young earth Creationism .. again

[Snorri1234]

If you say so.

In my opinion, your righteous indignation is misplaced, in this instance.

I just edited my comment above to be clearer. Please reread it.

Your position is at least as harmful as the opposition.

To be accurate, it was niet's position. I'm just saying that way it was worded made perfect logical sense to me. It's a fairly simple if/then statement, when broken down a bit.
--------------------------
If, one has come to the conclusion that there is no God (the Creator).
Then, any creationist possibility is removed.
---------------------------
Or, another way, to deny a creator, is to deny creationism. Always.


Perhaps I'm misreading what he wrote though.

Well....there's always aliens.

[tzor]

Well....there's always aliens.

I am always fond of the theory that a rag tag group of telephone sanitizers and other miscreants destroyed the native population on this planet, which was being cultivated by the rats in order to determine the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything. It really does explain so many things.

[Lionz]

Niet,

Creatures do evolve maybe, but what suggests there was not a genus variety originally created that has brought forth species since?

Does the fossil record support a concept that everyone including plants and animals share a common ancestor? What would Darwin or Gould or Patterson or Ridley have to say? Has punctuated equilibrium not come about at least partially as a result of an apparent lack of evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record?

I've never read a book by Dawkins maybe. Are there points from one you want to share and can you find me a quote by Dennet concerning the fossil record?

Skittles,

What suggests to you that Adam was not created about 6000 years ago?

PLAYER,

1 ) How about you pick a topic for #1?

2 ) What do you want me to address? Do you refer to three posts with a latest of them having a-l containing the only questions in it not counting a question asking why He would decieve us in a certain manner?

a: You want opinion?

- I'm not sure if that is meant to ask me if I want opinion in general or opinion on something specific or both or neither maybe.

b: You want me to make guesses about what something that did not happen, is not true might possibly indicate?

- I do not understand what is meant there perhaps. Can someone who is not PLAYER help me out?

c: In fact, since you seemed to imply you thought the world was only 6,000 years old, my basic comment was "why are you bringing up this example that is claimed to be 8000 years old?"

- The Yonaguni Monument's claimed to be many things that are not true perhaps, but I brought it up for a number of reasons including to use it as evidence against orthodox history and evidence for preflood civilization maybe.

d: Specific about whales and ants?

- I was asking specifically about whales and ants possibly, but it would be nice to discuss universal common descent in general maybe.

e: But did he?

- I'm not sure if Yah created the earth in a microsecond or not perhaps.

f: Huh? Why are you even asking this?
Are you trying to claim that the sun was absent?

- I asked it at least partially in response to scripture apparently claiming the sun was created after plants maybe. I'm dreaming for all I know and I'm not adamantly trying to tell you anything is true with it perhaps.

g: That is, that Genesis flat out says that Adam and Eve have to be ejected before they sample the tree of life and gain immortality?

- You are trying to make a moot point with that if Yah created the tree of life knowing there would be rebellion in the first place maybe.

h: What are you even trying to claim this proves?

- I'm not trying to claim it proves anything maybe.

i: But who said I claimed there was no flood?

- Not sure if anyone did perhaps.

j: Assume what?

- Assume that individuals were selective in regards to what they published 30 years ago and all of a sudden that's not the case maybe.

k: I see, you want a source that you, untrained, can simply go and see?

- I want to see dendrochronology samples lined up to apparently show over 5,000 years of time if there is such a thing at least perhaps.

l: What are you actually asking here?

- I use old man to refer to male parents of people and I meant what it says perhaps.

3 ) You might refer to a link I posted myself after you. Maybe there is stuff in an acknowledgement section I did not read at least. Are there words in an acknowledgement section you would like me to read?

You might have been implying that uncredible individuals suggest it's man made and credible individuals suggest it's natural. I have one or more point having to do with arguing against a notion of that and brought up Kimura in a very relevant manner maybe.

Did you yourself not bring up the Yonaguni Monument in here in an OP? How about we keep Yonaguni stuff in a Nephilim thread if you want?

