young earth Creationism .. again

[Lionz]

Frigidus,

Things evolve and there are transitional fossils depending on definition at least maybe, but what in terms of fossils suggests that fish evolved into land dwelling tetrapods or that reptiles evolved into birds or that whales evolved from creatures who walked on land with four legs?

Literally billions of fossils have been found and yet only a handful of highly debatable ones that some try to claim are missing links between fish and land dwelling tetrapods and between reptiles and birds and between four legged land animals and whales? Should the fossil record not have literally millions of examples of each if slow gradual evolution between each has occured?

PLAYER,

- If there's One Creator of the heavens, is that not true regardless of where we are?

- You keep trying to suggest I'm an idiot and I don't appreciate it perhaps. How about prove to me that fish came from non-fish if you can? Give me a site that will take 2 hours to read if you want to maybe.

- If some sedimentary strata was laid by floods and some was not, then is there a way for us to tell the difference? If there happens to be a fossil standing up through multiple layers of sedimentary rock it's from a flood and if not, it's not?

Texas is a pretty big state maybe. What would global sea level rising have to do with burying a tree over a hundred feet tall in wet sediment? The Kettles coal mines have hundreds of petrified trees thirty to hundreds of feet in height with tops and bottoms in different coal seams dated thousands of years apart perhaps. The Kettles coal mines are even inland enough to be in or just outside of or in and just outside of Tennessee maybe.

Also, there are even polystrate trees found upside down and animal polystrate fossils perhaps. What would rising sea levels do to explain either?

- What could the geologist do not counting ask if an index fossil was found with the limestone? Index fossils are used to date strata and yet strata is also used to date index fossils perhaps. Do you claim that's not true?

Are you meaning to suggest that there's one specific chemical makeup for 100 million-year-old Jurassic limestone and one specific chemical makeup of 600 million-year-old Cambrian limestone that are different from one another?

- Fossils are remarkable if there was not an earthwide flood at least maybe. How about you provide a theory on how a dead organism could end up being preserved in wet sediment without decomposing or being eaten by scavengers if you have one that does not involve a flood?

- What HAS been found in terms of fossils? Literally billions and yet only a handful of highly debatable ones that some try to claim are in a transition from fish to land dwelling tetrapods? Should the fossil record not have literally millions of examples of creatures clearly in a transition between fish and land dwelling tetrapods if fish slowly evolved into land dwelling tetrapods over millions of years?

Panderichthys and Tiktaalik are simply fish while Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are simply land dwelling tetrapods maybe. Nearly all bony fish have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and well-developed gills consistent with an entirely aquatic lifestyle and Tiktaalik is a bony fish that is no exception to that by any means perhaps.

You just referred to stuff claiming a thrusting arms and legs forward type motion would have been impossible for Tiktaalik RIGHT after referring to a statement that claims Tiktaalik had limb-like fins that could take it on to land maybe! Conflicting sources? : )

Are the Pectoral Fins of Tiktaalik Really Legs?
The limbs of tetrapods share similar characteristic features which meet the special demands of walking on land. In addition to a distinctive suite of bones in the limbs proper, there are characteristic bones in the ankle (or wrist) and in the digits (fingers and toes).

In order to support the weight of the body on land, and permit walking, the most proximal bones of the limbs must be securely attached to the rest of the body. The hind limbs in particular have a robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column. This differs radically from that of any fish including Tiktaalik. Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins. The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the fore limbs attached to the pectoral girdle.

It is significant that the “earliest” true tetrapods recognized by evolutionists (such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega) have all of the distinguishing features of tetrapod limbs (and their attachment bones) and were clearly capable of walking and breathing on land. The structural differences between the tetrapod leg and the fish fin is easily understood when we consider that the fish has no need to support its weight in water where it is essentially weightless.

Finally, no fish (including Tiktaalik) has true finger or toe bones. Instead, fish have slender bony fin rays, which even evolutionists concede are not homologous or related in any way to digits. While fin rays are ideal for swimming in water, they are unsuited to bear weight on land and thus permit only a slithering and belly-dragging mode of locomotion on land (in certain living species) that can be described as “walking” in only the most trivial sense of the word.

Also, discoverers of Tiktaalik claimed that Panderichthys possessed relatively few evolutionarily important similarities to tetrapods maybe. What would that tell you in regards to if Panderichtys is more than Tiktaalik in terms of evidence for fish evolving into land dwelling tetrapods? So, what suggests Panderichtys or Tiktaalik were anything other than aquatic?

"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation." (Dr Gary Parker Biologist/paleontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)

NG leads readers to believe that Darwin thought the fossil record supported his theory. But actually he admitted more than once in his famous book6 that the fossil record is an embarrassment to his theory of descent from a common ancestor. He knew that if his theory was true, there should be countless numbers of transitional forms (e.g., 100% reptile, 75% reptile-25% bird, 50% reptile-50%bird, 25% reptile-75%bird, 100% bird and many transitional forms between each of those). Darwin attributed the lack of evidence to our ignorance of the fossil record. But today our museums are loaded with fossils and the missing links are still missing.

As the late Harvard evolutionary geologist, Stephen Gould, put it:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.7

In a 1979 letter responding to the late creationist, Luther Sunderland, Colin Patterson, then Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, concurred:

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? ... You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.8

Richard Dawkins’ evolutionist disciple at Oxford University, Mark Ridley, is emphatic:

However, the gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. The same argument still applies. ... In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.9 [emphasis in the original]

- Creatures have brought forth variety and I'm not trying to argue that Noah brought chihuahuas and great danes on the ark by any means perhaps. Now did gill wielding fish somehow adapt lungs used for breathing outside of water and become non-fish? No perhaps. What can you provide in terms of evidence for that?

- You say one or more thing like there's no evolutionist who stands by punctuated equilibrium maybe.

- The answer to what is no? Are you claiming more of Tulerpeton has been found than just skull fragments, small belly scutes, an incomplete pectoral girdle, an incomplete forelimb and an incomplete hindlimb?

- Can we try to lay off ad hominem? Do you mean to claim you would have to translate stuff into a form I can understand like I am below you in terms of general intelligence?

- What do you want me to look for at the tetrapod wikipedia page or whatever?

- What do you want a link for? How about simply search Tulerpeton with wikipedia if you think it was not recovered from the Tula Region of Russia?

- You claim that if something is found it is not evidence counter to evolution? Can you explain what you mean if so?

- I have been taught that if I keep asking any evolutionist questions, they will get to a point where they cannot answer? Really? You should be careful about lying maybe.

- You suggest I do not check out sites referenced by you and yet have said little to nothing in three or more threads that suggests you have visited a single non-cc site referenced by me perhaps.

- You were suggesting fish simply sank to the bottom of bodies of water with fish in their mouths and fossilized like that earlier and now you are actually calling on flooding to explain maybe.

- How about provide some evidence showing an old earth if you claim there is plenty of it?

I was at least hinting at moon stuff brought up on page 5 maybe. How about give a response to this?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... 4/moon.asp

- Where does Genesis say that Adam and her were mortal before partaking?

- Whether or not the Sahara Desert and the Great Barrier Reef are evidence against evolution comes down to definition maybe. They're at least evidence for there having be a global flood less than 5,000 years ago perhaps.

Do you say evolution and mean cosmic, chemical, stellar, planetary, organic, macro and micro evolution? You yourself do not adamantly stand by universal common descent perhaps. It might be nice to see words from you theorizing about how many origins there have been. A couple for plants and a few for animals?

- I'm not claiming to be an expert in Hebrew, but I started studying it years ago and am pretty familiar with it maybe.

- Where did Darwin say he held off publishing a Descent of Man treatise because he was concerned it would be used as ammunition for race discrimination? I'm not claiming he didn't say that, but can you provide a source that says he did? He claimed that a married man was a poor slave worse than a negro on page 234 of The Autobiography of Charles Darwin perhaps.

- I'm not claiming that anything disproves anything depending on definition at least maybe, but did you flip through and see four or more slides?

- What do these have to do with when young earth creationism stuff has been taught?









http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... de0838.htm

You missed one or more point maybe. You're concerned there's a lack of macroevolutionary teaching being taught? Well, evidence suggests macroevolutionary teaching has led to there being an increase in violent crime offenses, child abuse, premarital sex, stds, teen suicides, and divorces while leading to a decrease in SAT scores perhaps. If we are to teach kids that they are descended from apes and have common heritage with earthworms, then what should we expect? You mean to ask what dropping SAT scores would have to do with how valid evolution is as a theory? Can you define evolution if so?

- What suggests these show bones or representations of bones that have evolved from legs?











- Why discuss Ambulocetus? Well, what do you suggest we discuss if we are to discuss whether or not whales evolved from creatures who had back legs used for walking on land? What do you have in terms of evidence suggesting whales did? Would it be a lie to say that Ambulocetus is The Fossil for arguing that whales evolved from four legged land animals?



Notice locations of things in images below? You can find over 15 foot long and 300 pound whale penises on earth maybe. Whales have no arms and use special muscles attached to bones in order to maneuver reproductive organs for mating perhaps.





If you're going to assume someone is ignorant about whale anatomy simply because they do not believe a mainstream evolutionary theory, that's a personal problem?

- Could the Father have created earth in a split second without you feeling as though it looked old? If you're going to assume that earth is the result of a random distribution of dust particles that came together randomly over billions of years, then you're going to assume earth is old even if it was created in a split second and you see it a second after it was created maybe.

NOTE: There are words in images in here that are not my own depending on definition at least and obviously so perhaps. Also, this includes one or more quote that's missing one or more hyperlink and that includes one or more number that should be raised up higher and smaller maybe... there is misquoting by me in here maybe... you might want to check these...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... lking-fish
http://www.delusionresistance.org/creat ... uotes.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp

[silvanricky]

- Where does Genesis say that Adam and her were mortal before partaking?

That's what I was thinking, too. Of course, I haven't been to a Sunday School in years. After reading through all this, I'm going to re-read Genesis though and see if it actually states that, or is Player just choosing to interpret it to mean that to fit her worldview.

[Frigidus]

- Where does Genesis say that Adam and her were mortal before partaking?

That's what I was thinking, too. Of course, I haven't been to a Sunday School in years. After reading through all this, I'm going to re-read Genesis though and see if it actually states that, or is Player just choosing to interpret it to mean that to fit her worldview.

It wouldn't make sense. Obviously I'm no Christian, but doesn't Yahweh kick them out of the garden because he was worried that they'd eat from the tree of life, making them immortal, and so now it's guarded by a floating sentient fire sword?

[PLAYER57832]

- If there's One Creator of the heavens, is that not true regardless of where we are?

what does this have to do with evolution?

-
- You keep trying to suggest I'm an idiot and I don't appreciate it perhaps.

Stupid, no. Lacking knowledge in evolution, yes. Repeating the same questions, etc. yes.

-
How about prove to me that fish came from non-fish if you can? Give me a site that will take 2 hours to read if you want to maybe.

First, a definition. Scientists almost never prove something is absolutely true. Instead, they try to disprove things.
As for something you could pick up in 2 hours? That's just it. I have given you the short version. However, to get to all the information you want will almost certainly take you much more than 2 hours. I am not sure all of it is on the web, even and for good reason. There is only so much you can discern from a picture. This is why trust in the scientific process is so important. See, I cannot possibly go and look myself at all the evidence and also, well, live my life. Instead, I know that for something to appear in a journal and be accepted by the scientific community, it must meet some very, very serious standards. It has to be repeatable, use accepted methods, etc.

- If some sedimentary strata was laid by floods and some was not, then is there a way for us to tell the difference?

Yes. Further, it is possible to tell sediments from one flood from another flood. (with some limits). It is definitely possible to tell whether a rock was created in one area or another because the rocks that make up each drainage are different, which, in turn are different from the ocean deposits. That's just a start, but again, these are things that people study for years. Just studying ONE flood layer could give someone a PhD, so asking me to explain it all here and now is just not possible.

