young earth Creationism .. again

[PLAYER57832]

Well, buried in among the many irrelevant photos, I did find a couple of claims I really should have refuted. See, that tends to happen when you throw out so much absolute junk at once. (I will ignore the charts supposedly showing that the Grand Canyon through Zion are all from the flood. I already answered that part).

This idea that wood is somehow a "fast decomposer" is pretty ridiculous. To test this, all you have to do is start a compost pile.. and see what lasts the longest. Beyond that, we have plenty of evidence of wood being preserved in water. What is needed to halt decomposition is lack of oxeygen, because oxeygen drives most decomposers.

Wood is one of the more durable of organic materials, not the most quickly to decompose! I mean if they think cellulose is suger, then I suppose you give your kids wood instead of candy as a treat? Hint: human beings cannot even digest cellulose, because its composition is so different, whereas sugar is processed very quickly into our bloodstream.

As for the patent referenced, someone developed a wood preservative and called it "petrification". So what?

Compare two below?

I would have to see the Burlingham site in person to be sure, but the picture seems to show some pretty "soft" (that is full of fissures, crumbling) substrate. Also, note that the sides are fairly uniformly scoured -- that is in a more or less straight slant, as opposed to the more gradual and "stair stepped" formations of the grand canyon.

Here is a rebuttal:
Creation Science Rebuttals
Institute for Creation Research
Dr. John's Q&A #156, December 2001
How Long Does it Take for a Canyon to Form?

By Greg Neyman

© Answers In Creation
Most young earth creation science advocates point to the Grand Canyon as a product of Noah's Flood. As you also know, geologists have long contended that the canyon formed over millions of years. Young-earth creationists have made at least one attempt to deceive people into believing it is possible by using modern day examples.

Consider the How Long Does It Take For A Canyon To Form? article on the Institute of Creation Research website (also known as Dr. John's Q&A, Number 156). In this article, Dr. Dr. John Morris introduces us to the Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington. The claim here is that this canyon formed in six days, so the assumption that Dr. Morris makes is that it is possible to form a large canyon in a short amount of time. For reference, the canyon in question is 1,500 feet long, 120 feet deep and 120 feet wide.

The volume of rock displaced by the Burlingame Canyon is nearly five million cubic feet, and the Grand Canyon volume of rock displaced is roughly 448 trillion cubic feet1, or 89,702,431 times the volume of the Burlingame Canyon (in case you didn't get it, that's a ratio of 89 million to 1). I fail to see the relation between these two canyons. Because you can create a tiny canyon in six days doesn't prove anything, unless you can repeat it on the scale of the Grand Canyon. And, if the Grand Canyon eroded at the same rate as Burlingame, you would still need 1.5 million years for the Grand Canyon to form.2

This is a perfect example of a trick the young earth creation scientist uses to convince the uninformed person. The argument is that if you can demonstrate something on a small scale, then all you have to do is increase the scale to create a larger effect. It sounds logical but proves nothing.

Another trick evident in this article, from the first paragraph, is the statement that in recent years, scientists had disproved the idea of slow canyon formation, and instead were leaning now on a large volume of water rushing through the canyon at a high rate of speed. Scientists have NOT disproved this idea of slow canyon formation...only "creation scientists" have, which represent less than 1/10th of 1 percent of scientists. The "scientist" claim is quite misleading. For a statement to be considered "disproved," it must be examined by other scientists and found to be untrue, which is not the case at all concerning the Grand Canyon. I can assure you that scientists still believe in a millions of years old canyon.

Now I actually take some issue with the second to last paragraph by Greg Nyman. That is, it is sometimes possible to infer longer or larger processes from what happens on a small scale. However, only with the utmost caution and within specific defined parameters. Often times, it just does not work. In this case, even "sizing up" the example does not work, as he does explain. Young earth creationists ignore any parameter that does not fit their view. (but will insert any they need to make things fit).

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

Nice pictures, but actually they help explain why it is clear these are distinct layers. See, you see that gradation of sizes within each layer. Now, I am not familiar enough with Bryce Canyon to say all the processes that formed it, but if you were to look at the sedimentary layers under heavy magnification, you would see the kind of gradation shown on the left.

Another way they can tell one layer from another is that often they will have very different compositions. Again, within the layers, you will see that kind of "large on the bottom, small on top" gradation of particles (though NOT absolute -- there are many variations, reasons it might not come out that way, however going into every exception would take a LOT of time. Mostly, you would see that gradation within layers).

