complex aerial webs of modern orb-weaver or comb-footed spiders, the fossils of which are found in rocks dated at 190 million years, [evolutionists say] complex web-weaving must be at least that old.

New Scientist, 9 August 2003, p. 24.

Nature, 7 August 2003, pp. 636–637.

Spider silk is stronger and more efficiently produced than any man-made fibre (Creation 23(2):20–21, 2001). This is testimony to a Creator (Romans 1:20). But could spider silk really last for 130 million years? Preservation in amber is consistent with there having been a global Flood (Creation 25(2):52–53, 2003) around 4,500 years ago. Also, comb-footed spiders today are still the same as fossilized comb-footed spiders, testifying to reproduction ‘after their kind’, i.e. no evolution.
1. Evolution doesn't require all creatures to change all the time, creatures in ecological niches can continue relatively unchanged for long peroids of time
2. Spidersilk as the article mentioned is tough stuff, surely it could last in amber all that time.
3. Preservation of amber seems inconsistent with there having been a global Flood, I'd like to see evidence to the contrary.


More comin'
 
Sword_Of_Geddon said:
Sniffer dogs
The wild dogs called jackals have a much sharper sense of smell than domestic dogs, but are less willing to be put to work.

So a Russian research group has crossed a jackal with a husky to breed the ‘ultimate’ sniffer dog. Now 25 of the new breed are used at a Moscow airport to sniff out drugs and explosives in planes and luggage. A further 10 ‘jacksy’ dogs are working in a forensic department.

New Scientist, 18 May 2002, p. 19.

This shows again that the Bible’s created kinds often include more than one ‘species’.
Why does kind have to mean species for creationism to be wrong?

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
It also shows that the selective breeding that produced domestic dogs removed information, in the case of the husky, its acute sense of smell.
Umm, that's not even internally consistant the Jacksy has improved smell. Also the loss of genetic information has a vital role in evolution. Oh, and the loss of smell isn't losing genetic information.


Sword_Of_Geddon said:
Don’t blame the asteroid
Many say that an asteroid smashing into the earth 65 million years ago caused the dinosaur extinction. But this may be misplaced, say paleontologists.

They claim to have found evidence of global climate change before the asteroid hit. So they say the dinosaurs were already in sharp decline, and the impact winter simply finished them off quickly.

Discovery Channel News, <dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20030714/dinodead_print.html>, 28 July 2003.
This is true, but I fail to see what it has to do with the rest of the arguement

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
Evolutionists assume the fossil record shows the order of evolution and extinction. The biblical perspective is that vast numbers of creatures perished in the Flood (with many of their remains being fossilized under layers of sediment, which later hardened into rock), but all the kinds of land animals and birds survived aboard the Ark (including dinosaurs), repopulating the earth afterwards. Since then, many creatures have gone extinct, not just dinosaurs, in an ongoing display of the Curse on creation.
Umm, then why do they have numerous clear series of transitional fossils? And what about radiometric data?

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
Germ degeneration
When new disease-causing bacteria appear, it is commonly thought that it is because they gained [‘evolved’] new genes, thus enabling them to attack particular animal species or humans. But a recent study of three species of Bordetella whooping cough bacteria shows just the opposite, i.e. the bacteria have lost genes. This ‘substantial gene loss and inactivation’ makes the bacteria even more dependent on their unfortunate animal or human ‘host’.

So, the appearance of new disease-causing Bordetella bacteria resulted not from an ‘upwards’ genetic gain, but a ‘downhill’ loss of genes. As The Scientist dubbed it: ‘Survival of the not-so-fit’.

The Scientist, Daily News, <www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030814/02>, 2 September 2003.
The loss of genetic information is fully compatible with (and in fact neccesary for) evolution.

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
We have earlier reported evidence that losing an ability can make germs more dangerous (Creation 24(4):8, 2002). Remember, too, that germs were originally not harmful in the ‘very good’ world God made, but benign or useful.
Then why did god give us an immune system to fight them?

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
The legs that weren’t
The fossilized skull and other fragments of a whale unearthed in California, USA, are forcing a rethink of some aspects of whale evolution.

In particular, paleontologists are surprised that such a ‘primitive’ whale ‘lived about 20 million years later than it should have’. They say, ‘the creature may have had small rear legs, though this remains speculative because the rear part of the whale was not found’.