If there happens to be a fossil standing up through multiple layers of sedimentary rock it's from a flood and if not, it's not?

Yes, but to understand this, back up a little bit. Rivers, etc flood regularly. EACH flood leaves a distinct layer. Becuase the soils, the rock, etc from which that water comes is different, the sediments deposited by any particular flood will differ. Not necessarily always, but pretty close. Each flood then appears as a distinct layer in the sediment. Each layer then can serve as a "marker" for a season of time. Note, I say "season", not "year" or any other specific time, because not only can the time vary between streams, they can vary within streams. Another area -- say, parts of Australia, might have wind-born sediments. They will look quite different from other types of sediments. Then you have rock from Volcanic blasts, like the ash that has just shut down air travel all over Europe. That dust, when it settles, will look different from other types of deposits. It will also cover a very, very wide area. A flood is often too localized (in too small an area) to provide a real time marker. That is, you can tell, say that 20 floods happened on river x, but did they happen before or after the floods on the river 1000 miles away in a completely different drainage? Volcanic eruptions, however, can cover an entire globe. They then CAN serve as real comparative time markers.

Texas is a pretty big state maybe. What would global sea level rising have to do with burying a tree over a hundred feet tall in wet sediment? The Kettles coal mines have hundreds of petrified trees thirty to hundreds of feet in height with tops and bottoms in different coal seams dated thousands of years apart perhaps. The Kettles coal mines are even inland enough to be in or just outside of or in and just outside of Tennessee maybe.

I could not find anything about this specifically and don't know off the top of my head. However, it does seem that you are operating under some incorrect assumptions . Texas has not always been as you see. At one point, all the continents were joined. Parts have been lifted up to form mountains or shifted. The Appalacian and Cumber land ranges out East here are relatively old, were formed a long, long time ago. The Rocky Mountains and Sierras are comparatively young. In some areas, (the Marble Mountains is notorious), the rocks are bent and melted and twisted from all sort of geologic processes.

Also, there are even polystrate trees found upside down and animal polystrate fossils perhaps. What would rising sea levels do to explain either?

Obviously, you did not read the explanation in the link I provided, because the answer is obviously "no". There are several ways it could happen.

- What could the geologist do not counting ask if an index fossil was found with the limestone? Index fossils are used to date strata and yet strata is also used to date index fossils perhaps. Do you claim that's not true?

First, limestone is itself basically "fossil'. If you were to look at it under a microscope, you would see all kinds of strange structures.

As for how a scientist would age it. They would consult with other scientists if they themselves had a question, so "ask" is perfectly legitimate. Anyway, for something to become and index fossil, it first has to be shown to represent a specific time period or location. Even so, there are plenty of graduate students and other scientists who will try to challenge the assertion. However, if the proof is solid enough, it will be accepted in time. By "accepted", I don't mean "unchallengable", I mean just that you are going to have to come up with something pretty spectacular to show it was wrong. Some indexes are more certain than others. Some are used just tentatively or for relative comparisions. (this rock is older than that rock, but we don't know by how much or that rock probably came from a different area, but where is yet to be determined... etc.).

Strata are more straightforward. They are dated based on layers. Something that is below another layer is usually older. This is not necessarily true, because as I mentioned above, rocks (whole earthforms) and twist. Just for a simple example, if a big rock shelf breaks off and turns upside down, the top will be on the bottom. HOWEVER, all of this can be seen with mapping. NOTE, some times things are so confused no clear picture emerges. The Marble Mountains, to which I referred above, is part of something sometimes referred to as the "Klamath Knot". It got that name both becuase the rocks look twisted, almost like knot in some places and because untangling it (geologically speaking) was like untangling a knot.

So, a section of rock (probably NOT limestone, by-the way) is determined to be of a certain age, based on where it is found, compared with various other strata, etc. Anyway, once the age is determined Or roughly determined (in geology even a few thousand years is like a microsecond to us), then Paleontologists will try to see if there are particular fossils that can be used to identify that rock, that location and/or that age. This is done cautiously.

Anyway, over a great deal of time by many scientists, after many scientists collected a great deal of samples over many years (aristotle is reported to have been the first to recognize fossils as formerly living creatures), they do have a pretty decent picture of certain time periods and certain areas. NOW, with all of that verified data, they have groups of index fossils that can be used to age specimens, tentatively. However, note that "tentative", because scientists are always on the lookout for anomalies. Sometimes they are found. A species thought to have died out in a certain period might be found to have persisted later.

Like anything, the more its studied, the less likelihood of errors. By now, a lot of the fossil record is so well studied, has so much evidence it is pretty close to "proving" evolution happens. The chances that something other than evolution happened is very, very, very small. The chances that the earth is young, though are zero, (unless, as I said before, God made the earth quickly, but made it appear to be very old).

Are you meaning to suggest that there's one specific chemical makeup for 100 million-year-old Jurassic limestone and one specific chemical makeup of 600 million-year-old Cambrian limestone that are different from one another?

I don't know about those specific rocks. I would guess that limestone would be very easy to tell, because being made up of living organisms, the organisms will change over time. Also, the chemical composition of their shells likely changed in time. However, it gets much more specific than simply telling Cambrian from Jurrasic. Rock from the various layers of the Grand Canyon, for example look very different and they look different from rock in Bryce and Zion and Cedar Breaks. (all western US parks). Rock in China looks different from each of those. HOWEVER, rock in Scotland looks like rock here in parts of the US because they were once connected.

- Fossils are remarkable if there was not an earthwide flood at least maybe. How about you provide a theory on how a dead organism could end up being preserved in wet sediment without decomposing or being eaten by scavengers if you have one that does not involve a flood?

OK, first, I am not disputing a flood. However, one flood could not possibly explain all the fossils or even close. Among other issues, not all fossils are even in sedimentary rocks. Nowhere near all sedimentary rocks were formed in floods. I explained some of why above.

As for how fossils are formed without scavengers eating them.. I provided you a link showing quite a few ways fossils are formed. A lot of fossils were buried in water-born sediments. Not one single flood, but many, many. That is known. Some were preserved in tar pits, some in amber (not sure those are true fossils, because I believe they still contain all their organic matter, but the site I referenced included them). ETC.

- What HAS been found in terms of fossils? Literally billions and yet only a handful of highly debatable ones that some try to claim are in a transition from fish to land dwelling tetrapods? Should the fossil record not have literally millions of examples of creatures clearly in a transition between fish and land dwelling tetrapods if fish slowly evolved into land dwelling tetrapods over millions of years?

"Should have?" Who says? Why "should" there be so many more fossils? In fact, it is surprising and fortunate that we have as many fossils as we have. You keep harping on the same point and keep refusing the answers. My response is not going to change. Whoever is trying to tell you this "must" be so is just plain wrong.

Panderichthys and Tiktaalik are simply fish while Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are simply land dwelling tetrapods maybe.
Nearly all bony fish have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and well-developed gills consistent with an entirely aquatic lifestyle and Tiktaalik is a bony fish that is no exception to that by any means perhaps.

Your point? I am not a paleontologist. I do trust that Paleontologists know a good deal more about this than someone who doesn't know that the earth is made up of layers of rock formed through various processes. (that is, Dr Morris)

You just referred to stuff claiming a thrusting arms and legs forward type motion would have been impossible for Tiktaalik RIGHT after referring to a statement that claims Tiktaalik had limb-like fins that could take it on to land maybe! Conflicting sources? : )

No, . I sent you to a site that explained how paleontologists have determined the phylogeny of fish, in brief, and then said that if you wanted to find the whole answer, you would have to follow up on the citations and do some investigation into it yourself.

Do two websites give different explanations? Maybe and maybe you just misunderstood what was being said. Either way, you need to follow up the citations (and probably the citations for the citations.. etc.), look up where the information came from. If it comes from a recognized scientific journal, then it is probably OK. If not, you need to find where the date comes from and try to determine if it was a legitimate study or something mis-reported. (that is, the original publication might say x, but someone might have misunderstood and claimed it said "y") Also check the dates. It could be that something was thought to be true, but now is known not to be true.

THAT is the kind of research you have to do to verify, never mind challenge any of these assertions. Simply saying "this doesn't make sense" is like my three year old saying he doesn't need his jacket because it is sunny and there is no snow outside. He is thinking logically, but lacks a good deal of information.

Are the Pectoral Fins of Tiktaalik Really Legs?
The limbs of tetrapods share similar characteristic features which meet the special demands of walking on land. In addition to a distinctive suite of bones in the limbs proper, there are characteristic bones in the ankle (or wrist) and in the digits (fingers and toes).

You want to put a lot of emphasis on this one species. I don't know anything about it. I already told you it has been a couple of decades since I studied any of this and there is a good chance that things have changed a lot since I was in school. This "tiktaalik" rings a bell as either a new finding or a known species that is being evaluated in a new way. I will look over the arguments you present below. If they are typical of most creation scientists they will be full of opinion that pretends to be fact and various jumps of unproven conclusions.

BUT, even if there is a probelm with this one species, I DO know that there are several referenes, not just one, to land species that evolve into fish.

In order to support the weight of the body on land, and permit walking, the most proximal bones of the limbs must be securely attached to the rest of the body. The hind limbs in particular have a robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column. This differs radically from that of any fish including Tiktaalik. Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins. The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the fore limbs attached to the pectoral girdle.

You (or more likely the creationist scientist you are referencing) are jumping from this Tiktaalik to modern fish and skipping quite a few jumps in between.

It is significant that the “earliest” true tetrapods recognized by evolutionists (such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega) have all of the distinguishing features of tetrapod limbs (and their attachment bones) and were clearly capable of walking and breathing on land. The structural differences between the tetrapod leg and the fish fin is easily understood when we consider that the fish has no need to support its weight in water where it is essentially weightless.

We have fish that walk on land right now. (lungfish, etc.). We also have lobed-fin fish (Ceolocanth). So, what you are referring to is just a definitional devision, not a break in evolutionary descent.

Finally, no fish (including Tiktaalik) has true finger or toe bones. Instead, fish have slender bony fin rays, which even evolutionists concede are not homologous or related in any way to digits. While fin rays are ideal for swimming in water, they are unsuited to bear weight on land and thus permit only a slithering and belly-dragging mode of locomotion on land (in certain living species) that can be described as “walking” in only the most trivial sense of the word.

Fins and digits are not related. This is true. This person seems to be trying to take this truth and pretend it is proof against a common descent. All it shows is that these particular features evolved seperately. Something that became mammals evolved from something similar to a lobed-fin fish. Something else evolved into modern fish. They had a point of commonality, (maybe it even is this Tiktaalik, I don't know!) but after that each went in different directions.

Also, discoverers of Tiktaalik claimed that Panderichthys possessed relatively few evolutionarily important similarities to tetrapods maybe. What would that tell you in regards to if Panderichtys is more than Tiktaalik in terms of evidence for fish evolving into land dwelling tetrapods? So, what suggests Panderichtys or Tiktaalik were anything other than aquatic?

I don't know if it would say anything at all.

You quoted a bunch of stuff that you apparently feel challenges the assertion that mammals and fish are not related through a common ancestor, but in fact none of that in any way proves that assertion at all.

"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation.

Absolutely not true, and why I say that this goes beyond simply believing something different and into outright lying to children.

If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation." (Dr Gary Parker Biologist/paleontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)

This is just plain wrong. But, when it is printed in a textbook and presented to children by someone who claims to be a scientist speaking truth.. it is believed. I say go out and find the REAL truth. It exists. Do not accept this pack of lies.

NG leads readers to believe that Darwin thought the fossil record supported his theory. But actually he admitted more than once in his famous book6 that the fossil record is an embarrassment to his theory of descent from a common ancestor. He knew that if his theory was true, there should be countless numbers of transitional forms (e.g., 100% reptile, 75% reptile-25% bird, 50% reptile-50%bird, 25% reptile-75%bird, 100% bird and many transitional forms between each of those).