Again, classic case of young earth creationists denying truth. Or, flat out lying to make their claims seem real.


I guess I can repeat, since you do so often.
I became pretty suspicious when almost all the links I could find were young earth creationist links. That's often a pretty clear tip-off that this is something being put forward as "evidence", but recently enough that the more mainline scientists have not yet bothered to counter it. (or have done so so long ago, they now tire of it).

At any rate, these 2 excerpts from wikkipeadia outline it pretty well:
[edit] Yellowstone
In case of the polystrate trees of the Yellowstone petrified forest, which occur buried within the lahars and other volcanic deposits comprising the Lamar River Formation, the periods of rapid sedimentation are regarded by them to be the result of explosive volcanism. This type of volcanism generates and deposits large quantities of loose volcanic material as a blanket over the slope of a volcano as happened during the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Both during and for years after a period of volcanism occurs, lahars and normal stream activity wash this loose volcanic material downslope. These processes result in the rapid burial of large areas of the surrounding countryside beneath several meters of sediment as directly observed during the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo.[8] As is the case of modern lahar deposits, the sedimentary layers containing polystrate trees of the Yellowstone petrified forest and the individual forests, which these polystrate trees comprise, are discontinuous and very limited in areal extent. Individual layers containing polystrate trees and individual buried forests, which these polystrate trees compose, occupy only a very, very small fraction of the total area of Yellowstone National Park.[9]

[edit] Fossil soils
Geologists have recognized innumerable fossil soils (paleosols) throughout the strata containing polystrate fossils at Joggins, Nova Scotia, Yellowstone petrified forests, coal mines of the Black Warrior Basin of Alabama, and many other locations. The layer immediately underlying coal seams, often called either "seatearth or underclay", typically either consists of or contains a paleosol. Paleosols are soils which were formed by subaerial weathering during periods of very slow or no accumulation of sediments. Later, renewed sedimentation buried these soils to create paleosols. These paleosols are identified on the basis of the presence of structures and microstructures unique to soils; animal burrows and molds of plant roots of various sizes and types; recognizable soil profile development; and alteration of minerals by soil processes. In many cases, these paleosols are virtually identical to modern soils.

Geologists who have studied polystrate fossils found in sedimentary rocks exposed in various outcrops for the last 30 years have described polystrate fossil trees as being deeply rooted in place and typically rooted in recognizable paleosols. This is in sharp contrast to the claims made by creationists such as Harold Coffin and N. A. Rupke. Geologists, such as Falcon[10][11][12][13][14] and Rygel et al.,[15] have published detailed field sketches and pictures of polystrate tree fossils with intact root systems, which are rooted within recognizable paleosols. In case of polystrate fossil trees of the Yellowstone petrified forests, geologists – again in sharp disagreement with creationists like Harold Coffin – found that the polystrate fossil trees, except for relatively short stumps, are rooted in place within the underlying sediments. Typically, the sediments within which polystrate trees are rooted have paleosols developed within them[9][16][17] Either pictures or diagrams of the Yellowstone polystrate fossil trees having intact root systems developed within paleosols found within these strata have been published in Retallack (1981, 1997).[16][17][18]

For your purposes, note the volcanic eruptions are often a cause. Also note that it just is not evidence counter to an old earth or evolution theories.

[PLAYER57832]

EDIT IN PROGRESS, but its pretty long, so I figured I would post it even though I am not done critiquing the article.

The following comes from this link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp

The title is National Geographic is wrong and so is Darwin

I have deleted some strictly opinion or background sections, to save space. The full article is linked above. I am posting this because it is a pretty good example of many of the problems with young earth creationist arguments.
.......
For instance, please consider that only about five years ago, NG promoted “Archaeoraptor” as “proof’ that “We can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals.”1 However, this turned out to be a hoax—a Piltdown Bird—see Archaeoraptor—Phony “feathered” fossil. NG published an embarrassing recantation. However, it seems that their open honesty may have been shortlived.
Partially true, but with a very definite slant.
The short of it is that some people had questions about this fossil from the start, but it was named and then got published in National Geographic. National Geographic is NOT a peer-reviewed journal, it is geared toward the average public, not scientists in the field. However it usually relies on information from only heavily verified sources and is usually pretty trustworthy. In this case, they made a mistake. This fossil has not passed a peer-review, but got published anyway in National Geographic. It was a mistake. From wikki article on this: In October 2000 National Geographic published the results of their investigation, in an article written by investigative journalist Lewis M. Simmons. They concluded that the fossil was a composite and that virtually everyone involved in the project had made some mistakes.[7]
HOWEVER, the critical issue is that anyone reading this article is lead to believe that this one fossil, found to be a fraud is essentially the primary or even sole evidence of this link. In fact, there are many true an dverified examples of feathered dinosaurs. They are ignored.