Orange County Register.com, <www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=53794>, 9 September 2003.

A fishy story—even telling us what size these imaginary legs were likely to have been!
It's likely that the whale fossil was similar to another which had vestigial legs leading to the speculation that it was that sort of whale. It could have been a primitive variety of whale that survived in an ecological niche for a long peroid of time, or the sceintists could have announced their curiosity before studying it in depth and have subsequently viewed it as a modern species. Given the little amount of data here, I can't tell which of those scenarios (if it is one of those) it is, but it is certainly not evidence for creationism.

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
Aardvark ancestry?
An international team of researchers claims that every mammal, including man, is descended from a common ancestor genetically similar to the modern aardvark.

Comparing chromosomes of mammal species shows that the aardvark has the greatest number of genetic features in common with other mammals. The researchers conclude that the aardvark is the closest living relative of our common ancestor.

Proceedings of the NAS, 4 February 2003, pp. 1062–1066.
I would think so too, the insectivores were also among the first eutherians.

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
Evolutionists assume that common features are evidence of common ancestry. Creationists explain such similarities in living things as evidence of a common Designer (Romans 1:20). See Are look-alikes related? Creation 19(2):39–41, 1997.
Then explain why the commonalities follow a branched phylogeny

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
Even faster diamonds
While many people still think natural diamonds need millions of years to form, the technology to rapidly synthesize diamonds continues to improve. [See Creation 25(3):7, 2003; 25(1):9, 2002.]

Researchers have now made diamonds by reacting carbon dioxide with metallic sodium in a pressurized oven at only 440ºC—the lowest temperature reported so far for diamond synthesis—and 800 atmospheres. (Other methods require pressures up to five million atmospheres and temperatures up to 1,400ºC.) It took just 12 hours.

New Scientist, 26 July 2003, p. 17.
Ummm, metallic sodium is highly reactive and is never found in nature.


Sword_Of_Geddon said:
Hi-tech Ötzi
Further analysis of the frozen corpse of Ötzi, the ‘ice man’ found in the Austrian-Italian Alps in 1991, shows that his society, three thousand years ago, had a high level of technology. Ötzi’s equipment included a framed backpack, a copper axe, dried fruit and other foods, and a fire-making kit that included flint and ores for making sparks.

‘Ötzi was extremely well equipped, each object fashioned from the material best suited to its purpose’, said the Ötzi researchers. For example, Ötzi’s longbow was made of yew—‘the best wood for such a purpose because of its great tensile strength’.

Longbows of yew gave the English army a crucial advantage at the battle of Agincourt in 1415—thousands of years after Ötzi’s society had discovered their power. Ötzi was also carrying plants with powerful pharmaceutical properties, e.g. birch bracket fungus—in other words, his own first aid kit.

Ötzi’s last meal included goat meat and bread cooked in a charcoal oven. Said one commentator: ‘Clearly Stone Age Europeans were sophisticated individuals who exploited local resources and led lives that were far from brutish or short.’

Scientific American, May 2003, pp. 60–69.

The Observer, 4 May 2003, p. 7.
Ummm, if it's 3000 years old it's not the stone age ;) and evolutionists never said that they didn't exploit resources from the environment.
 
CenturionV, I would much rather be indoctrinated by science than religion and creationism, evolution and science adapt if they find mistakes in the theories, religion hardly changes at all.
 
CenturionV, I would much rather be indoctrinated by science than religion and creationism, evolution and science adapt if they find mistakes in the theories, religion hardly changes at tall.
Evolution does no adapt, to information that disproves it as a hypothesis. Science cannot adapt to anything, only our view of its findings, factual scientific findings never change, only our interpretation of them. So it is we who adapt, not science or the scientific method.

Creationism is a not a religious viewpoint, its a scientific viewpoint that happens to be in agreement with alot of major religions. Just because evolution can be taught and left at that does not make it more valid than a theory which basically forces the student to ask "who created all this?"

You can teach creation without teaching about God in the same way that you can teach evolutionism without teaching atheism. Its just strongly implied in both systems.
 
shadowdude said:
Holy moly! I never knew there was a whole stack of evidence.