Darwin got a LOT of things wrong. He assumed there was a steady evolutionary track. Instead, we have several huge die-offs of species, followed by emergeance of mostly new species. He also thought the earth was a lot younger than we now know it to be. (millions instead of billions of years old). Again, this is a classic example of what young earth creationist try to assert is science, but really is just ignoring a lot of facts.

Darwin attributed the lack of evidence to our ignorance of the fossil record. But today our museums are loaded with fossils and the missing links are still missing.

We have a LOT more fossils than when Darwin was around. But missing links will likely always exist. However, the parts of the chain that do exist are plenty to show that the picture we have of Evolution is almost certainly true. At any rate, what young earth creationists try to put forward is absolutely not true.

As the late Harvard evolutionary geologist, Stephen Gould, put it:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.7

This is just not true.

And, the biggest point is that if young earth creationists are correct, that there are small changes within species but that species cannot change into other species, then there should not be any transition fossils. Also, there should not be the many layers of absolutely distinct fossil forms that exist. When dinosaurs were around, there were no humans or Mastodons. Neither existed in the Devonian. Etc.

In a 1979 letter responding to the late creationist, Luther Sunderland, Colin Patterson, then Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, concurred:

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? ... You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.

Pretty much as I said from the beginning, that scientists have an EXTREMELY high standard for what they say is proven. The evidence for evolution is phenomenal. Actually, "evolution", as in the general idea that things change over time, is FACT. However, the theory of Evolution is, despite all the evidence, all the considerable evidence, is still considered a theory.

In no way does this mean that its OK to just bring in another theory and claim it is valid, because evolution is not 100% proven. Again, Evolution is not 100% proven, BUT, young earth creationism is proven false.

Richard Dawkins’ evolutionist disciple at Oxford University, Mark Ridley, is emphatic:

However, the gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. The same argument still applies. ... In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.9 [emphasis in the original]

.[/quote]
OK, this is clearly something taken a bit out of context. He is saying the fossil record is not evidence against a Godly design. It isn't. Nor is it evidence against Godly creation. The fossil record is, however, definitely part of the proof for the theory of Evolution.

- The answer to what is no? Are you claiming more of Tulerpeton has been found than just skull fragments, small belly scutes, an incomplete pectoral girdle, an incomplete forelimb and an incomplete hindlimb?

I am saying that this is not all the evidence that exists. For that one species, perhaps. But there are many species to consider.

- I have been taught that if I keep asking any evolutionist questions, they will get to a point where they cannot answer? Really? You should be careful about lying maybe.

I said I suspect this is the case. It IS what children were taught a few years back. I don't know what you were taught, only what your postings here indicate.

- You were suggesting fish simply sank to the bottom of bodies of water with fish in their mouths and fossilized like that earlier and now you are actually calling on flooding to explain maybe.

There have been many, many floods. I never denied that.

- Where does Genesis say that Adam and her were mortal before partaking?

This part:
Genesis 3:22
And the lord said "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever"

If Adam and Eve were already immortal, then there would be no need for the fear of them eating from the tree of life.
A better question is why young earthers like to insist that they were immortal when the Bible does not say this at all.

- Where did Darwin say he held off publishing a Descent of Man treatise because he was concerned it would be used as ammunition for race discrimination? I'm not claiming he didn't say that, but can you provide a source that says he did?

Look, it took me over an hour just to type this. If it doesn't have to do directly with evolution, I am not wasting my time!

[PLAYER57832]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp

I have begun looking over this one. It is not the first time I have seen it, no. However, I gave you almost 4 hours over the past 2 days, plus the time I gave Nightstrike's answer, etc. I am taking a break today.

And... I am waiting for a real response to the 2 posts I have already made.

[tzor]

- Where does Genesis say that Adam and her were mortal before partaking?

That's what I was thinking, too. Of course, I haven't been to a Sunday School in years. After reading through all this, I'm going to re-read Genesis though and see if it actually states that, or is Player just choosing to interpret it to mean that to fit her worldview.

Isn’t this the statistical analysis of the single occurrence problem? The question of whether Adam and Eve could die at any point of time is irreverent if they in fact did not die. On the one hand, there is mention of the penalty of the fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden is death, but they don’t die immediately. On the other hand, the point about the tree of life only comes after they have the knowledge of good and evil.

Given that in any event the life span of the two was still way beyond most life insurance charts, isn’t the whole question a moot one?

[PLAYER57832]

- Where does Genesis say that Adam and her were mortal before partaking?

That's what I was thinking, too. Of course, I haven't been to a Sunday School in years. After reading through all this, I'm going to re-read Genesis though and see if it actually states that, or is Player just choosing to interpret it to mean that to fit her worldview.

The quick answer is in Genesis 3:21-22. Basically, if they already were immortal, then why was it necessary to cast them out of the garden to keep them from eating of the tree of life.

Related, though more opinion, is why it would specify that Adam and Eve had knowledge of sin, "covered themselves", etc., but just completely leave out that they became mortal.

Later references, in Romans, for example, where Paul equates sin to death are generally understood to refer to spiritual death. There is reference to sin being something that gets in the way of us relating to God, that, in a sense gets between us and God. In that sense, Christ brings life and sin death. Sin takes us away from God and Christ unites us with God. This is just a very rough explanation, of course. And, the last bit is not what all theologians think, by any means. However, only a few, basically only those tied with the young earth group, insist that this reference in Romans, etc refers to a real, physical death.

[Night Strike]

- Where does Genesis say that Adam and her were mortal before partaking?

That's what I was thinking, too. Of course, I haven't been to a Sunday School in years. After reading through all this, I'm going to re-read Genesis though and see if it actually states that, or is Player just choosing to interpret it to mean that to fit her worldview.

The quick answer is in Genesis 3:21-22. Basically, if they already were immortal, then why was it necessary to cast them out of the garden to keep them from eating of the tree of life.

Related, though more opinion, is why it would specify that Adam and Eve had knowledge of sin, "covered themselves", etc., but just completely leave out that they became mortal.

Later references, in Romans, for example, where Paul equates sin to death are generally understood to refer to spiritual death. There is reference to sin being something that gets in the way of us relating to God, that, in a sense gets between us and God. In that sense, Christ brings life and sin death. Sin takes us away from God and Christ unites us with God. This is just a very rough explanation, of course. And, the last bit is not what all theologians think, by any means. However, only a few, basically only those tied with the young earth group, insist that this reference in Romans, etc refers to a real, physical death.

The garden contained two special trees: Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and Tree of Life. Adam and Eve were forbade only from eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, so by omission, they were allowed to eat from the Tree of Life. Once they sinned in disobeying by eating from the Good and Evil tree, they were kicked out of the garden so that they nor anyone after them could partake of the Tree of Life to regain everlasting life. This is also where it said that because of their actions, pain and death had entered the world, which neither were present prior to that sin. God specifically told them that they would have to toil the earth to provide for themselves and that the women would have pain in child bearing. There had not previously been pain in child bearing because no children had been made prior to Adam and Eve, so they were not "children" of another species, which means evolution is contradictory to the Fall of Man.

[silvanricky]

The quick answer is in Genesis 3:21-22. Basically, if they already were immortal, then why was it necessary to cast them out of the garden to keep them from eating of the tree of life.

Related, though more opinion, is why it would specify that Adam and Eve had knowledge of sin, "covered themselves", etc., but just completely leave out that they became mortal.

Later references, in Romans, for example, where Paul equates sin to death are generally understood to refer to spiritual death. There is reference to sin being something that gets in the way of us relating to God, that, in a sense gets between us and God. In that sense, Christ brings life and sin death. Sin takes us away from God and Christ unites us with God. This is just a very rough explanation, of course. And, the last bit is not what all theologians think, by any means. However, only a few, basically only those tied with the young earth group, insist that this reference in Romans, etc refers to a real, physical death.

Player, I admit that my knowledge of the Bible is severely lacking so I had to do a little research on this. My background is that I went to Christian church as a boy, but now I am just a very strong believer in God's existence. I do believe there's a "purpose" from God, but there are so many voices saying one thing and being contradicted by others that I just sort of give up.

Now having said that, I did look into the whole temptation thing with Eve and the serpent. What I found was that the phrase God said in the original Hebrew would mean for us in today's English that "the day that you eat the fruit you are doomed to die" which means that there wouldn't be a physical death at the moment that she sinned or ate the fruit. Eve used a different word when talking to the serpent that implied that she thought that there would be an immediate death. When the serpent continued to tempt her, it repeated the language that Eve used, which was that there would be no immediate death. So technically, the serpent was telling the truth, but also being a deceiver at the same time because it knew that it was only the destiny towards death that would happen. That's all if you believe the Genesis story.

On the other hand, you asked the question of why they had to be kicked out. The explanations I read said that if Adam & Eve were allowed to eat of the tree of life then they would have been everlastingly separated from God with no chance of being redeemed. God created the sacrificial system and then later Jesus came to replace that so that people could be redeemed. Once again, that's all if you believe the Bible.

But this is also one of the reasons I find it hard to be part of organized Christian religion. People say that we need to believe the Bible and trust it. One group says the earth is young like around 6,000 - 10,000 years old and make unjustified attacks on believers who believe in evolution and the Bible. They also think the government is behind catastrophes like 9/11 or that "God hates fags". Then there are people like tzor who say that if you read the Bible outside of their group or organization and interpret it for yourself then you're committing heresy. Finally, there are people like yourself who ridicule the young earth Christians, mock the prosperous, and vote for political candidates like Obama who are slowly taking away our individual liberties outlined in the Constitution in the name of "fairness". Which makes me just say WTF!! and never want to go to church ever again. All of you can't be completely right and all of you can't be completely wrong. I don't think Jesus would approve of any of you to be honest.

[tzor]

The garden contained two special trees: Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and Tree of Life. Adam and Eve were forbade only from eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, so by omission, they were allowed to eat from the Tree of Life. Once they sinned in disobeying by eating from the Good and Evil tree, they were kicked out of the garden so that they nor anyone after them could partake of the Tree of Life to regain everlasting life. This is also where it said that because of their actions, pain and death had entered the world, which neither were present prior to that sin. God specifically told them that they would have to toil the earth to provide for themselves and that the women would have pain in child bearing. There had not previously been pain in child bearing because no children had been made prior to Adam and Eve, so they were not "children" of another species, which means evolution is contradictory to the Fall of Man.

Department of the picking of the nits (especially annoying to literalists):

Out of the ground the LORD God made various trees grow that were delightful to look at and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.

The woman answered the serpent: "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, 'You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.'"

The first note is that they “may” eat, but not that they have eaten. The second note is that since even touching that other tree next to the first is death, it’s probably not on their list of “fruit to eat.”

More over the whole question is really moot. How old is Adam at the time of this event?

Adam was one hundred and thirty years old when he begot a son in his likeness, after his image; and he named him Seth.

Seth was born after Cain kills Abel. How much later? Well just before Genesis 4:25, the writers list 5 generations of men from Cain. Now, how old is everyone when they are having children? Let’s use 15 for the moment. That would indicate 75 years right off of the bat. Not counting “In the course of time” (the time from the birth of Abel until his offering). Not counting how long it was from the point of being expelled until the birth of Cain. All in all we are counting a span of perhaps a score to less than three score. Assuming you take everything literally.

[PLAYER57832]

The quick answer is in Genesis 3:21-22. Basically, if they already were immortal, then why was it necessary to cast them out of the garden to keep them from eating of the tree of life.

Related, though more opinion, is why it would specify that Adam and Eve had knowledge of sin, "covered themselves", etc., but just completely leave out that they became mortal.