Tactic (or why these articles are not credible): Picking out a few fossils or pieces of data with "issues" (be they errors, places where no definite answer exists or even outright frauds), but ignoring other supporting data is a typical young earth creationist tactic. It is not, however either good science or even honest. So, the criticism is quite valid, but does not establish what they claim. Again, that is just dishonest.


The fundamental points of debate: Information
To understand the following brief analysis of this article, we invite you to consider some important facts about life and the creationist view. All living things contain in their cells the DNA molecule that carries the information (genetic instructions) for making all aspects of that creature and all this information is in the first fertilized cell of each kind of creature. .... Some DNA information is common to many different kinds of creatures, but there are also differences.

So the key questions related to evolution are these. One, how did this information come into existence in the evolutionist’s supposed first living microscopic creature? And, second, how did the information in that “simple” creature get changed and augmented to produce all the different kinds of plants and animals that we see living and in the fossil record?

The NG article doesn’t even attempt to address the first question, with good reason. As the world famous astrobiologist, Paul Davies, says:

It's a shame that there are precious few hard facts when it comes to the origin of life. We have a rough idea when it began on Earth, and some interesting theories about where, but the how part has everybody stumped. Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organised themselves into the first living cell.2..
The theory of evolution is a "forward-back" theory. That is, the evidence starts in the recent and then goes back. Recent evidence is pretty firm. However, yes, the further back in time one goes, the evidence is more sketchy and difficult to find. Any ideas about the very beginnings of life therefore are absolutely more questionable than later ones.

However, by centering on the least certain time and claiming that is the "foundation" of the science, young earthers can then claim this is "proof" of the lack of evidence for this theory.

Tactic: This is a typical method of "debate" they will concentrate ONLY on those areas where there are real questions. However, even when the questions are real, they ignore any other evidence and ignore any option other than the one they propose ... that the earth is young.

This is not surprising, given the problems with chemical evolution to explain life’s origin, and the key role of genetic information in the making of living creatures. Dr Werner Gitt is a leading German scientist and young-earth creationist who is an expert on information theory. In his powerful, tightly reasoned book, In the Beginning was Information, he argues, “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”3
Another common young earth creationist tactic. Bring in a young earther and claim he is a "leading expert" (though almost never are these people recognized as experts in anything except by creationists). In fact, very far from being a "leading scientist", Dr Werner Gitt is actually a laughing stock in his profession, who's conclusions are roundly criticized and not accepted by any but other young earth creationist scientists.
To quote: "Theory Group at the National Institutes of Health, an expert on the application of evolution to biology similarly criticizes his use of unproved "theorems", use of circular reasoning, self-contradiction, "Gitt has gotten Shannon backwards" and that Gitt falls into a "standard misunderstanding that information is not entropy, information is not uncertainty"."

Basically any scientist who claims "there is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events" is not operating from a scientific basis, even if that statement is true in a given circumstance. Anything "not known" is a point to begin research, for further investigation. It is not an end in science!

So the evolution hypothesis is in big trouble right from the beginning.
Again, the beginning is the very weakest part of evolutionary theory, not its "pillar" as this article tries to imply.


But it gets worse, because, as creationists have repeatedly argued, and as we review below, natural selection and mutations (either alone or together) do not produce the increase of new genetic information needed to support the goo-to-you-via-the-zoo theory of evolution.
True, which is why this is not what evolutionists say any longer and one example of why updates are needed before you criticize evolutionary theory. Young earthers cannot be bothered, however. They prefer to rest with old, out-dated theories that they can more easily refute.

Creationists believe, based on the clear teaching of Genesis, that God supernaturally made different “kinds” of plants and animals during the first six literal days of history and that He endowed those creatures with the genetic information to produce enormous varieties within the original kinds but not the ability to change into a different kind. In case you are reading material like this for the first time, please read on and consider what is reviewed below. We believe this to be of vital importance in the overall discussion of life on this earth. Creation scientists (with PhDs earned at secular, evolution-dominated universities) are involved in ongoing scientific research to try to define the genetic boundaries of the original kinds, but most seem to agree that, generally speaking, the Genesis kinds are in most cases at the genus or family level, not the species level of modern taxonomic classification.
This admission, that things can change within the genus or family level is relatively new. Earlier, the claim was that there was no change or only very, very minor changes.