Spoiler :
I can't wait to see Perfection's rebuttal
I am to please ;)

CenturionV said:
No we're simply trying to disprove bad science, that bases its conclusions on preconceived ideas, and on simplistic ways of looking at the universe, read the book the Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb, it was made in 1961, and still refutes literally hundreds of stuff STILL being used as evidence for evolution.
Sorry, I don't take book mandates, you want to use it as evidence quote selective passages
CenturionV said:
That book totally destroys anything that even looks remotely close to uniformitarianism,
Evolution now does not ride on uniformitarianism
CenturionV said:
it also has alot on the really bad science used by people like darwin and other 19th century "scientists" who are now considered hero's by many scientists today.
Making mistakes and flawed arguements is innevitable considering that sceince is a human endevour, but the peer review system does much to rectify it. Darwin (who is one of my heros) certainly was not immune (I don't imagine any scientist is), his uniformitarian and strictly organismic selectionist aspects he brought to evolution were certainly not correct (and subsequently were corrected), however many of his arguements were valid (and brilliant as well) and he paved the way to studying evolution, that is why he is so revered among the scientific establishment.

CenturionV said:
Trying to differentiate your theory from mine, is impossible, they are both untestable scientific theories with large bodies of evidence, and with eatch side rejecting the other as dogma. Both can't be right, but we can NEVER "prove" one or the other, you have to take it on faith. faith that your calculations are correct, faith that you have not made mistakes, faith that you are right even though you cannot know, nor test it. Are we really so different, the creationist and the evolutionist?
Actually evolution is testible, testing to see if things fit into a branching phylogeny, testing to see if mutations can occur, testing to see how natural selection works using techniques of artificial selection. See post #8 in the link in my sig for predictions it has made.

CenturionV said:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
And that has been done and confirmed by testing predictions!
 
CenturionV said:
Evolution does no adapt, to information that disproves it as a hypothesis. Evolution Science cannot adapt to anything, only our view of its findings, factual scientific findings never change, only our interpretation of them. So it is we who adapt, not science or the scientific method.
What infromation disproves its hypothesis. Also, there's much indication of it adapting to the evidence as the shift to punctuated equilibrium instaed of gradualism.

CenturionV said:
Creationism is a not a religious viewpoint, its a scientific viewpoint that happens to be in agreement with alot of major religions. Just because evolution can be taught and left at that does not make it more valid than a theory which basically forces the student to ask "who created all this?"
Umm, you just said that creationism wasn't scientifically testible.

CenturionV said:
You can teach creation without teaching about God in the same way that you can teach evolutionism without teaching atheism. Its just strongly implied in both systems.
Actually evolution doesn't say anything about the existance/inexistance of god, and many many people believe that god can work through evolution. These people are called "Evolutionary creationists".
 
Could someone explain me how Noah has found the time to get in Australia enough fast during the storm to bring with him Kangurus, Koalas, Platypus and Kiwis ?
 
Ah, the speed of Noah in his endeavors to save the species of the world was a miracle of God, Marla :rolleyes:

As Perfection has already wrapped up all of the points in neat little packages and tossed them in the garbage can, I have nothing to respond to. Good day.
 
The Flood:

The (second) greatest catastrophe of all time
The Titanic sinking? The Pompeii devastation? What rates as the greatest ‘disaster’ ever?
by Steve Cardno

Disasters have long captured the public’s attention. News services thrive on them. Hollywood throws in liberal amounts of imagination and reaps millions of dollars from our fascination with disaster, making blockbusters such as Titanic, Twister, Armageddon, Volcano, and Deep Impact. Some of these reflect evolutionary belief that life on earth was once all but wiped out by meteorite bombardment from outer space. (‘Is this what destroyed the dinosaurs? And will it happen again?’)

According to Genesis, a massive worldwide catastrophe did occur in the past, and it certainly did destroy much of the animal and plant life. It was, however, a global Flood—not a mere meteorite collision.

The Bible makes it clear that no land-dwelling air-breathing life survived except for those aboard Noah’s Ark.1

Flood legends
The Flood, according to biblical chronology, occurred approximately 4,500 years ago. Most of the world’s cultures have legends of events which are remarkably similar to the Flood account recorded in Genesis. These stories have a common thread, conforming to local conditions: a warning is given by God (or gods) of a coming flood to punish wickedness; the person warned is instructed to build a vessel of safety for himself, his family, and the other living creatures; the world is destroyed by water; the occupants of the vessel repopulate the earth. Many other specific themes from Genesis (sending out birds, landing on a mountain, the rainbow, post-Flood sacrifice) are often present too.