4 ) Is there more than one individual on CC forums that understands what this means?

You want me to make guesses about what something that did not happen, is not true might possibly indicate?

Someone who is not PLAYER want to respond? I'm not sure what is not true might possibly indicate means for one maybe.

5 ) I have one or more point having to do with me not claiming it's actually 8,000 years old for one maybe. I might have come across wrong.

It might be nice to get a one sentence definition of the word evidence from you.

6 ) Is there a list for macroevolution that you can provide?

How am I claiming He's decieving us in any manner if I am somehow?

7 ) Maybe you will let me know if you want to discuss the moon later. It's actually quite relevant to creationism perhaps.

Is someone only a scientist if they don't believe in Creation? How many branches of science can you list that were not started by a creationist?

8 ) Are you saying that you did not say this and accusing me of making up random words for you?

I will bring up carbon 14 information later, but the big thing is that it is not the most accurate testing method. That folks like Dr Morris harp on it is as fustrating to real scientists as the continual harping on "Darwin got it wrong in some details, so the whole theory is just obviously false" (he did get a LOT wrong, but was remarkable for his time and science has long since moved forward.)
Here is a discussion of a far better method, radiometric dating (and note, I believe even better methods have since been discovered.. also this has bee corroborated through various other means, including models of genetic drift, etc.)

9 ) Maybe you will let me want to know if you want to discuss the geologic column later. It's actually quite relevant to creationism perhaps.

10 ) Do you want me to address something in regards to the tree of life now?

11 ) In what way did He breathe the breath of life into nostrils of Adam if He did and did a certain way?

12 and 13 ) Creatures do evolve maybe, but what suggests there was not a genus variety originally created that has brought forth species since?

14 ) You referred to one link in 14 of a certain previous post and it's a wikipedia page that does not include the word carbon on it maybe.

15 and 16 ) You refer to a question where assumptions are intended perhaps. Should we assume there was not a preflood environment with a different atmosphere and more plantlife if we are ultimately trying to figure out if the carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio has remained constant?

17 ) You referred to a self-cloning spruce that's part of an ancient root system in Dalarna and it has not been dated to be over 5,000 years with tree ring dating maybe. The spruce actually started growing in the 1940s perhaps! How could it be tree ring dated if it could be somehow? See text below an image here that says 1940s in it?

http://www.info.umu.se/NYHETER/Pressmed ... px?id=3061

18 ) Have you seen dendrochronology samples lined up to show thousands of years of time?

19 ) Maybe you will let me know if you want to discuss geneology later. It's actually quite relevant to creationism perhaps.

20 ) Does Adam have an old man? Maybe I could use father, but he has at least one Father perhaps.

21 ) You might have just led me to the most biased encyclopedia article ever in existance. Is there something specific you want to point out and discuss or a certain section you want me to address?

22 ) Scripture either dates Adam to having been created about 6,000 years ago or not perhaps. What became popular in the 20th century among Bible belt preachers?

23 ) Do you accuse someone of falling back on insults and yet mean to accuse me of being a trained monkey and troll?

24 ) Are you leaving open a possibility that Australia has been next to both Africa and South America with one or more comment? When has there been a point in time when men were not generally wrong about something scientifically?

25 ) Would Darwin or Gould or Patterson or Ridley claim the fossil record backs up universal common descent? See a quote referring to them?

Tzor,

Do you actually have a Bible that adamantly claims there are lifespans presented for a symbolic rather than historical value in scripture? Wow if so. Also, what if Babylonian tradition recorded ten kings who actually lived to fantastically high ages before the flood?

Maybe I'm saying stuff wrong in here for all I know.

[tzor]

Do you actually have a Bible that adamantly claims there are lifespans presented for a symbolic rather than historical value in scripture? Wow if so. Also, what if Babylonian tradition recorded ten kings that lived lived to fantastically high ages before the flood?

Do you actually have a Bible that adamantly claims there are lifespans presented for a symbolic rather than historical value in scripture? Wow if so. Also, what if Babylonian tradition recorded ten kings that lived lived to fantastically high ages before the flood?