At any rate, they utterly fail to explain how studying modern genes will show these historic "boundaries". Further, they completely and utterly ignore the vast variety of plants and animals that exist on earth.
Second, they utterly dismiss the view of the overwhelming majority of Christians.. Roman Catholics and mainline Protestants who fully accept Genesis AND evolution as consistant.
At any rate, how one views the Bible is a matter of faith, of belief. I, personally, take issue with the assertion that belief in evolution is somehow "unChristian", but that is because I am a Christian.

Scientifically, all that matters is proveable evidence. The Bible is just irrelevant.

So the contrast between evolution and creation is clear. Evolutionists believe in the tree of life—that all living things are descended from one common ancestor. That is, they believe in vertical change from one kind of creature to another. Creationists believe in the forest of life—horizontal variation within the original created kind, but not one kind changing into another. Which view really fits the scientific evidence?
Note the reference to "verticle change from one kind of creature to another". It becomes important. They insist that evolutionists believe that one species must replace another. Ironically enough, they actually try to box evolutionists into a far more narrow level of creation than they themselves now. Because, if there were only a linear line of descent, then there would be only roughly the same numbers of species, not the full diversity that exists.

It actually is an argument that defeats itself. However, that is part of the point.

Tactic: Make a false claim about the theory of evolution. In this case, the idea that one species must replace another, of almost linear descent. In reality, the evolutionary view is like a tree with too many branches to count, many of which have died off long ago and many more which flourish and produce many more branches. And claiming that an old species must dissappear before a new one can show up is like claiming that because your name is not the same as your maternal grandfather's, you cannot have cousins with his name.


Concerning natural selection, NG gets it wrong at the start when it says that “Wallace and Darwin share the kudos for having discovered natural selection” (p. 8 ). Actually, a respected creationist British scientist, Edward Blyth, discussed the concept (without using the term) 25 years before Darwin published his famous book.
True and in fact there was at least one other. However, Darwin is credited for publishing and popularizing the ideas first.
Blyth attributed variation within the original created kinds to changes in environment or food supply.4 NG describes natural selection as the “natural culling” of “useless or negative variations” (p. 8 ), but this reveals the fatal flaw in Darwin’s theory. As creationists have continually pointed out, natural selection doesn’t create anything new, it only selects from the existing genetic information from which the varieties are produced. The result is either the preservation of some of that information in a variety well suited to a particular environment or the complete loss of some of the information through extinction of a variety. But what never results is the increase or creation of new genetic information.
Of course, the new information comes from mutations, not natural selection. This might seem like just a mistake, but this kind of "mistake".. taking real scientific terms and completely muddying their definitions is another typical tactic.


NG misleads its readers and evades this information argument when it showcases losses of information as “proof” of goo-to-you evolution, which would involve massive increases of information. For example, NG asks, “Why do certain species of flightless beetles have wings that never open?” (pp. 12–13). We have long ago pointed out that such beetles did arise from beetles with fully functional wings because of a mutation that crippled the power of flight. But in some environments, such a mutation may be beneficial, i.e. benefiting the organism. For example, on a windy island, a beetle that flew into the air may be blown into the sea, while flightless ones will avoid that peril. But the bottom line is the beetle has lost something; this doesn’t explain how beetles or flight could have arisen in the first place.
OK, first they say that "we have long ago point out that such beetles did arise from beeltes with fully functional wings due to a mutation". Then they bring in the evolutionists claim that this might be beneficial, as if it were in opposition to the first part. Followed is a summary that "this doesn't explain how beetles of flight could habe arisen". EXCEPT.. they don't really provide one, either. And, ironically enough what explanation they do provide doesn't really and truly disagree with even what they report as evolution arguments. Yet, they claim it does!
The evidence for evolution is presented by NG in four categories: biogeography (the study of the geographical distribution of living creatures), paleontology (the study of fossils), embryology (the study of the development of embryos to birth) and morphology (the study of the shape and design of creatures). Darwin used all these arguments, and so do modern evolutionists.