Evolutionists are forced to explain these similarities by coincidence. But such widespread recollections across the world are precisely what we would expect if the Flood described in Genesis did take place. It is well-known that local traditions and embellishments tend to exaggerate and distort events as they become entrenched in a culture’s folklore, especially if transmitted orally. Hence, the addition of clearly mythical elements in some legends.

Many attempts have been made to explain away this persistent cultural evidence. A new book, recommended by the man who discovered the wrecked Titanic, suggests that Noah’s Flood was actually a real, though local, event several thousand years ago around the Black Sea in Asia.2 However, this would not explain the existence of a Flood story, uncannily similar to Genesis, in Western Australian Aboriginal folklore!3 Nor does it fit with the Genesis account.

The Bible record

Genesis is written as a simple, but factual, account of history. Secular archaeologists have, more than once, had to ‘eat their words’ as it were when discoveries have shown the Bible’s record of history to be accurate, not mythical. Today, there are even Christians prepared to distort the Bible’s plain record of a globe-covering Flood (where even the birds had to be taken on board, for example), to make it seem as if it had only covered a local region. These sometimes join with unbelievers in ridiculing the idea of a global Flood, on the basis that the Ark could not have carried all the creatures, for instance. But such objections have now overwhelmingly been shown to be without foundation.4

The record in the earth
Is the evidence of the rocks more consistent with slow processes over billions of years, or with the biblical Flood and its aftermath? If the Bible is right, we would expect to find sedimentary layers (rock laid down by water) all over the earth. These rocks would contain the remains of many kinds of creatures. Where there are similar types alive today, these fossils would be basically the same as their living representatives. In other words, bats would still look like bats, turtles like turtles, etc., with no evolutionary changes. This is exactly what is found.5,6

In addition, many animals living before the Flood would have died out—marine creatures possibly during the Flood, land creatures during the succeeding centuries. Thus one would predict that many creatures would be found in the fossil record that looked quite unrelated to anything on earth today. This is what we do find—for example, the pterosaurs, (flying reptiles), as well as the dinosaurs and many other extinct types.

Many of the fossils would show creatures dying in distorted positions as they were buried suddenly and unexpectedly. This is precisely what we do find. We also find billions of fish beautifully preserved, sometimes over vast areas, with their fins and even sometimes scales intact—sometimes even still in the act of swallowing another fish.

Dead fish, even if there are no predators to eat them, fall apart in water after a few weeks at most, even if the water is perfectly sterile and oxygen-free.7 The evidence that these were rapidly buried, with rapid hardening, has even persuaded many evolutionist geologists to change their mind about slow processes.8

While it is not possible for science to prove or disprove anything about the past (which cannot be repeated nor directly observed) there is obviously a great deal of evidence consistent with the Flood described in the Bible. And many of the allegedly ‘impossible’ problems of Flood geology now have sound answers.9

Landmarks
Many of the world’s most magnificent landscapes show patterns more typical of having been formed by massive amounts of water quickly, rather than by slow and gradual processes over millions of years. America’s Grand Canyon10 and Australia’s Uluru11 (Ayers Rock) display much evidence in favour of them having been caused recently by the movement of lots of water in a short time, rather than slowly as evolutionists believe.

The 1980 eruption of the Mt St Helens volcano12 and the more recent Icelandic megaflood13 have given us small glimpses of how much damage large volumes of water can cause to a landscape. Features such as multi-layered sedimentary rock, canyons, and waterways which ‘look very old’ have been formed in only a few days!

The biblical Flood was sent upon the world because of man’s violence and sin. A warning was certainly given to the people of that day, to be saved by believing what God said and getting on board the Ark.

The Apostle Peter warned ‘Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished …’ (2 Peter 3:3–6).

Now, as then, people don’t believe that God’s judgment will fall. But the Bible is clear that, ultimately, all will face His judgment. During the Flood, the only way to be saved was by being aboard the Ark. And today the only way to be saved is by being ‘aboard’ God’s ultimate Ark of rescue, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus said: ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes on Him who sent Me has everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation, but has passed from death to life’ (John 5:24).