Later references, in Romans, for example, where Paul equates sin to death are generally understood to refer to spiritual death. There is reference to sin being something that gets in the way of us relating to God, that, in a sense gets between us and God. In that sense, Christ brings life and sin death. Sin takes us away from God and Christ unites us with God. This is just a very rough explanation, of course. And, the last bit is not what all theologians think, by any means. However, only a few, basically only those tied with the young earth group, insist that this reference in Romans, etc refers to a real, physical death.

Player, I admit that my knowledge of the Bible is severely lacking so I had to do a little research on this. My background is that I went to Christian church as a boy, but now I am just a very strong believer in God's existence. I do believe there's a "purpose" from God, but there are so many voices saying one thing and being contradicted by others that I just sort of give up.

Now having said that, I did look into the whole temptation thing with Eve and the serpent. What I found was that the phrase God said in the original Hebrew would mean for us in today's English that "the day that you eat the fruit you are doomed to die" which means that there wouldn't be a physical death at the moment that she sinned or ate the fruit. Eve used a different word when talking to the serpent that implied that she thought that there would be an immediate death. When the serpent continued to tempt her, it repeated the language that Eve used, which was that there would be no immediate death. So technically, the serpent was telling the truth, but also being a deceiver at the same time because it knew that it was only the destiny towards death that would happen. That's all if you believe the Genesis story.

On the other hand, you asked the question of why they had to be kicked out. The explanations I read said that if Adam & Eve were allowed to eat of the tree of life then they would have been everlastingly separated from God with no chance of being redeemed. God created the sacrificial system and then later Jesus came to replace that so that people could be redeemed. Once again, that's all if you believe the Bible.

But this is also one of the reasons I find it hard to be part of organized Christian religion. People say that we need to believe the Bible and trust it. One group says the earth is young like around 6,000 - 10,000 years old and make unjustified attacks on believers who believe in evolution and the Bible. They also think the government is behind catastrophes like 9/11 or that "God hates fags". Then there are people like tzor who say that if you read the Bible outside of their group or organization and interpret it for yourself then you're committing heresy. Finally, there are people like yourself who ridicule the young earth Christians, mock the prosperous, and vote for political candidates like Obama who are slowly taking away our individual liberties outlined in the Constitution in the name of "fairness". Which makes me just say WTF!! and never want to go to church ever again. All of you can't be completely right and all of you can't be completely wrong. I don't think Jesus would approve of any of you to be honest.

Thank you.

I have not heard that interpretation of the Hebrew before. If you have references, I would appreciate seeing them (pm is fine.. not trying to drive this debate further afield).

Per the disagreements, it does not matter how perfect the Bible is, people are different. I don't believe this is by accident. I believe God directs people in different ways and sometimes even toward different "answers" for his reasons. When I look at Genesis, the important point is that God created all, God is in control. Whether God "snapped his fingers" and created all in 6 earthly days or used a more long, drawn-out process is not important.

IN Christ's sermons, he told us to "love God and love one another" and that through him we would be saved. He did not say believe the earth was created in 6 days, or else. In fact there is no mention by Christ of that at all.

[silvanricky]

Player, this is one of the pages I read from for the part about "surely you will die when you eat of it" quote.

http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/die.html

There was some other stuff too about the serpent telepathically communicating with Eve. Don't know if I buy the entire argument on that.

[PLAYER57832]

The garden contained two special trees: .

I need to do a little research before responding. I don't have the time for that right now, but did not want you to think I had ignored your answer.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, this is one of the pages I read from for the part about "surely you will die when you eat of it" quote.

http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/die.html

There was some other stuff too about the serpent telepathically communicating with Eve. Don't know if I buy the entire argument on that.

Thanks I will look into it, soon.

[PLAYER57832]

- Where does Genesis say that Adam and her were mortal before partaking?

That's what I was thinking, too. Of course, I haven't been to a Sunday School in years. After reading through all this, I'm going to re-read Genesis though and see if it actually states that, or is Player just choosing to interpret it to mean that to fit her worldview.

The quick answer is in Genesis 3:21-22. Basically, if they already were immortal, then why was it necessary to cast them out of the garden to keep them from eating of the tree of life.

Related, though more opinion, is why it would specify that Adam and Eve had knowledge of sin, "covered themselves", etc., but just completely leave out that they became mortal.

Later references, in Romans, for example, where Paul equates sin to death are generally understood to refer to spiritual death. There is reference to sin being something that gets in the way of us relating to God, that, in a sense gets between us and God. In that sense, Christ brings life and sin death. Sin takes us away from God and Christ unites us with God. This is just a very rough explanation, of course. And, the last bit is not what all theologians think, by any means. However, only a few, basically only those tied with the young earth group, insist that this reference in Romans, etc refers to a real, physical death.

The garden contained two special trees: Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and Tree of Life. Adam and Eve were forbade only from eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, so by omission, they were allowed to eat from the Tree of Life. Once they sinned in disobeying by eating from the Good and Evil tree, they were kicked out of the garden so that they nor anyone after them could partake of the Tree of Life to regain everlasting life. This is also where it said that because of their actions, pain and death had entered the world, which neither were present prior to that sin. God specifically told them that they would have to toil the earth to provide for themselves and that the women would have pain in child bearing. There had not previously been pain in child bearing because no children had been made prior to Adam and Eve, so they were not "children" of another species, which means evolution is contradictory to the Fall of Man.

First, I want to say that this is, at least a logical answer. I have 2 issues. From a young earth perspective, I am old enough to have seen this whole debate change signficantly over time. Young earthers make the claim that the young earth interpretation is the only interpretation possible, so to have seen this interpretation change over a mere 30 years is well, questionable just on the surface. That said, there have always been different views on the teachings of the Bible and even what should be in the Bible from the beginning. That is, after all, why the cannon, etc. It is also why the Apocrypha. So, even though I find it extremely disengenuous that someone such as Dr Morris, who is literally turning science on its head, would so flip-flop about the book he claims to be guided by, I recognize that there have alwys been some scholars with these various views.

Is it a valid view? To my reading, no. The Bible pretty clearly spells out the consequences of eating from the tree of knowledge. (and that is the translation in the Bibles I read, not the "tree of good and evil") In fact, technically, it was not even sin that was brought to earth, but knowledge of sin that came with eating of the fruit. However, to disobey God was itself sin, so the point is a bit convoluted. That is, they brought sin by disobeying, but it was knowledge that came from the fruit. Many early people took this to mean even a particular kind of sin - carnal knowledge. I don't buy that interpretation.

Ultimately, the biggest problem I have with your interpretation is that it just is not what the Bible says. There is this reference and then a couple within the New Testament that can possibly be interpreted to mean that Adam and Eve were first immortal. However, if that were what we to understand, then why did the Bible not specify that? Where things are not specified, it is because the details don't matter. (I set aside error, with the provison that any error was intentionally allowed by God to persist)

This brings me to the ultimate issue I have with Dr Morris and all he and his followers put forth. What is the purpose and what is the result? I actually do think Dr Morris fully believes he is acted from faith. However, a lot of people have done things from a "position of believed faith". People are fully fallible and fully capable of doing even very great evil, whilst believing they are following God's will. Our history is full of examples.

The line here is not the line of faith, but of proof. No one disputes Dr Morris or anyone else's right to simply believe that God created the earth in 6 days. If they wish to say "well, yes, I know that there is lot's of evidence supporting evolution, but I still just don't believe it is true". That is an acceptable position. That is not, however, Dr Morris or his follower's position. It is not how you have described your position, at all.

No, the young earth position is not that the Bible contradicts all the scientific evidence, the young earth position is that the scientific evidence is just false (or misunderstood, etc.). THAT is where the issue comes into play. That is also where the second question, "why" must be asked. See, the evidence, the evidence I laid out above and much, much more really and truly does exist. For the most part, young earth "scientists" don't even really try to deny it, they simply ignore any evidence they cannot immediately disprove. I show examples of this in the 2 articles I critique. But note, even though I have more knowledge on this than the average person, I am not, myself an expert in this. That doesn't mean I know nothing. It does mean that when it comes to some of the very minute details I do rely on the information of others.

That, is the real crux of this. "Who should one trust". I will put forward that what Dr Morris is really doing is setting the clock back on the Protestant reformation AND upon Vatican II. He is attempting to substitute following his particular religious "scientists" and leaders for listening to the accepted and verified science that is considered trustworthy by people of all faiths. The only ones who even come close to accepted what creation scientists put forward are other creation scientists. People of any belief, however, can look at the evidence put forward by accepted scientists and believe it or counter it. Yes, there are absolutely errors. However, science operates through those errors.

Creation scientists sometimes do come up with real and true criticisms. In that way, they can actually help advance science. HOWEVER, most of what they put forward is a kind of "buckshot", "throw out whatever we can and see if something happens to hit" kind of approach. Even the criticisms don't really knit together well. The criticisms never take ALL the information available into account, only certain, often legitimately questionable, pieces. They accept the questions, but not any real answers.

The fundament of the Protestant reformation, that the individual is gifted with an individual brain and ability to think, that no one human being has the ultimate jurisdiction or understanding of God. We each are responsible onto ourselves, not mere robots content to follow a leader (and yes, the Roman Catholic church changed a good deal as well. They do allow free thought, but at the time of the reformation, that was much more limited. Corruption was rife within the church of that day).
By telling children to listen only to their pastors and certain scientists he (or his colleagues) approve and to completely and utterly distrust other science, the effect is to create a generation of people, such as yourself who is all to ready to crticize and condem anything put forward by the scientific establishment. It is to create a generation of people who will accept what they are told, though Dr Morris and his ilk are very skilled and adept at what they do. The problem is, unless you have actually studied evolution, studied real science, then what they say can make perfect sense. And, when it doesn't, they fall back on "well, whom do you trust?".

So, again, it gets back to trust. On the one side is Dr Morris. He wants you to trust him and his ideas. Science, by contrast, says to accept only that which can be proven true. Anything else is open to faith judgements (though some scientists definitely have trouble doing this, there are plenty of other scientists ready to pounce on such pronouncements and declare them for the unscientific assertions they are). The evidence is there. However, it is not simple, "read it in 2 hours" type evidence.

Questioning, disbelieving everything is not bad. It is very much how science moves forward. HOWEVER, when you or anyone else puts forward criticism without the knowledge necessary to truly make any of those criticisms valid, it IS a big problem. This doesn't mean you are stupid, at all. It takes YEARS of study to gain experience and knowledge of even one fossil group. As an example, you say you are studying chemistry. Now, I have a smattering of above-average knowledge of chemistry. I took not just the bare basics, but Organic chemistry, etc. So, I can talk a bit about orbitals, can talk a bit about some bonds. I know enough of both chemistry and biology to know that putting all these hormonal type chemicals is a potentially huge problem for us humans. I know enough to know that studies done on one, single chemical don't give information on what happens when those chemicals are released and combine with other chemicals. I also know enough to know that if we find that certian hormones are affecting frogs, it is not proof that these chemicals will harm us, but it certainly is a warning sign that we need to study. It is a sign that we ignore to our perile, becuase even if we cannot absolutely, for certain say they will harm us, the time it may take to find the links is so great that waiting to act for that eventuality means finding the problem long after damage is done.

If you wanted to talk specifically about any one chemical or the details of the evidence of one particular chemical's safety, I would have to do a great deal of research. I cannot identify which chemicals will necessarily bond with which other chemical under which specific conditions. I can talk very generally about "effects of chemicals", and regarding effects, in some cases, perhaps with more knowledge than you. However, when it comes to how, exactly to create or deal with those chemicals (aside from just stopping artificial production), I am not a chemist and therefore you almost certainly have more knowledge than I. Well, you have more knowledge about those chemicals you study, anyway. Chemistry, too is far too broad a subject for any one person to know all. So, therefore, even while disputing scientists and experts in other fields, you yourself, must "listen to experts" within your own field.

[Lionz]

PLAYER,

- I'm interested in discussing more than evolution perhaps.

- What about evolution is testable, observable, or demonstrable?