It’s so nice to be a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; by the way the Pillar and Bulwark of truth called; they want their Bible back.

As for the question “what if” the answer is simple if not immediately obvious. There are a lot of traditions in the Torah that pre-date Moses and can be found in Babylonian tradition. Much in the same manner that many early Christians “Christianized” pagan customs, the many traditions that compiled the Torah converted the pagan traditions and even science in the light of the revelation of the God of their ancestors.

[Lionz]

Is something more true than something else if it's older? What if there are Babylonian traditions based on truth and yet the Torah has actual Words of Him in it?

[army of nobunaga]

Ok lets start with the most respected and classic article in real modern evolution.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2459161 (Ill try to get the full art. for free for you, I dont know if any of my old passwords work.)

Also you questioned , well actually you said I was wrong, when I said that evolution today is described and researched at a genetic level. To say evolution is driven by mutation and survival of the fittest, well thats like describing a Lotus as a car that goes fast because it has a great engine.

While emailing my old research buddys and looking at some old stuff, I did find something new to me... http://scholar.google.com.mx You dont need the ".mx"

Type in "Evolution" You will see the new stuff mostly genetic, the old stuff mostly old zoologist's in the field looking at the ole bones and making crazy guesses (Like giraffes have long necks for eating leave up high!) that one still makes me laugh my ass off, and is still spouted on television sometimes.


have fun, try to read that first paper. There are a few other classic papers ill find.

[army of nobunaga]

And lionz, Im wasted 30 mins of my life reading this thread. You dont have to ask questions.. just state how you really feel.. I respect your opinions, but you answer questions with questions, kind of passive aggressive.

I

[Lionz]

I came across a terms of conditions link at the first and I have ocd paranoia having to do with user agreements perhaps. Do you refer to an article I can find somewhere else?

[PLAYER57832]

There appears to be some confusion here. I do not, nor do I know anyone who believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old. BUT that from ADAM to present day is 6,000 years.

But hey, maybe there are some who believe the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. Could God have accomplished this feat? You betcha!

Actually, Jay, if Adam was created only 6 days after the beginning, then that would round off to "6000 years". I don't know the full history of this date, but it became popular in the early part of last century, mostly in the US among "Bible belt" preachers.

Much as I hate wikki, this summary of young earth creationism and its comparison to standard scientific thinking is pretty decent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

In that case, assuming you believe that each "day" was 1,000 years, from creation to today would be roughly 12,000 years.

I make no such assumption. Why would I? Why would anyone?

[PLAYER57832]

I came across a terms of conditions link at the first and I have ocd paranoia having to do with user agreements perhaps. Do you refer to an article I can find somewhere else?

I apologize. At first glance, none of this last batch of questions seemed related to what I wrote. I see it is actually an attempt at addressing them, so I will look over what you wrote and respond more.

[PLAYER57832]

editing.

[army of nobunaga]

I came across a terms of conditions link at the first and I have ocd paranoia having to do with user agreements perhaps. Do you refer to an article I can find somewhere else?

yeah buddy, ill try to find a place im still registered and copy and paste it here... It doesnt really prove a lot for or against evolution, but its a great starter article that is the basis for a lot of experiments.

[PLAYER57832]

It’s so nice to be a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Isn't it, though?

[army of nobunaga]

Creatures do evolve maybe, but what suggests there was not a genus variety originally created that has brought forth species since?

Does the fossil record support a concept that everyone including plants and animals share a common ancestor? What would Darwin or Gould or Patterson or Ridley have to say? Has punctuated equilibrium not come about at least partially as a result of an apparent lack of evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record?

I already gave you a lengthy response and you haven't even acknowledged one of the things I wrote. Now you bombard us with a while new set of questions and really expect us to take the time to deal with you?

I will answer the above.
The fossil record (once again) shows the dispersion and development of species. This most certainly includes the concept that everything has a common ancestor. As for what Darwin, etc would say. It is irrelevant, but since I believe most are decent scientists they would be amazed by the depth of knowledge we now have on the subject of evolution, the number and variety of fossils, the knowledge we now have of genetics and geologic processes, etc.