Biogeography
Evolutionists say that only evolution can explain why there are certain creatures in one location, say kangaroos in Australia, but not in another location. However, Darwin claimed that evolution explained the pattern of life on fixed continents, while now evolution is supposed to explain the pattern of life on continents that moved apart from one big one. If evolution is so flexible that it can explain such mutually incompatible distributions, then it explains nothing at all.
This isn't even really an argument, though they frame it as if it were. Begin with that evolutionists don't say evolution alone explains this. You have to pair it with other factors, such as continental drift and, mostly fossil evidence. The disbursement is there. Then the reference to Darwin, as if because Darwin originated this theory, anything he says must direct evolutionary theory "forever". In truth, he got a whole lot wrong, including this. He had no knowledge of continental drift at all. He looked solely at set areas -- islands and the continents he visited. This paragraph attempts to claim Darwin's lack of knowledge or failure to mention something we now know occurs means the entire modern theory cannot be true.

Also, note the complete lack of any real data or evidence. Its all opinion and not even well-founded opinion at that!

Also, there are many puzzles to the observed distribution of living and fossil creatures. For example, kangaroos are not mainly in Australia “because they evolved there.” And evolutionists have to admit that marsupials once lived in Europe, Asia and North America (in profusion in the latter), but now are largely absent (except for opossums in the Americas). Here is a revealing admission from two evolutionists:

Living marsupials are restricted to Australia and South America (which were part of the supercontinent Gondwana); North American opossums are recent immigrants to the continent. In contrast, metatherian fossils from the Late Cretaceous are exclusively from Eurasia and North America (which formed the supercontinent Laurasia). This geographical switch remains unexplained.5
The switch is well explained. Here is a link : http://books.google.com/books?id=-esZPR ... nt&f=false

To begin with, ALL the continents were linked at one time. South and North America were separate and then remerged (Opossum came north from SA)

But creationists contend that there are much better explanations of the biogeographic evidence, which flow from understanding the changes in climate and sea level after the global catastrophic Flood at the time of Noah and the fact that post-Flood people would have intentionally (and sometimes unknowingly) taken plants and animals to different parts of the world as they repopulated the earth. See How Did Animals Spread All Over the World from Where the Ark Landed? and chapter 1 of Woodmorrappe’s book, Studies in Flood Geology.
This just in no way matches the facts. Floods are pretty well understood by all except young earth creationists. Most of what they claim happened before and post flood would require utter suspension of most science.
Closely related species in an area, such as the thirteen species of finches in the Galápagos Islands that Darwin explored, have indeed arisen from a common ancestor. But finches changing into finches don’t tell us where finches came from in the first place.True, to know where finches come from you have to study the fossil record, genetics, etc.

Rather, they are a classic example of sorting out genetic information, not generating new information, and far more quickly than evolutionists expected but just what the creation model predicted.
Interesting assertion, but with no citation, impossible to even verify who said this.
At any rate, it is not an example that disproves evolution at all. To prove what did happen, I would have to find links regarding the genetics of finches. However, the important point is that again, this article makes a claim that this is proof against evolution when it is not at all.

Also, recent work shows that many of the changes are really the result of a built-in capacity to respond to cyclically changing climates. For example, while a drought resulted in a slight increase in beak size, the change was reversed when the rains returned.
Assuming this is true, it proves absolutely nothing. This would be very consistant with the evolution model.

This argument applies to the other NG examples of anoles, mole rats, ants, pigeons and fruit flies. It’s also important to note that Darwin’s argument was against a compromising view similar to that of progressive creationists such as Hugh Ross: namely, that God created individual species where they are now living.
In this case, Darwin got it correct.

Contrary to what the NG article implies, informed creationists do indeed believe that new species can arise. But these are the result of the reshuffling or loss of the genetic information in the original created kinds. As explained earlier, creationist scientists do not believe that the original created “kinds” (mentioned in Genesis 1) are equivalent to the modern man-made taxonomic classification of “species,” but more likely approximates the “family” level. Much recent evidence has accumulated to show that speciation can happen rapidly, which has surprised evolutionists but fits perfectly with the Bible’s teachings.
This is a marked change from previous arguments, which went that species could not change because the Bible said God created all and that must mean he created everything just as it is now. At any rate, note the insertion at the end that "evolutionists were surprised", but it "fits perfectly with the Bible's teachings". The Bible has not changed, only young earth creationism.

Paleontology
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.
I addressed this earlier, but I will add that the phrase "knew that if his theory was true" should be "believed that if his theory was true". Also, big parts of his theory were just plain wrong.