- What suggests to you that there's not sedimentary rock scattered across the earth that was laid by underwater turbidity currents from the flood? With the Morrison Formation being an example of a pocket of sedimentary rock that was laid by it?













Consider out west in general maybe.

Is there not a crater in Arizona that was apparently caused by something with an unnaturally shaped end with four sides? Hmm.

Does scripture not suggest that fountains of the great deep broke open to help flood the earth? Well, does earth not contain geothermal features and geysers with more than half of the former and 80% of the later found in Yellowstone?

Is there not an underground aquifer spanning 8 states and stretching to just east of Yellowstone?

Is Snake River Plain not just southwest of Yellowstone and the result of water running down and smoothing out land?

Are the Channeled Scablands not just to the northwest and the result of water carving up land?

Is Great Salt Lake a body of salt water that's trapped between mountains?

Are Monument Valley and Rainbow Bridge (not sure if RB is technically part of Monument Valley or not perhaps) and Petrified Forest National Park not all apparently located in areas that were once basins of bodies of water? Areas just east and northeast of the Kiabab Uplift and the Grand Canyon?

Is there not a main exit of the Grand Canyon with the Algodones Dunes (Tatooine of Star Wars filmed there?) swept off the side just south of it?

And is the Morrison Formation not right smack dab in the middle of it all with fossils galore?









































Compare two below?





- These all show upstream from the Grand Canyon or an actual starting point of the Grand Canyon or both perhaps. See a main funneled canyon and also a smaller canyon that the Colorado River sits in? How about provide a theory on where each came from if so?







The grand canyon was carved during or after the flood as a result of two natural dams being breached and those all show areas where a first of two was breached perhaps. A first was breached and flooding water came down and breached another as a result and water from both combined to cut the Grand Canyon into the Kiabab Uplift as a result maybe. Notice areas for Grand Canyon, Marble Caynon, Monument Valley and Petrified Forest National Park below?



- You claim EACH flood leaves a distinct layer? How about tell me how many floods are represented in things below?





Note: I left out the second earlier and meant to refer to it and have edited it in and said stuff wrong maybe.

- Did you say Texas and mean Tennessee? What would global sea level rising have to do with burying a tree over a hundred feet tall in wet sediment regardless of where Texas or Tennessee comes from?

- There's not a yes or no question in here and yet you gave no as an answer to something in this maybe...

Also, there are even polystrate trees found upside down and animal polystrate fossils perhaps. What would rising sea levels do to explain either?

- Radiometric dating techniques are not used on sedimentary rock itself whether you define it as a fossil or not maybe... what's used to date sedimentary layers in a more than this is older than that type sense not counting index fossils? Are you meaning to suggest chemical composition of shells in limestone is used to date limestone?

- I'm not claiming fossils have only been found in sedimentary rock, but is there any fossil in sedimentary rock that is not the result of a creature quickly getting buried in wet sediment?

- How would alot of fossils being found be evidence (if it would be somehow?) for macroevolution if there have been alot found and yet not a single clear link between fish and land dwelling tetrapods and between reptiles and birds and between four legged land animals and whales has been found?

- How many clear cut fish fossils have been found? How many clear cut tetrapod fossils have been found? How many fossils are there that are claimed to be missing links between them?

- You can call Gark Parker wrong and claim that words of Stephen Gould are not true all you want perhaps, but how much weight will it really hold?

- Mark Ridley claims that no real evolutionist uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation and yet you claim the fossil record is definitely part of something you refer to as the proof for the theory of Evolution regardless maybe.

- Who's claiming that species cannot change into other species?

- Dinosaurs have lived with mankind and been written about by mankind and portrayed in art by mankind for thousands of years perhaps. They're also known as dragons and tanniynim and much more maybe.

- How is young earth creationism proven false if it is somehow?

- How about we discuss some of them if there are many species to consider in regards to fish to land dwelling tetrapod transition? Is there a fossil of a fish or tetrapod or anything that had a semi-pelvis or semi-scales or semi-air breathing lungs?

- Children a few years back were taught that if they keep asking any evolutionist questions, they will get to a point where they cannot answer? Where did that happen?

- Where does Genesis say that Adam and her were mortal before partaking? You might feel like I'm a broken record, but you have not shown a place where it does perhaps. They became mortal as a result of partaking of fruit from the tree and you're trying to make one or more moot point maybe.

- How about you let me know if you do happen to find a source that claims Darwin said he held off publishing a Descent of Man treatise because he was concerned it would be used as ammunition for race discrimination?

- I meant fish in a general sense even if millions of years is used perhaps. Did gill wielding fish somehow evolve lungs used for breathing outside of water and become non-fish over the course of some number of generations? What can you provide in terms of evidence for that?

- The most basic and irrefutable proof against young earth theories is layering of geologic layers and yet there are petrified trees thirty to hundreds of feet in height with tops and bottoms in different coal seams dated thousands of years apart?

- If Tulerpeton is a sketchy and poorly represented fossil, then what is not in terms of arguing for fish and land dwelling tetrapods sharing common ancestry?

- Is how close the moon is to earth not very relevant in regards to how old the earth is? How about change a topic title to evolution if you want to only discuss evolution in here?

- No there isn't what? The Sahara Desert and the Great Barrier Reef are both less than 5,000 years old and are both very much evidence for there having been a global flood less than 5,000 years ago perhaps.

- How about you define the word evolution in general if you don't want to use the words microevolution and macroevolution?

- See a word count graph referring to federal funding regardless of if something was taught having to do with evolution in US public schools before 1963?







Kids? Think critically, but only give yourself two options? Did evolution happen fast or slow? And don't dare look at limbs of creatures as evidence for a common designer?



http://www.creationscienceseminars.org/charts_bw.pdf

- Prayer and Bible reading were actually taken out of the American school system in 1963 also maybe, but would I need to show that teaching creationism results in a decrease in anything? How about we simply leave origins out of public schools or have no public schools at all?

- You mean to claim that young earth creationism was introduced into public schools and so forth in a big way in the 1980s? I went to public school in the Bible Belt in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000's and have not once been taught about young earth creationism as part of a curriculum in any public school perhaps.

- People might be more likely to die on a hospital bed than sitting in the waiting room of a hospital, but should we not expect for teen pregnancy to increase if we take prayer out of schools and replace it with stuff having to do with teaching kids that they descend from apes and is that not at least basically what happened in early 1960s?

- However, in this case, there is plenty of evidence to counter an assertion of mine? Where's the plenty at if so?

- What dropping SAT scores would have to do with how valid evolution is as a theory would come down to how evolution is defined maybe.

- How about find images showing or representing things claimed to be vestigial whale bones if you feel I have not done that and have provided fraudulent images? Who provided an error in a museum display?

- What can I say that will convince you that I have checked out wikipedia and bbc sites regarding Ambulocetus referred to by you? You provide two that make subjective claims backed up by little evidence perhaps. Did you see a stippled image provided by me that can help us understand what was found of it? See a bottom right image here?



- Acanthostega is a straight up tetrapod that even has well developed fingers and toes perhaps.

Another problem is that the fossil record imposes tight constraints on the timing of the supposed transition. The earliest tetrapod fossils are found in late Frasnian sediments, but their presumed ancestors are hardly much older. To exacerbate the situation, the Frasnian ‘near tetrapods’ (Obruchevichthys, Elginerpeton, Livoniana) are already morphologically diverse at their first appearance.77 Thus Darwinists are compelled to postulate a rapid burst of evolution in which radical changes must have taken place:

‘Panderichthys and Elpistostege flourished in the early Frasnian and are some of the nearest relatives of tetrapods. But tetrapods appear only about 5 to 10 million years later in the late Frasnian, by which time they were widely distributed and had evolved into several groups, including the lineage leading to the tetrapods of the Famennian. This suggests that the transition from fish to tetrapod occurred rapidly within this restricted time span.’78

Second, key morphological transitions, such as the purported change from paired fins to limbs with digits, remain undocumented by fossils. Where appendages are known they are clearly either fish-like fins or digit-bearing limbs, not at some transitional stage from one to the other. At one time it was claimed that the pectoral fins of rhizodonts, a group of lobe-finned fish, were remarkably similar to tetrapod limbs, but following the description of Gooloogongia from the Famennian of New South Wales, Johanson and Ahlberg79 have urged that they not be used as a model for the origin of tetrapod limbs. Furthermore, the pectoral fins of lobe-finned fish tend to be larger than the pelvic fins, whereas the Devonian tetrapods were ‘rear-wheel drive’ animals with larger hind limbs than fore limbs.80 None of the recent fossil discoveries shed any light on this supposed reconfiguration.

Third, there are functional challenges to Darwinian interpretations. For instance, in fish the head, shoulder girdle, and circulatory systems constitute a single mechanical unit. The shoulder girdle is firmly connected to the vertebral column and is an anchor for the muscles involved in lateral undulation of the body, mouth opening, heart contractions, and timing of the blood circulation through the gills.81 However, in amphibians the head is not connected to the shoulder girdle, in order to allow effective terrestrial feeding and locomotion. Evolutionists must suppose that the head became incrementally detached from the shoulder girdle, in a step-wise fashion, with functional intermediates at every stage. However, a satisfactory account of how this might have happened has never been given.

Note: That is missing one or more hyperlink and includes one or more number that should be raised up higher and smaller maybe... it's a misquote by me maybe... you might want to check here...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/tetrapod.asp

- You just edited quite a bit of stuff out in the last hour or so that I have not replied to maybe. Did you edit stuff out on accident? What do you want me to address now? I'm not sure if you've responded to this or not maybe...

Could the Father have created earth in a split second without you feeling as though it looked old? If you're going to assume that earth is the result of a random distribution of dust particles that came together randomly over billions of years, then you're going to assume earth is old even if it was created in a split second and you see it a second after it was created maybe.

- However, only a few, basically only those tied with the young earth group, insist that this reference in Romans, etc refers to a real, physical death. I wonder if you actually have convinced yourself that that is a true statement maybe. Can you find one published Biblical commentary that does Not suggest physical death is referred to in Romans 5:12? You will find links to several commentaries under an Additional Resources section on a right side here perhaps. Can you find a single one?

http://studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi? ... &verse=012

- Do you have a Bible with a Genesis 2:9 version that says the tree of knowledge without having of good and evil included after it? Maybe you should consider getting a different Bible.

Note: There are images in here that include words that are not my own depending on definition at least maybe.

[Lionz]

Frigidus,

No one's arguing that they were immortal after partaking from fruit of the tree in here maybe.

By the way, there's evidence that suggests a bright flying saucer weapon that could turn 360 degrees was used as opposed to a magical flaming hand held sword that could turn any way perhaps. Now, do not get me wrong maybe. There might be fallen angels who use flying saucers and there might even be some who are planning to show up and masquerade as benevolent primate evolving aliens in near future time.



















Flying saucers portrayed below?



















Cherubim conflict?





Interacting with mankind with flying saucer portrayed in sky?

[PLAYER57832]

PLAYER,

- I'm interested in discussing more than evolution perhaps.

- What about evolution is testable, observable, or demonstrable?

- What suggests to you that there's not sedimentary rock scattered across the earth that was laid by underwater turbidity currents from the flood? With the Morrison Formation being an example of a pocket of sedimentary rock that was laid by it?
.

These 2 questions make it pretty plain you have not read most of what I wrote already.

I have showed you quite a few lines of evidence for evolution already. You even tried to nit-pick some, but come back with "what is testable?"

Next, you being asking why I think there isn't sedimentary rock scattered across the earth from flood, when I already told you pretty clearly there was and that a good deal of it was from floods. It did not all come from a single flood, no. It was laid down in multiple layers, not just one. And not all sedimentary rock is made from particles settling out of water, either. Wind-born sediments, volcanic eruptions, etc also cause sedimentary rock.

I spent several hours answering your questions and you cannot even be bothered to read 90% of what I write.