Your last sentence above isn't even really a question. It is an attempt to make something of nothing. Yes, the idea of gradual evolution explaining everything just did not match the evidence fully. For a long time, it was a puzzle. Then some further discoveries were made and it became apparent that something, several somethings, actually (this has happened more than once), eliminated most life on earth, followed by an extreme proliferation and expansion of mostly (but not wholly) different species. So, again, it is based on evidence.

However, how much all of this is understood and what, exactly is known varies with regions and time frame. Some areas have lots of fossils for an age. Other areas may show none or only very few. Sea creatures are often readily perserved because they tend to fall to the bottom and get covered by silt and sand. Human ancestors, some other mammals, lived on land and were likely predated upon or their bones were simply left in ways not condusive to forming fossils.

HOWEVER, none of that means evolution is false. As I said before, even though we have questions, probably always will unless and until there is some kind of time machine to take us back (yes,that's a joke), there is just too much evidence around. The likelihood of another theory being true is incredibly slim.

FURTHER, even if evolution is false, that still does not prove young earth creationism is true. The fact is that while Evolution has not been 100% proven (though evolution actually has), young earth creationism has most certainly been proven false. The only way it could possibly be true were if God made this world to appear as if it were ancient, even if it were not.
That is pretty much like the idea some held years back that fossils were put in rock by Satan to confuse us. It is just not consistant with what we know of God from the Bible.

Im sorry player, Lion is right.

Fossil record is sOOOOOOO 1980's ....

"The fossil record (once again) shows the dispersion and development of species. This most certainly includes the concept that everything has a common ancestor." WRONG WRONG GODDAMN WRONG Most certainly includes the concept?? are you a lawyer? I will need proof for this statement.

"there is just too much evidence around. " Yes, the earth is older than 8000 years, im sorry. Yes Species do evolve, yes natural selection exists. I will contend and continue to contend though, that science has not figured out the details ... YET. As it stands there is no way , zero.. that species in general have a common ancester in the broad sense. Yes, I believe birds came from snakes, that has been proven in my eyes. But snakes came from sea eels? That has yet to be proven.



So many rank amateurs enter these debates without the tools and make great conclusions and blanket conclusions based on small evidence of specific cases... Its fun for me to read though tedious, dreary for me to argue.

[Phatscotty]

Obama without the teleprompter.....again.

I miss bush, he spoke better. God created him

[nietzsche]

Ok. What if Lionz and other Creationists show us why Creation is the truth, rather than showing why Evolution is wrong, or we falling on their traps.

......
f*ck! I tried for one hour to found a quote by Nietzsche that goes something like never argue against priest, for their modesty or humility is a powerful weapon. Damn you google.

It goes well here, for those who believe use often the Socratic method of asking and asking and asking until you make a mistake.

[PLAYER57832]

Creatures do evolve maybe, but what suggests there was not a genus variety originally created that has brought forth species since?

Does the fossil record support a concept that everyone including plants and animals share a common ancestor? What would Darwin or Gould or Patterson or Ridley have to say? Has punctuated equilibrium not come about at least partially as a result of an apparent lack of evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record?

I already gave you a lengthy response and you haven't even acknowledged one of the things I wrote. Now you bombard us with a while new set of questions and really expect us to take the time to deal with you?

I will answer the above.
The fossil record (once again) shows the dispersion and development of species. This most certainly includes the concept that everything has a common ancestor. As for what Darwin, etc would say. It is irrelevant, but since I believe most are decent scientists they would be amazed by the depth of knowledge we now have on the subject of evolution, the number and variety of fossils, the knowledge we now have of genetics and geologic processes, etc.

Your last sentence above isn't even really a question. It is an attempt to make something of nothing. Yes, the idea of gradual evolution explaining everything just did not match the evidence fully. For a long time, it was a puzzle. Then some further discoveries were made and it became apparent that something, several somethings, actually (this has happened more than once), eliminated most life on earth, followed by an extreme proliferation and expansion of mostly (but not wholly) different species. So, again, it is based on evidence.