Post script
Why did our title indicate that Noah’s Flood was only the second greatest catastrophe in history?

Because the greatest catastrophe of all time was surely the Fall, when sin and death entered a perfect world. This drastically changed everything.

The whole creation has ever since been groaning in its ‘bondage to decay’ (Romans 8:19–22), awaiting its glorious restoration to a sinless, deathless condition, when God creates the heavens and the earth anew.

References and notes
Genesis 7:22 seems to restrict it to those who breathed through nostrils, perhaps limiting it to land vertebrates. Most insects, like water-dwelling animals, would not have needed an ark to survive. Insects could take refuge on all manner of floating vegetation clumps.
Ryan, W., Pitman, W.C., Noah’s Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About the Event That Changed History, Simon & Schuster, 1999.
Coates, H., The Flood, Creation 4(3):9–12, 1981.
Sarfati, J., How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark? Creation 19(2):16–19, 1997. Also, Woodmorappe, J., Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, USA, 1996.
Weston, P., Bats: sophistication in miniature, Creation 21(1):28–31, 1998.
Weston, P., Turtles, Creation 21(2):28–31, 1999.
Garner, P., Green River blues, Creation 19(3):18–19, 1997.
The so-called ‘neocatastrophist’ school of thought generally assigns the millions of years to gaps between the layers of fossil-bearing rock, rather than the time taken to form the layers, as was once thought.
Walker, T., Geology and the young earth, Creation 21(4):16–20, 1999.
Even many old-agers now concede that the Grand Canyon was sculpted in one big rush by large volumes of water. Some creationist geologists think left-over water from the Flood, or the post-Flood Ice Age, breached a natural dam and catastrophically carved the Canyon.
Snelling, A.A., Uluru and Kata Tjuta: Testimony to the Flood, Creation 20(2):36–40, 1998.
Ham, K., I got excited at Mount St. Helens! Creation 15(3):14–19, 1993.
Snelling, A.A., Iceland’s recent ‘mega-flood’, Creation 21(3):46–48, 1999.
Some further reading
On Flood geology: Austin, S. (ed.), Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, 1994.

Answering alleged problems with the Ark:Woodmorappe, J., Noah’s Ark: A feasibility study, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, 1996.
 
OK, so if all life on land died, including all plants, then how could noah breathe for 40 days and 40 nights, he and all of the animals would have needed a little thing called oxygen, which the land plants would have released by photosynthesising the carbon dioxide they breathe out.

Evidence for the flood? lets see this evidence then, and not from the bible.

The greatest disaster in history, a talking snake telling aman to eat a fruit that will tell him about good and evil, do you know how crazy that actually sounds, that we are all screwed as we have this sin, which is in fact human nature, nothing more than animal instinct.
 
SolarKnight said:
OK, so if all life on land died, including all plants, then how could noah breathe for 40 days and 40 nights, he and all of the animals would have needed a little thing called oxygen, which the land plants would have released by photosynthesising the carbon dioxide they breathe out.
Well during those 40 days, they could have survived thanks to the oxygene still in the air. However, later, during the time requested for forests to grow again, the oxygene has certainly massively decreased... and then it becomes a problem.

However, there's another problem too. Noah got only 2 animals per kind right ? Then what did he and his animals eat during those 40 days and 40 nights ?
 
Also what did they drink, it couldn't have been sea water, its toxic to humans.

There is no way on earth a ship that big could have been made to carry that many animals, and the food to feed them and the water for them to drink.

(rainfall isn't a reliable scource of water either unless its cleaned).
 
You know, there is a very strong, easy and provable refutation of creation.

Ok, you said God create us in his own image , right?

So , now, tell me why do have the remains of a tail; the coccyx. You just need to know a little about human anatomy, to understand thats we come from the ''animal world''.
 
Hey, sword, next time use your own arguement, or respond to your last one before throwing a new one at me!

Maybe you can express your ideas without stealing from here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/catastrophe.asp

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
Evolutionists are forced to explain these similarities by coincidence.
No we're not, it's actually quite simple, the same legend got spread to a few different cultures.