[Lionz]

You just said this leading to a question concerning whether or not evolution is testable, observable, or demonstrable perhaps...

Instead, I know that for something to appear in a journal and be accepted by the scientific community, it must meet some very, very serious standards. It has to be repeatable, use accepted methods, etc.

Also, what do turbidites have to do with wind-born sediments or volcanic eruptions?

You're not clear about where you stand in regards to how many origins there have been or in regards to the flood in the first place maybe.

I cannot even be bothered to read 90% of what you write? In regards to posts directed at me from you? That would be a lie and you should be careful what you claim perhaps. What do you claim has not been addressed and what do you suggest be discussed? You've sent quite a bit of stuff and changed your mind about it and come back and deleted it possibly.

[PLAYER57832]

Also, what do turbidites have to do with wind-born sediments or volcanic eruptions?

Nothing. You show ONE picture of turbidites, plus a bunch of other photos of various formations and demand that I explain why all these sediments don't show flooding?

A. I Told you many earth formations are from floods
B. I told you that not all sedimentary rock is even from floods.
C. stop trying to pull out sill tangents.

You're not clear about where you stand in regards to how many origins there have been or in regards to the flood in the first place maybe.

Oh, I am clear. You just have no interest in understanding I believe the Bible. As of yet, there is no firm evidence for a world-wide flood. There are things that some people believe indicate one might have happened, they are disputed by other scientists. At any rate, it did not happen 5,000 years ago as you claim. THAT much is born out by verified history. Even Chinese history dates back further than that!

I cannot even be bothered to read 90% of what you write? In regards to posts directed at me from you? That would be a lie and you should be careful what you claim perhaps. What do you claim has not been addressed and what do you suggest be discussed? You've sent quite a bit of stuff and changed your mind about it and come back and deleted it possibly.

I sent you a list of examples that you HAVE ignored, yes. However, it was going to add nothing.

Whether you read it or not, you ignore 90% of what I wrote. You show fine understanding when you choose to nitpick, then come back with plain stupid comments like saying I deny there was a flood, deny that various sediments are evidence of flooding. When I explained that various features you tried to pull up as "evidence that cannot be explained" by sea level changes, I explained that there were definitely other processes... you come back with "but wait, what does that have to do with sea level changes?"

[Lionz]

What's a sill tangent and what would you consider firm evidence for a world-wide flood?

I'm not sure where you stand in regards to how many origins there have been or in regards to the flood maybe... maybe you can help me understand where you stand whether you actually say you believe something for sure or not.

The Xia Dynasty of China started quite a bit less than 4,000 years ago and there is even disagreement regarding the actual existence of it according to wikipedia perhaps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Hi ... 600_BCE.29

We can actually read about a certain Nuwa in something written around 1000 BCE called the ancient Book of Documents (Shu Jing) perhaps. He is said to have escaped a flood where the heavens were broken, the nine states of China experienced continental shift and were split, and water flooded mountains and drowned all living things maybe. There's even a Chinese symbol for ship (large boat) that's a combination of symbols for boat, eight and mouth (or person to feed) and a Chinese word for flood that refers to 8 people maybe.





I've never said you denied there was a flood and never claimed the flood was 5,000 years ago and we should be careful about not lying maybe.

You did bring up sea level changes to try to explain polystrate fossils perhaps... what processes are there that would explain them if there are some that do not call on sea level rising or flooding of a massive scale?

Note: Maybe I've messed up doing stuff for images before and I'm stating stuff wrong in here for all I know and you should check stuff for yourself.

[PLAYER57832]

PLAYER,

- I'm interested in discussing more than evolution perhaps.

Fine, but I don't have the time to discuss everything.

- What about evolution is testable, observable, or demonstrable?

Evolution is best seen as a series of theories that meld together, not one narrow theory.
There are many pieces of testable evidence. Here are just a few examples, it is by no means a complete list!
Fossils -- what they are, the progression of species (which in some cases IS fairly clear), the transitions and layers that show complete changes in the flora and fauna, not just once, but many times.

Geology, particularly the layers, tied closely with the above. Many of these processes are testable and observable. Geologists have replicated within laboratories the heat and pressure processes that form various rocks. Volanic eruptions, landslides, floods and their results have all been studied many times, are being studied all the time. Other processes have been inferred from various kinds of observable and testable evidence.

Natural selection. Though no longer considered the sole mover of evolution, it has been shown to happen through various means, beginning even with Darwin. (he got the basics right, just not all the details or that it operated "alone").

Genetics -- studies of how genes operate, descendency, studies of breeding and how animal traits change and are passed on; mutations including direct changes in sequences or allels, trading of splices such as in recombination, etc. Studies of Mitochondrial DNA lead a lot of information about female descendencies. Studies of the Y chromosome give information on the male lines,at least within humans.

[ChemistryI deal with radiometric dating below. The chemical composition of Granite and Marble each help reveal their origins. Sediments can be placed in time (after a long time of verification through both study of layers, dating, etc.) and place based on their composition.

radiometric dating -- NOTE, NOT simply "carbon-14 dating". Here is a good link that explains it pretty well:
( I am posting the summary, since its relatively short, but the link goes to the entire paper) http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html
Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.
This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.

ETC.

- What suggests to you that there's not sedimentary rock scattered across the earth that was laid by underwater turbidity currents from the flood?

Flood processes are among the most well understood of geologic processes. Think about it, much of human history depends upon understanding flood cycles. There is evidence for many floods. However, as yet, there is no undisputable evidence for one, single world-wide flood. Furthermore, even human recorded history dates back more than 5000 years!

Moreover, how about providing an ounce of verified, real, evidence that one, single flood could possibly explain all those varied features from obviously different time frames.

That someone happens to think a theory "sounds good" and "matches the Bible" is not enough. You have to provide physical evidence that matches real physical processes. AND, you have to show why the accepted ideas are wrong by using more than "that's what it says in the Bible".

With the Morrison Formation being an example of a pocket of sedimentary rock that was laid by it?

The Morrison Formation, within which Dinosaur Monument, etc are located, is from the Jurassic. This has been shown through radiographic dating, studies of the fossils and knowledge of how the formations were created. It is most definitely NOT a remnant of a 5000 year old flood! The only people who can believe such an assertion are people with NO knowledge of geologic processes, floods, or even how fossils are really formed.

OK, first I take great issue when someone who claims that they are following the absolutely literal translation of the Bible makes some pretty big errors like claiming that the Bible specifies that there were "subterraenean fountains". Geologically/hydrologically, there is a HUGE difference between water that persists on the surface for 150 days and water that surges up for 150 days!

At any rate, claiming that the Ogalala Aquifer (an ancient aquifer, yes) is a remnant of some kind is just ridiculous.
At any rate, here is a brief summary of the accepted science:
The deposition of the aquifer material dates back 2 to 6 million years to late Miocene to early Pliocene age when the southern Rocky Mountains were still tectonically active. From the uplands to the west, rivers and streams cut channels in a generally west to east or southeast direction. Erosion of the Rockies provided alluvial and aeolian sediment that filled the ancient channels and eventually covered the entire area of the present-day aquifer, forming the water-bearing Ogallala Formation. The depth of the formation varies with the shape of the pre-Ogallala surface, being deepest where it fills ancient valleys and channels. The Ogallala Formation consists mostly of coarse sedimentary rocks in its lower sections, which grade upward into finer-grained lithologies.[3]

The water-permeated thickness of the Ogallala Formation ranges from a few feet to more than 1000 feet (300 m) and is generally greater in the northern plains.[4] The depth of the water below the surface of the land ranges from almost 400 feet (122 m) in parts of the north to between 100 to 200 feet (30 to 61 m) throughout much of the south. Present-day recharge of the aquifer with fresh water occurs at a slow rate; this implies that much of the water in its pore spaces is paleowater, dating back to the last ice age.

However, to show why this is believed to be true (or how much of it is absolutely proven versus strongly believed), takes a good deal of time and study.

But, you keep challenging everything I put down without providing anything but theories on your side. So how about you show even an ounce of explanation for how that could possibly be true?

I deleted the next few pictures. simply show examples of various formations. A complete waste of space within this thread. I have not looked into the claim that 50% of the US has turbites. Even if completely true, it proves absolutely nothing.
[EDIT-- when I reviewed, I found a couple with information needind dispute and have responded further in the thread]

Is there not a crater in Arizona that was apparently caused by something with an unnaturally shaped end with four sides? Hmm.

Four sides? Not sure where that comes from. However, there is evidence for quite a few large meteor strikes on earth. I believe you are referring to one. In some cases, they have even found the actual meteor buried down deep.

Does scripture not suggest that fountains of the great deep broke open to help flood the earth?

Yes, a single occurance is mentioned.

Well, does earth not contain geothermal features and geysers with more than half of the former and 80% of the later found in Yellowstone?

Yellowstone is not evidence of the Bible. Sorry. The processes that formed Yellowstone are
Again, here is a brief overview, but the full explanation is pretty lengthy :
(link to full article : http://www.wyojones.com/how__geysers_form.htm )
The question, how does a geyser form, can not be answered quickly. Geysers are temporary features geologically. The duration or " life span" of a geyser is at the most several thousand years. Geysers are usually associated with volcanic areas. Their formation requires the combination of 3 specific geologic conditions that are usually found in volcanic terrain: 1- intense heat, 2- Water, 3-a plumbing system. The fact that they need heat much higher than normally found near the earth's surface is the reason they are usually associated with volcanoes or volcanic areas. Click below to find out more about the conditions necessary for geyser formation.

Note the utter and complete absence of anything close to "leftovers of a 5000 year old surge of water from the Earth".

Is there not an underground aquifer spanning 8 states and stretching to just east of Yellowstone?

We already talked about this.

Is Snake River Plain not just southwest of Yellowstone and the result of water running down and smoothing out land?

The Snaker River absolutely is there. It actually dug into the land in many places, though down in the delta and a few other places of deposition, it could, perhaps be said to have "smoothed out land".

Again, this is in no way proof of a young earth. Just exactly the opposite. The time it took for all that to form was immense.
.[/quote]

I have to go. Whether I answer anything else depends on my mood, my time and whether you finally decide to start actually reading what I am posting. (though I definitely welcome answers from other people!).

[PLAYER57832]

Are the Channeled Scablands not just to the northwest and the result of water carving up land?

Is Great Salt Lake a body of salt water that's trapped between mountains?

Are Monument Valley and Rainbow Bridge (not sure if RB is technically part of Monument Valley or not perhaps) and Petrified Forest National Park not all apparently located in areas that were once basins of bodies of water? Areas just east and northeast of the Kiabab Uplift and the Grand Canyon?

Is there not a main exit of the Grand Canyon with the Algodones Dunes (Tatooine of Star Wars filmed there?) swept off the side just south of it?

And is the Morrison Formation not right smack dab in the middle of it all with fossils galore?

Google it. If you cannot bother to explain why you think these things are evidence for a young earth, then why should I go to lengths to show you the real research. Besides, you have ignored the evidence I have posted so far. Much of what I posted makes it pretty clear that these are proof of an OLD earth, not a young one.

- These all show upstream from the Grand Canyon or an actual starting point of the Grand Canyon or both perhaps. See a main funneled canyon and also a smaller canyon that the Colorado River sits in? How about provide a theory on where each came from if so? Note: You should look closely towards top right of a fourth image below perhaps.

The grand canyon, like many other similar types of formations (the grand canyon is just one of the largest of its kind, its not unique) was formed mostly by stream erosion over a very, very long period of time, with a few other events.

However, you have not indicated how you believe it was formed or how you think this proves the earth is young.

The grand canyon was carved during or after the flood as a result of two natural dams being breached and those all show areas where a first of two was breached perhaps. A first was breached and flooding water came down and breached another as a result and water from both combined to cut the Grand Canyon into the Kiabab Uplift as a result maybe. Notice areas for Grand Canyon, Marble Caynon, Monument Valley and Petrified Forest National Park below?