However, how much all of this is understood and what, exactly is known varies with regions and time frame. Some areas have lots of fossils for an age. Other areas may show none or only very few. Sea creatures are often readily perserved because they tend to fall to the bottom and get covered by silt and sand. Human ancestors, some other mammals, lived on land and were likely predated upon or their bones were simply left in ways not condusive to forming fossils.

HOWEVER, none of that means evolution is false. As I said before, even though we have questions, probably always will unless and until there is some kind of time machine to take us back (yes,that's a joke), there is just too much evidence around. The likelihood of another theory being true is incredibly slim.

FURTHER, even if evolution is false, that still does not prove young earth creationism is true. The fact is that while Evolution has not been 100% proven (though evolution actually has), young earth creationism has most certainly been proven false. The only way it could possibly be true were if God made this world to appear as if it were ancient, even if it were not.
That is pretty much like the idea some held years back that fossils were put in rock by Satan to confuse us. It is just not consistant with what we know of God from the Bible.

Im sorry player, Lion is right.

Fossil record is sOOOOOOO 1980's ....

"The fossil record (once again) shows the dispersion and development of species. This most certainly includes the concept that everything has a common ancestor." WRONG WRONG GODDAMN WRONG Most certainly includes the concept?? are you a lawyer? I will need proof for this statement.

proof?
Evolution is still a theory. However, what I said is correct.

"there is just too much evidence around. " Yes, the earth is older than 8000 years, im sorry. Yes Species do evolve, yes natural selection exists. I will contend and continue to contend though, that science has not figured out the details ... YET. As it stands there is no way , zero.. that species in general have a common ancester in the broad sense. Yes, I believe birds came from snakes, that has been proven in my eyes. But snakes came from sea eels? That has yet to be proven.

Snakes did not come from sea eels.
I think you need to study evolution and evolutionary genetics a bit more before claiming you know so much more than the rest of us.

So many rank amateurs enter these debates without the tools and make great conclusions and blanket conclusions based on small evidence of specific cases... Its fun for me to read though tedious, dreary for me to argue.

Nobunga, it seems that your study of genetics does not extend to paleontology.

Nor is it evolutionary genetics.
And again, your attitude is not a credit to your intellect, your field, or science in general.

[PLAYER57832]

Ok. What if Lionz and other Creationists show us why Creation is the truth, rather than showing why Evolution is wrong, or we falling on their traps.

It would be nice, but the closest I have ever gotten to such came from widowmaker. Once I made it clear I thought evolution was consistant with Genesis and started in on details, about all I got was essentially "well you are just listening to experts".

However, I will say there are no real traps. Only things they believe to be traps and things which can ensnare people who don't really understand science.

[army of nobunaga]

Creatures do evolve maybe, but what suggests there was not a genus variety originally created that has brought forth species since?

Does the fossil record support a concept that everyone including plants and animals share a common ancestor? What would Darwin or Gould or Patterson or Ridley have to say? Has punctuated equilibrium not come about at least partially as a result of an apparent lack of evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record?

I already gave you a lengthy response and you haven't even acknowledged one of the things I wrote. Now you bombard us with a while new set of questions and really expect us to take the time to deal with you?

I will answer the above.
The fossil record (once again) shows the dispersion and development of species. This most certainly includes the concept that everything has a common ancestor. As for what Darwin, etc would say. It is irrelevant, but since I believe most are decent scientists they would be amazed by the depth of knowledge we now have on the subject of evolution, the number and variety of fossils, the knowledge we now have of genetics and geologic processes, etc.

Your last sentence above isn't even really a question. It is an attempt to make something of nothing. Yes, the idea of gradual evolution explaining everything just did not match the evidence fully. For a long time, it was a puzzle. Then some further discoveries were made and it became apparent that something, several somethings, actually (this has happened more than once), eliminated most life on earth, followed by an extreme proliferation and expansion of mostly (but not wholly) different species. So, again, it is based on evidence.