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
But such widespread recollections across the world are precisely what we would expect if the Flood described in Genesis did take place. It is well-known that local traditions and embellishments tend to exaggerate and distort events as they become entrenched in a culture’s folklore, especially if transmitted orally. Hence, the addition of clearly mythical elements in some legends.
Genesis seems to have an origin these oral legends

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
2 However, this would not explain the existence of a Flood story, uncannily similar to Genesis, in Western Australian Aboriginal folklore!
I bet it's not uncanny.

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
Genesis is written as a simple, but factual, account of history. Secular archaeologists have, more than once, had to ‘eat their words’ as it were when discoveries have shown the Bible’s record of history to be accurate, not mythical.
The fact that the Biblical legends have some truth doesn't make it valid on all accounts.

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
Today, there are even Christians prepared to distort the Bible’s plain record of a globe-covering Flood (where even the birds had to be taken on board, for example), to make it seem as if it had only covered a local region. These sometimes join with unbelievers in ridiculing the idea of a global Flood, on the basis that the Ark could not have carried all the creatures, for instance. But such objections have now overwhelmingly been shown to be without foundation.4
How about the complete lake of evidence? Is that a valid objection?

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
The record in the earth
Is the evidence of the rocks more consistent with slow processes over billions of years, or with the biblical Flood and its aftermath? If the Bible is right, we would expect to find sedimentary layers (rock laid down by water) all over the earth. These rocks would contain the remains of many kinds of creatures. Where there are similar types alive today, these fossils would be basically the same as their living representatives. In other words, bats would still look like bats, turtles like turtles, etc., with no evolutionary changes. This is exactly what is found.5,6
Actually there were many creatures in transitional series that we're much different from modern extant species and why is there occasionally igneous rock interspersed? And what about radiometic dating?

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
In addition, many animals living before the Flood would have died out—marine creatures possibly during the Flood, land creatures during the succeeding centuries. Thus one would predict that many creatures would be found in the fossil record that looked quite unrelated to anything on earth today. This is what we do find—for example, the pterosaurs, (flying reptiles), as well as the dinosaurs and many other extinct types.
Except that they have transitional series too!

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
Many of the fossils would show creatures dying in distorted positions as they were buried suddenly and unexpectedly. This is precisely what we do find. We also find billions of fish beautifully preserved, sometimes over vast areas, with their fins and even sometimes scales intact—sometimes even still in the act of swallowing another fish.
Some but definitely not most, a large number are missing pieces or have bones disconnected and carried away because the corpse wasn't buried immediately.

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
Dead fish, even if there are no predators to eat them, fall apart in water after a few weeks at most, even if the water is perfectly sterile and oxygen-free.7 The evidence that these were rapidly buried, with rapid hardening, has even persuaded many evolutionist geologists to change their mind about slow processes.8
Funny the article has no source for that. (though relatively rapid burial is important)

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
While it is not possible for science to prove or disprove anything about the past (which cannot be repeated nor directly observed)
this is flawed, science of the past has as much "proving power" as lab based stuff simply because it can be repeatedly indirectly observed

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
there is obviously a great deal of evidence consistent with the Flood described in the Bible. And many of the allegedly ‘impossible’ problems of Flood geology now have sound answers.9
I bet plate techtonics and the correspondance of South America's Coast to Africa's isn't one of them

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
Landmarks
Many of the world’s most magnificent landscapes show patterns more typical of having been formed by massive amounts of water quickly, rather than by slow and gradual processes over millions of years. America’s Grand Canyon10 and Australia’s Uluru11 (Ayers Rock) display much evidence in favour of them having been caused recently by the movement of lots of water in a short time, rather than slowly as evolutionists believe.
Actually it's still a very slow process acting over tens of thousands of years, but it's from inconstant erosion, not uniformitarian. A rejection of uniformitarianism does not mean catastrophism

Sword_Of_Geddon said:
The 1980 eruption of the Mt St Helens volcano12 and the more recent Icelandic megaflood13 have given us small glimpses of how much damage large volumes of water can cause to a landscape. Features such as multi-layered sedimentary rock, canyons, and waterways which ‘look very old’ have been formed in only a few days!
Ones that "look very old" to Ken A. Ham who is not a geologist
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/About/ham.asp

The rest is religionist stuff and doesn't talk about evidence
 
Answers in genisis again, thats a reliable site :crazyeye: :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top Bottom