This is absolutely not true. It is absolutely not what the evidence shows. They were caused by erosion, but not a single flood that occured at once. If they were, the scouring and so forth would follow a far different pattern. Further, you would have to explain why such a huge scouring event occured here and only here. Water constantly seeks the lowest/weakest point. Where scour occurs, the ground was softer. In a localized way, that is immediately adjacent to the stream, that was/is true for the top of the grand canyon. It is not true when you try to think of a huge flood that would have covered this entire area.
What happened is that long, long ago, the stream flowed there. Maybe there was a fissure already, maybe just a depression. Anyway, the water gradually gathered up silt, "ate away" at the rock. Once the channel was established, the stream was limited in where it would go. Anyway, at that point the ground it encounters may be much harder than what is above it in the channel. However, at some point, the water finds cracks or any number of other features. You can see this process in stages all throughout the west, particularly the areas you have pictured (though not those exact pictures). A lot of this becomes really clear when you look at air photos (which I have seen, by-the-way, this is part of my field). This is a very, very, very rough explanation. Even explaining the details of just one gorge would take a lot of time. And, while I can talk about the general processes, I am not an expert in the Grand Canyon specifically. I don't have to be to explain why your theory is wrong, but I would to explain in greater detail why and how the canyon formed. You can google all that anyway, though, of course, you won't bother. Niether do other young earth creationists.

You can compare this to what happens after even the most massive floods. The pattern just is not the same, at all.

The biggest problem geologists have with proof of a worldwide flood is that such a flood really should show a uniformly timed deposit of silt with similar composition. None such exists, at all. That it is missing is not proof it didn't happen. (lack of proof is not proof!). The silt could have been deposited and then eroded away, leaving no uniformly discernable trace, just as an example of what might have happened. However, again, this is not the type of claim young earth creationists are making. It is the kind of claim that Christians who accept evolution make.

What you present here is plain and simply garbage. There is no kinder way to put it. It is plain false. NO ONE with real knowledge of landform processes and hydrology would even begin to claim this could be true, let alone insist that it is proven true.

- You claim EACH flood leaves a distinct layer? How about tell me how many floods are represented in things below?

I won't make such a determination based on a picture. Even in person, I might not be able to tell.
I am not going to google all of those, but here is an explanation for Bryce Canyon:
(full link: http://www.zionnational-park.com/bgeology.htm )
Bryce Canyon Geology
Long ago, and changing over the great spans of time, the rocky area of of Bryce Canyon was once covered by sea, mountains, desert and coastal plain. Over millions of years, the rock and land was subject to violent storms and severe changes. Earthquakes, mudslides and volcanoes roared upon the primitive earth, forcing, molding and reshaping it. Seas and streams came and went, moving sediment and depositing it in layers.

The Hoodoos of Bryce Canyon are 60 million years old. More changes occurred until sand, gravel and sedimentary deposits filled ancient lakes within the Colorado Plateau. These materials compressed and hardened into sedimentary rock. The hoodoos of Bryce Canyon are 60 million year old sculpted claron rock formations which consist of limestone, dolomite and siltstone layers. The Colorado Plateau has risen over a time period of about sixteen million years. The Paria River and its streams flowed through the area sculpting and eroding the walls. These sedimentary layers contain lignite, coal and fossils, including evidence of the lush mesozoic period when the climate of the area was tropical with lush plants and a variety of unique animals flourished. The location at the plateau rim allows for hoodoo formation because the steep slope gives the environment needed for the structures to form. At the slope, faults and joints form compressional forces that guide the patterns of erosion.

Carving the Hoodoos at Bryce Canyon
The yearly weather cycle aids the process needed for a hoodoo to form. In Bryce Canyon it freezes at night approximately 360 days of the year. The freeze and thaw cycle loosens the slope surface, allowing debris to be sluffed off by water run-off. When hiking among the hoodoos at Bryce Canyon, look closely at the fins and hoodoos and you will see the vertical cracks. The material carried away works on the softer rock to create gullies, and ultimately canyons. The hard rock that was left behind is further eroded along its vertical cracks, again subjected to the freeze - thaw cycle carving the hoodoos.

Patterns form through a process of freezing and thawing. The patterns of Bryce's rock formations show off their unique crisscross design formed though this long process of freezing and thawing. The process still continues today, and the rock formations continue to be designed by nature. When water seeps into the fractures of the rocks, it dissolves the calcium carbonate that holds the small rock particles together. In cold weather, the water turns to ice as temperatures drop, then the ice expands pushing the fractures open. The overnight freezing and daytime thaw are abundant, occurring two to three hundred times a year, but since different rocks are of varied hardness, erosion takes place at different rates. Just like at Zion National Park, erosion will continue until the plateau is flattened and the rocks turn to sand.

- Did you say Texas and mean Tennessee? What would global sea level rising have to do with burying a tree over a hundred feet tall in wet sediment regardless of where Texas or Tennessee comes from?

You made the reference, and I explained how those might happen already. I don't believe a rising sea level had anything to do with it, but I am not going to go back and redo the research when you cannot be bothered to follow what I already posted.

- There's not a yes or no question in here and yet you gave no as an answer to something in this maybe...

Also, there are even polystrate trees found upside down and animal polystrate fossils perhaps. What would rising sea levels do to explain either?

Again, I referred you to a link that explained this. Either you understand it or you don't. Bottom line, it is proof of some interesting processes, but it is not proof of a young earth.

- Radiometric dating techniques are not used on sedimentary rock itself whether you define it as a fossil or not maybe... what's used to date sedimentary layers in a more than this is older than that type sense not counting index fossils? Are you meaning to suggest chemical composition of shells in limestone is used to date limestone?

Older layers rest upon younger layers. If you don't wish to understand that, then there is no hope of your understanding anything about geology.

- I'm not claiming fossils have only been found in sedimentary rock, but is there any fossil in sedimentary rock that is not the result of a creature quickly getting buried in wet sediment?

I believe so, but you would have to ask a paleontologist.
I already told you that most fossils are formed by being buried in sediment. You keep harping on this point as if it is supposed to prove your young earth theory, but it does not. It proves that things die, fall to the bottom and are often covered up. Sometimes they even become fossils. This happens all the time, has happened constantly throughout the history of earth.
The proof that this happens over a very long period of time is both the stratification, layering of sediments and species AND the fact that you see very distinct groups of fossils in each time period.

Again, for the specifics, ask a paleontologist and stop asking the same question over and over and over.

- How would alot of fossils being found be evidence (if it would be somehow?) for macroevolution if there have been alot found and yet not a single clear link between fish and land dwelling tetrapods and between reptiles and birds and between four legged land animals and whales has been found?

A lot of links have been found. It is just that young earth creationists don't wish to acknowledge they exists. Instead, they only trot out the few fossils where there are definite problems and/or even outright fraud.
Asking me again and again is not going to get me to change the answer. It will get me to cease reading anything you ask in the future. It will also get me reporting you as a troll, which I pretty much know you are, but I am giving you the superficial benefit of the doubt.

- How many clear cut fish fossils have been found? How many clear cut tetrapod fossils have been found? How many fossils are there that are claimed to be missing links between them?

I don't know. Millions of fossils at least. Probably thousands of different links. (no longer "missing", since they exist).

- You can call Gark Parker wrong and claim that words of Stephen Gould are not true all you want perhaps, but how much weight will it really hold?

If it were just me saying it, not much. I gave you the citation. There are no scientists except other young earth creationists who accept what he says.

- Mark Ridley claims that no real evolutionist uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation and yet you claim the fossil record is definitely part of something you refer to as the proof for the theory of Evolution regardless maybe.

Note the "as opposed to special creation" bit. I believe God created the universe, as do most evolutionists. (all but the avowed atheists). You are trying to divert the argument into proof or disproof of God.

- Who's claiming that species cannot change into other species?

You and other young earthers.

- Dinosaurs have lived with mankind and been written about by mankind and portrayed in art by mankind for thousands of years perhaps. They're also known as dragons and tanniynim and much more maybe.

Not likely. There is still some very slight room for the possibility that something close to a dinosaur persisted longer than scientists now believe. Sort of like the "is there BigFoot" ideas. However, there is no proof. Most of those accounts are well recognized to be either outright fictions or extreme distortions. For example, its commonly said that dugongs and Manatees were the origin of the Mermaid myths.

- How is young earth creationism proven false if it is somehow?

Look above. Archeologic evidence regarding human civilization alone is enough to show the earth is older than 6,000 years old.
Geologic evidence definitely shows the earth is much, much older. But if you want specifics, google them. You have ignored what I have posted so far, so I am not going to bother finding those links.

- How about we discuss some of them if there are many species to consider in regards to fish to land dwelling tetrapod transition? Is there a fossil of a fish or tetrapod or anything that had a semi-pelvis or semi-scales or semi-air breathing lungs?

How about if you ask a clear question, first of all. Second, how about you tell me (clearly) why you believe it shows proof against evolution.

- Children a few years were taught that if they keep asking any evolutionist questions, they will get to a point where they cannot answer? Where did that happen?

All over. Classic Institute for Creation Research technique.

- Where does Genesis say that Adam and her were mortal before partaking? You might feel like I'm a broken record, but you have not shown a place where it does perhaps. They became mortal as a result of partaking of fruit from the tree and you're trying to make one or more moot point maybe.

I am saying that the claim that the Bible says they were immortal is false.

- I meant fish in a general sense even if millions of years is used perhaps. Did gill wielding fish somehow evolve lungs used for breathing outside of water and become non-fish over the course of some number of generations?
What can you provide in terms of evidence for that?

Like I said the last two times you asked this, no. They had a common ancestor. Fish with gills did not turn into non-fish with lungs. (at least to my knowledge,I suppose its possible something like a modern lungfish- species has evolved in that way, but I don't know of its existance either now or in the past)

- The most basic and irrefutable proof against young earth theories is layering of geologic layers and yet there are petrified trees thirty to hundreds of feet in height with tops and bottoms in different coal seams dated thousands of years apart?

This is what, the fifth time you asked this? Stop asking the same question and read the answer I gave before. That's all I will say on the matter.

- If Tulerpeton is a sketchy and poorly represented fossil, then what is not in terms of arguing for fish and land dwelling tetrapods sharing common ancestry?

I already answered this. Google it if you want more answers. There is plenty on it out there.

- Is how close the moon is to earth not very relevant in regards to how old the earth is? How about change a topic title to evolution if you want to only discuss evolution in here?

How about you stick to the topic.

- No there isn't what? The Sahara Desert and the Great Barrier Reef are both less than 5,000 years old and are both very much evidence for there having been a global flood less than 5,000 years ago perhaps.

No, they most definitely are not. However, as I already said, I cannot even begin to fathom how you could possibly think they were evidence of a 5000 year old flood. Unless you wish to clarify your theory, I cannot tell you why it is false.

- How about you define the word evolution in general if you don't want to use the words microevolution and macroevolution?

already did and stop nitpicking irrelvancies.

[PLAYER57832]

- See a word count graph referring to federal funding regardless of if something was taught having to do with evolution in US public schools before 1963?

Your point?

Kids? Think critically, but only give yourself two options?

When you teach science, you teach what is valid and proven. Trying to suggest we need to bring in every poppycock theory anyone wishes to present is not critical thinking, its wasting time. Furthermore, telling kids that "Dr ridiculous thinks the earth might be flat and that NASA and every scientist on earth is lying" is not going to help them think critically. It will give them the impression that science has no proof, is just a bunch of ideas whomever wants to can present. That would fit in neatly with Dr Morris' plans, but it is not science.

Showing kids what is proven and then showing them what is theory, with the evidence that backs up the theories and why those theories are accepted along with what it would take to disprove those theories (a sampling, going into all of it would take too much time), that is teaching science.