However, how much all of this is understood and what, exactly is known varies with regions and time frame. Some areas have lots of fossils for an age. Other areas may show none or only very few. Sea creatures are often readily perserved because they tend to fall to the bottom and get covered by silt and sand. Human ancestors, some other mammals, lived on land and were likely predated upon or their bones were simply left in ways not condusive to forming fossils.

HOWEVER, none of that means evolution is false. As I said before, even though we have questions, probably always will unless and until there is some kind of time machine to take us back (yes,that's a joke), there is just too much evidence around. The likelihood of another theory being true is incredibly slim.

FURTHER, even if evolution is false, that still does not prove young earth creationism is true. The fact is that while Evolution has not been 100% proven (though evolution actually has), young earth creationism has most certainly been proven false. The only way it could possibly be true were if God made this world to appear as if it were ancient, even if it were not.
That is pretty much like the idea some held years back that fossils were put in rock by Satan to confuse us. It is just not consistant with what we know of God from the Bible.

Im sorry player, Lion is right.

Fossil record is sOOOOOOO 1980's ....

"The fossil record (once again) shows the dispersion and development of species. This most certainly includes the concept that everything has a common ancestor." WRONG WRONG GODDAMN WRONG Most certainly includes the concept?? are you a lawyer? I will need proof for this statement.

proof?
Evolution is still a theory. However, what I said is correct.

"there is just too much evidence around. " Yes, the earth is older than 8000 years, im sorry. Yes Species do evolve, yes natural selection exists. I will contend and continue to contend though, that science has not figured out the details ... YET. As it stands there is no way , zero.. that species in general have a common ancester in the broad sense. Yes, I believe birds came from snakes, that has been proven in my eyes. But snakes came from sea eels? That has yet to be proven.

Snakes did not come from sea eels.
I think you need to study evolution and evolutionary genetics a bit more before claiming you know so much more than the rest of us.

So many rank amateurs enter these debates without the tools and make great conclusions and blanket conclusions based on small evidence of specific cases... Its fun for me to read though tedious, dreary for me to argue.

Nobunga, it seems that your study of genetics does not extend to paleontology.

Nor is it evolutionary genetics.
And again, your attitude is not a credit to your intellect, your field, or science in general.

You serious kiddo? You just said " This most certainly includes the concept that everything has a common ancestor." Fucking prove it. You cannot because the best scientists in the world so far cannot.

I KNOW snakes didnt come from eels... I KNOW THIS. that was the point.

I have never had a paleontology class. BUt maybe it counts that every molecular biology lab I have EVER seen has 10 Paleodiggers begging them for genetic work on tissue for their papers.

"And again, your attitude is not a credit to your intellect, your field, or science in general."
This is what you do to lionz when you have no fucking answers.. you attack credibility. Bitch, Ive spent most of my life in school. Im 34 with more degrees than you have girls that make you blush and drag your foot across the floor. If you are going to enter this argument you need to grow a pair and try to learn enough to come up with a good argument rather than running out of shit to copy and paste from the internet and attacking a persons credibility.

Because im not that guy. Im not a christian or a good guy, I see all your fallacys and if you work me up Ill have you eating shit off the floor crying.

[jay_a2j]

You serious kiddo? You just said " This most certainly includes the concept that everything has a common ancestor." Fucking prove it. You cannot because the best scientists in the world so far cannot.

I KNOW snakes didnt come from eels... I KNOW THIS. that was the point.

I have never had a paleontology class. BUt maybe it counts that every molecular biology lab I have EVER seen has 10 Paleodiggers begging them for genetic work on tissue for their papers.

"And again, your attitude is not a credit to your intellect, your field, or science in general."
This is what you do to lionz when you have no fucking answers.. you attack credibility. Bitch, Ive spent most of my life in school. Im 34 with more degrees than you have girls that make you blush and drag your foot across the floor. If you are going to enter this argument you need to grow a pair and try to learn enough to come up with a good argument rather than running out of shit to copy and paste from the internet and attacking a persons credibility.

Because im not that guy. Im not a christian or a good guy, I see all your fallacys and if you work me up Ill have you eating shit off the floor crying.

Wow, just WOW!

[PLAYER57832]

"And again, your attitude is not a credit to your intellect, your field, or science in general."
This is what you do to lionz when you have no fucking answers.. you attack credibility. Bitch, Ive spent most of my life in school. Im 34 with more degrees than you have girls that make you blush and drag your foot across the floor. If you are going to enter this argument you need to grow a pair and try to learn enough to come up with a good argument rather than running out of shit to copy and paste from the internet and attacking a persons credibility.

Because im not that guy. Im not a christian or a good guy, I see all your fallacys and if you work me up Ill have you eating shit off the floor crying.

You know what? You can wave your degrees all you want, call me names all you like. Unless you can frame a real discussion credibly and in a civil manner, you don't deserve my time... or anyone else's.

As for why I was not more specific, I am talking to a young earth creationist, not an expert in evolution. The less complicated, the better.

And yes, I do very much blame scientists with attitudes like yours on the very poor state of science understanding in this world. AND for this expansion of young earth creationism, in a big part as a result.

By-the-way. If you REALLY knew of what you spoke, you wouldn't blow off like that.

[PLAYER57832]

Here, I answered the questions that were actually clear questions. At first I thought your numbering system was some kind of reference back to the numbers you used before. It is not. Either ask clear questions or don't bother.

Creatures do evolve maybe, but what suggests there was not a genus variety originally created that has brought forth species since?

The fossil record.

Does the fossil record support a concept that everyone including plants and animals share a common ancestor?

Absolutely.

What would Darwin or Gould or Patterson or Ridley have to say?

not sure why you think it matters, but being good scientists, they likely would be amazed at the depth and breadth of the fossil record and all it contains, as well as what is now known about genetics and geology.

Has punctuated equilibrium not come about at least partially as a result of an apparent lack of evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record?

There have been problems almost from the start with using a gradual evolutionary process to explain all life on earth. A real explanation showed itself when some specific discoveries were found that pretty clearly showed periods of huge die-off followed by a (relative) explosion of mostly different species. This was first thought to have happened maybe once, but now we know it has happened many times in our earth's history.

- The Yonaguni Monument's claimed to be many things that are not true perhaps, but I brought it up for a number of reasons including to use it as evidence against orthodox history and evidence for preflood civilization maybe.

If something is not true, it cannot be used as evidence for anything. Second, the appearance of evidence for a new civilization there would alter, but not be "evidence against orthodox history". As for anything being pre-flood, start by finding proof of a worldwide flood, then worry about any civilizations that might have existed before then. You are putting the "cart before the horse"... again.

d: Specific about whales and ants?

- I was asking specifically about whales and ants possibly, but it would be nice to discuss universal common descent in general maybe.

I gave you two links on their specific evolution as well as a ones on general phylogeny. What more do you want. Basically, you are making it clear you won't believe any of it. You would rather believe that every scientist on earth, almost, is involved in one big conspiracy to supposedly "disprove the Bible" (never mind that most actually read and believe in the Bible!).

e: But did he?

- I'm not sure if Yah created the earth in a microsecond or not perhaps.

I am quite sure he took more time.

g: That is, that Genesis flat out says that Adam and Eve have to be ejected before they sample the tree of life and gain immortality?

- You are trying to make a moot point with that if Yah created the tree of life knowing there would be rebellion in the first place maybe.

He did, but no, that was not my point. My point was that this passage makes it clear that Adam and Eve are not immortal.. yet, therefore they were not immortal and it was not the fall that brought physical death to earth. This is just false theology.

Is someone only a scientist if they don't believe in Creation? How many branches of science can you list that were not started by creationist?

Please stop trying to mix definitions. I, along with a very good many scientists believe in God and fully believe God created all around us. The dispute is over young earth creationism.

9 ) Maybe you will let me want to know if you want to discuss the geologic column later. It's actually quite relevant to creationism perhaps.