If young earth creationism were possibly true, then it could be considered in science. It is, however, not. It is proven false, except to people who have never really learned science. And that does include a good many people who went through school and should have learned science (but did not), such as Dr Morris.

Did evolution happen fast or slow?

Both, mostly slow.

interesting that a young earth creationist would cite this. It pretty well outlines their plan.

This link takes just too long to load. Either explain what you feel is important or skip it.

http://www.creationscienceseminars.org/charts_bw.pdf

- Prayer and Bible reading were actually taken out of the American school system in 1963 also maybe, but would I need to show that teaching creationism results in a decrease in anything? How about we simply leave origins out of public schools or have no public schools at all?

Evolution is part of teaching. The science for the initial creation is pretty sketchy and is always taught as such. Students are told why the Big Bang theory is given some credence as well as potential problems, usually along with some other ideas and why they are or have been given credence and problems with them. All of that is science.

"God created it" is simply not science. It is religion.
As for why we have public schools. Ideally, so conversations like this don't waste everyone's time. Ideally, so that when people grow up to vote, the rest of us don't have to take the time to explain that no, science is not just a bunch of unproven ideas.

- You mean to claim that young earth creationism was introduced into public schools and so forth in a big way in the 1980s? I went to public school in the Bible Belt in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000's and have not once been taught about young earth creationism as part of a curriculum in any public school perhaps.

Doesn't seem you were taught evolution, either. Which was the "handy" solution fixed upon by a lot of schools. I cannot blame them, cheaper than dealing with lawsuits. However, it means a generation of youth missed out on large chunks of science.

In some public schools, creationism never really left. However in the 1980's is when a couple of lawsuits were put forward in California and other places. Many schools, in California and elsewhere simply stopped teaching much about evolution. Others inserted a phrase to the effect of "evolution is just a theory" or "some people believe the world was created by God in 6 days" , etc. I have watched the slide in scientific understanding cooincide very precisely with the acceptance that the earth could be young.

- People might be more likely to die on a hospital bed than sitting in the waiting room of a hospital, but should we not expect for teen pregnancy to increase if we take prayer out of schools and replace it with stuff having to do with teaching kids that they descend from apes and is that not at least basically what happened in early 1960s?

Now you bring in prayer as well!

A. we did not descend from apes. We have a common ancestor, way, WAY back. Humans are, however very distinct. Biology only answers part of that difference. The rest is religion, which is not the purvue of public schools, and rightfully so.

B. No, teaching evolution is not and most certainly has not been proven to be linked to an increase in teen pregnancy. In fact, teaching of SCIENCE, real science, including reproductive education HAS been tied to a reduction in pregnancy.

- However, in this case, there is plenty of evidence to counter an assertion of mine? Where's the plenty at if so?

here you go:
again, I post an excerpt, but here is the full link: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html
Key Trends Over Time
Childbearing. The rate of teen childbearing in the United States has fallen steeply since the late 1950s, from an all time high of 96 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19 in 1957 to an all time low of 49 in 2000 (see chart below). Birthrates fell steadily throughout the 1960s and 1970s; they were fairly steady in the early 1980s and then rose sharply between 1988 and 1991 before declining throughout the 1990s. In recent years, this downward trend has occurred among teens of all ages and races.

Divergent Trends
Since the 1950s, the U.S. teen birthrate has declined while the proprotion of teen births that are nonmarital has increased.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Data for 2000 are preliminary. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, "Births to Teenagers in the United States, 1940-2000," National Vital Statistics Report, 2001, Vol. 49, No. 10.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Unmarried childbearing. Even though teen childbearing overall has declined steeply over the last half-century, the proportion of all teen births that are nonmarital has increased equally dramatically, from 13% in 1950 to 79% in 2000 (see chart). Two factors are at play. The first is that marriage in the teen years, which was not uncommon in the 1950s, has by now become quite rare. (By the mid-1990s, the typical age of first marriage in the United States had risen to just over 25 for women and 27 for men.) The second is that this trend has extended to pregnant teens as well: In contrast to the days of the "shotgun marriage," very few teens who become pregnant nowadays marry before their baby is born.

Abortion. Birthrates rise and fall as a result of changes in the rate at which women become pregnant or resolve their pregnancies in abortion, or a combination of both. Among teens in the United States, at least in recent years, declining birthrates are not the result of more pregnant teens opting to have an abortion. The U.S. teen abortion rate, after rising through the 1970s and holding fairly constant during the 1980s, then began a steady decline. By 1997, the rate was 28 abortions per 1,000 women 15-19—33% lower than the rate a decade earlier.

Pregnancy. Recent declines in teen birthrates, then, are attributable to reductions in pregnancy rates. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the U.S. teen pregnancy rates rose. They remained steady through the 1980s, even as sexual activity among teens increased, due to improved contraceptive use among those teenagers who are sexually active. The rates declined 19% from 117 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15-19 in 1990 to 93 per 1,000 in 1997—the lowest rate in 20 years. The recent decline is particularly encouraging, because—as with the teen birthrate decline—all population groups followed a similar pattern, regardless of young women's age, marital status, race or ethnicity.


Now, this is exactly counter to your assertion that teen pregnancy rates have risen. In fact, they decreased UP UNTIL the introduction of "abstinence only" conservative type classes

(full link: http://womensissues.about.com/od/teenpr ... cyRise.htm )
For the first time in 16 years, teen pregnancy is on the rise. It's a trend one expert called "deeply troubling," as many see it linked to the decline of contraceptive use among teens and the increase of "abstinence only" sex education programs.
According to a January 2010 report from the Guttmacher Institute, the teen pregnancy rate in the United States rose 3% in 2006, paralleling the 4% rise in teen births and 1% rise in teen abortions for that year.

....
..[E]xperts have suspected for several years, based on trends in teens’ contraceptive use…that the overall teen pregnancy rate would increase in the mid-2000s….The significant drop in teen pregnancy rates in the 1990s was overwhelmingly the result of more and better use of contraceptives among sexually active teens. However, this decline started to stall out in the early 2000s, at the same time that sex education programs aimed exclusively at promoting abstinence—and prohibited by law from discussing the benefits of contraception—became increasingly widespread and teens’ use of contraceptives declined….
“After more than a decade of progress, this reversal is deeply troubling,” says Heather Boonstra, Guttmacher Institute senior public policy associate.

- How about find images showing or representing things claimed to be vestigial whale bones if you feel I have not done that and have provided fraudulent images? Who provided an error in a museum display?

I did not say they were fraudulant. I said that I am not a paleontologist and that you should look to paleontologists if you want to understand why they don't believe your explanation is true. I also gave you a link or two and explained the process you would need to follow to show your theories were correct and not the ones accepted (believed to be most likely true) by the scientific community.

I also gave as a reason why I would not make any comment on a mere picture in a museum the fact that many museum displays are representations and not actual fossils put together by the paleontologists who know the most about those species.

- What can I say that will convince you that I have checked out wikipedia and bbc sites regarding Ambulocetus referred to by you? You provide two that make subjective claims backed up by little evidence perhaps. Did you see a stippled image provided by me that can help us understand what was found of it? See a bottom right image here?

Your point was to show that these were drawn in error.

I told you that I am not an expert on these species, but did refer you to a website that gave the accepted explanations. I also told you that if you wished to question those findings seriously, you would need to find the original citations and study the original papers, then look for errors.

I also told you that many pictural representations of creatures represented by fossils are little more than guesses, particularly anything not recent. In recent times, leading artists and scientists have worked hand in hand to create representations that are far more likely to be real, but only in a very few cases is there much real certainty, particularly when it comes to fine details.

If you read what I wrote, then why do you insist on copying these pictures over and over again?

- Acanthostega is a straight up tetrapod that even has well developed fingers and toes perhaps.

I told you already a few times that I am not going to debate these details. You need to talk to a paleontologist. However, I have ALSO said that there is more evidence than that for these links, and showed you articles that talk about some of that other evidence. However, again, I am not the one doing this research. You can google as well as I can.

Another problem is that the fossil record imposes tight constraints on the timing of the supposed transition. The earliest tetrapod fossils are found in late Frasnian sediments, but their presumed ancestors are hardly much older. [quote excerpted by player57832 to save space] . However, a satisfactory account of how this might have happened has never been given.

The last sentence is really the only valid point. They claim no satisfactory account has been given. Since the only explanation they will accept is one with which they agree, that statement is, for them true. However, where the rest of the world is concerned, what they present is, at best, a point where there is some question about what happened. It is one of the many pieces of data that have shown Darwin to be wrong in his thinking that evolution was a gradual, basically constant process. It is not evidence against modern evolutionary theory.

Note: That is missing one or more hyperlink and includes one or more number that should be raised up higher and smaller maybe... it's a misquote by me maybe... you might want to check here...

First, I do know that the whole story of why tetrapods evolved has changed in the past few years. It has not changed to the point that there is any room at all for an instant creation, as the article tries to assert. However, it's now thought that the environment might have changed back and forth a few times and that this is what "forced through" all those transitions in species.

At any rate, you keep bringing up individual details in the fossil record. I am not qualified to analyze each detail. AND, you only bring up a few details, ignoring the many other species that also exist to also help create the evolutionary idea.

- You just edited quite a bit of stuff out in the last hour or so that I have not replied to maybe. Did you edit stuff out on accident? What do you want me to address now? I'm not sure if you've responded to this or not maybe...

Not in error, no. I decided not to be so argumentative. Mostly I quoted the number of times you have asked me variations on the same question and or outright ignored answers I gave. There are plenty similar examples above.

Could the Father have created earth in a split second without you feeling as though it looked old? If you're going to assume that earth is the result of a random distribution of dust particles that came together randomly over billions of years, then you're going to assume earth is old even if it was created in a split second and you see it a second after it was created maybe.

You ask this each time you post, with only very slight variations. Are you hoping to shift the question just enough so I will ignore the new details and perhaps answer incorrectly so you can trot it out as an example of how I am "not consistant"
Sure seems like it!
I believe God created everything. He could have done it any way he wished. The question is over what he did, not what he could have done. Also, scientists using "random" in this context do not mean mathematically random, where any all possibilities are "equal". There are absolute constraints and "rules" to the process, we just don't know all of them necessarily. So, even the most atheistic of scientists will say that creation was at least partially directed. Believing scientists absolutely believe in Godly direction.

[PLAYER57832]

What's a sill tangent and what would you consider firm evidence for a world-wide flood?

In a debate, a tangent is a line of debate you might want to pursue, but that is not directly related to the main debate.
As for "firm evidence", I deal with that above. Probably the firmest would be to find a uniform silt layer that can be seen to cover all the earth (including oceans, etc.) at one time. However, as I noted earlier, lack of that evidence doesn't mean it did not happen. Also, I have said many times I accept the Bible's account. I am not disputing the flood. I am disputing the young earther's assertion of "proof", the claim that all these landforms are the result of a flood and particularly that the flood occured a mere 5,000 years ago. If one happened that recently, we should see evidence because the landforms have not changed that significantly. Also, the human archeological evidence disputes a 5000 year-ago flood.

I'm not sure where you stand in regards to how many origins there have been or in regards to the flood maybe... maybe you can help me understand where you stand whether you actually say you believe something for sure or not.

How about you explain why this is important before I bother.

We can actually read about a certain Nuwa in something written around 1000 BCE called the ancient Book of Documents (Shu Jing) perhaps.

Not to do with evolution, so I'm not going to take the time. Ask someone else.

I've never said you denied there was a flood and never claimed the flood was 5,000 years ago and we should be careful about not lying maybe.

Well, you made several references to things that are 5,000 years old as possible proof of a flood, and you keep trying to "prove" there was one over and over to me.

So.. lying.. hmmmmm.

You did bring up sea level changes to try to explain polystrate fossils perhaps... what processes are there that would explain them if there are some that do not call on sea level rising or flooding of a massive scale?

How about you go back over the answers I have already given. You are repeating yourself a lot.