It is very relevant to proving young earth creationism wrong. It is not relevant to evolution.

17 ) You referred to a self-cloning spruce that's part of an ancient root system in Dalarna and it has not been dated to be over 5,000 years with tree ring dating maybe. The spruce actually started growing in the 1940s perhaps! How could it be tree ring dated if it could be somehow? See text below an image here that says 1940s in it?

No I did not. You asked for a tree over 5000 years old, using tree ring data. I referred you to a website and a specific section that shows exactly that.

You then leaped to something about carbon 14 dating and so forth. I told you to read the section I specified. If you had read it with any understanding, you would see know it did not start growing in 1940.

21 ) You might have just led me to the most biased encyclopedia article ever in existance. Is there something specific you want to point out and discuss or a certain section you want me to address?

try being specific and perhaps I can answer.

23 ) Do you accuse someone of falling back of insults and yet mean to accuse me of being a trained monkey and troll?

This is the first time you have even partially answered anything I wrote. Asking questions and not bothering to read answers is a trolling tactic, yes. Even now, you ask questions I already answered and are only clear when asking about something I already said is not something in my field. Much of it has nothing to do with what I wrote. I have had enough of these discussions to recognize some script patterns. When I see you are quoting, if not Dr Morris site directly, something that follows the same "ideas".

[Neoteny]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqrKJTN6G5Y

[army of nobunaga]

"And again, your attitude is not a credit to your intellect, your field, or science in general."
This is what you do to lionz when you have no fucking answers.. you attack credibility. Bitch, Ive spent most of my life in school. Im 34 with more degrees than you have girls that make you blush and drag your foot across the floor. If you are going to enter this argument you need to grow a pair and try to learn enough to come up with a good argument rather than running out of shit to copy and paste from the internet and attacking a persons credibility.

Because im not that guy. Im not a christian or a good guy, I see all your fallacys and if you work me up Ill have you eating shit off the floor crying.

You know what? You can wave your degrees all you want, call me names all you like. Unless you can frame a real discussion credibly and in a civil manner, you don't deserve my time... or anyone else's.

As for why I was not more specific, I am talking to a young earth creationist, not an expert in evolution. The less complicated, the better.

And yes, I do very much blame scientists with attitudes like yours on the very poor state of science understanding in this world. AND for this expansion of young earth creationism, in a big part as a result.

By-the-way. If you REALLY knew of what you spoke, you wouldn't blow off like that.

you are right, we dont deserve each other. Ill continue to check in and chuckle at your fools arguments. Have a good one. btw, dont feel alone- there are literally millions of you discovery channel darwins out there.

[Symmetry]

"And again, your attitude is not a credit to your intellect, your field, or science in general."
This is what you do to lionz when you have no fucking answers.. you attack credibility. Bitch, Ive spent most of my life in school. Im 34 with more degrees than you have girls that make you blush and drag your foot across the floor. If you are going to enter this argument you need to grow a pair and try to learn enough to come up with a good argument rather than running out of shit to copy and paste from the internet and attacking a persons credibility.

Because im not that guy. Im not a christian or a good guy, I see all your fallacys and if you work me up Ill have you eating shit off the floor crying.

You know what? You can wave your degrees all you want, call me names all you like. Unless you can frame a real discussion credibly and in a civil manner, you don't deserve my time... or anyone else's.

As for why I was not more specific, I am talking to a young earth creationist, not an expert in evolution. The less complicated, the better.

And yes, I do very much blame scientists with attitudes like yours on the very poor state of science understanding in this world. AND for this expansion of young earth creationism, in a big part as a result.

By-the-way. If you REALLY knew of what you spoke, you wouldn't blow off like that.

you are right, we dont deserve each other. Ill continue to check in and chuckle at your fools arguments. Have a good one. btw, dont feel alone- there are literally millions of you discovery channel darwins out there.

Where did you pick up your degree, btw? I only ask because few credible institutions will award degrees for theses that argue "I'm not sure- maybe God did it" as science.