So I guess the folks at NG are not real evolutionists, or at least not very informed. They certainly offer nothing in this article to negate these statements. Incredibly, NG even admits that “illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 out of every 1000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor” (p. 25). So there you have it. Evolution is 99.9% imagination!
Classic young earth argument. "Not enough information". However, note that they cannot truly explain away all the evidence that exists. They don't even try. They simply deny it.. and claim there "ought to be" more. I mean, "ought to be" is just not a phrase one can use in this context. Scientists study what is. Sometimes it matches what they believe should be and sometimes they find something very, very different.
NG quickly reassures us that “dozens of intermediate forms” have been found, but they only give two examples: horses and whales. Yes, two examples mentioned in ONE article. This is hardly the limit of transition fossils. (could be in this particular case). Again, they take very limited examples and ignore the rest.

Creationists have exposed the flaws in the supposed horse evolution story for years. The story told by the fossils in South America is backwards compared to the story told by the fossils in North America—see What’s happened to the horse? Rather, the horse “tree” is really a bush, and comprises merely variants within the horse kind, and most likely a non-horse at the bottom—see pages 189–97 in Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! A previous flawed attempt by NG (in 1981) to use horse fossils to support evolution is exposed in Horse find defies evolution.
To dispute this, I need to do a fair amount of research. I will say this, that the fossil record is pretty convoluted and there are times when species appear, legitimately, to regress. (the whale started as an aquatic species, came to land, then went back to sea -- just for one example) This is not an example of evolutionary theory failing, it is just an example of the complexity life's evolution.

Again, only young earth creationists claim that evolution must be a straight linear process "forward".

As for whale evolution, NG refers to the work of paleontologist Philip Gingerich. It discusses his research on Pakicetus (“whale from Pakistan”), but doesn’t reveal the real story. In 1994 Gingerich claimed Pakicetus was a creature “perfectly intermediate” between a land animal and a whale.10 The fossil evidence at the time only consisted of parts of the skull, yet Gingerich’s artist drew the creature swimming in the ocean with front legs like a land animal but the mouth and a rear end looking like a sea creature as it was trying to eat fish. But by 2001 more fossils had been found11 and it was concluded that Pakicetus was “no more amphibious than a tapir.”13 Yet NG misleadingly tells us that Gingerich “discovered Pakicetus, a terrestrial mammal” (p. 31). That’s not what he called it when he discovered it and wrote about it in the scientific literature!

NG goes on to say that Gingerich now believes that whales are related to antelope based on a “single piece of fossil” found in 2000. It was part of the anklebone of a “new species of whale,” they said. But later they found the other part and realized that it was “an anklebone, from a four-legged whale.” Hold on! When was the last time you saw a “four-legged whale”? Evolutionists are playing language games to call the fins and tail of a whale “legs.” But if, as NG says, the fossil “closely resembled” the anklebone in artiodactyls (hoofed land animals, such as antelopes), then how on earth could this “single piece of fossil evidence” be interpreted as being in any way related to whales? In evolution theory, imagination is king! NG says at this point “this is how science is supposed to work” (p. 31). Really?
To understand and honestly critique this finding requires a great deal of research. This is why peer-review is the "gold standard" in determining what is and is not accepted. Note, this finding might, eventually, be proven incorrect. HOWEVER, this idea that "it just is crazy" (to paraphrase) constitutes a legitimate scientific argument is, well -- just crazy.

AND, the fossil record is most definitely not entirely based on this kind of evidence. However, that fact is neatly ignored by young earth creationists.
Embryology and Morphology
Similarity of shape or design can just as well, if not more so, point to a common designer, [rest of paragraph deleted
Tactic: Tie believe in evolution to denial of a creator. This is absolutely fundamental to their credo. It is also plain false. The mainline Protestant churches, the Roman Catholic churches, almost all Jews uniformly accept evolution AND the Bible, God's creation.
But when we take into account the differences in creatures that share common features, the common ancestor argument becomes even more unbelievable. For example, humans and frogs have five digits on their hands, but the developmental patterns in them are vastly different. In humans the fingers develop by programmed cell death in between the digits, whereas in frogs it is by outward growth as cells divide.
Who determines what is and is not believable? Such things are absolutely not specified within the Bible! Many things in science don't, initially, seem to make sense. Did it "make sense", at first, that the earth revolves around the sun? After all, we "see" the sun move, not earth! In fact, people were excommunicated and burned at the stake for even suggesting such a thing because it was once thought blasphemy to think such a thing, somehow indicating that humans were not God's stellar creation. Yet, even most young earth creationists have no problem accepting this as truth.

Tactic: Dismiss as "unbelievable" or "illogic" anything they wish, pretty much, however particularly any concept that is even slightly difficult to accept or understand.
As for embryos, the development is programmed by the information in the DNA molecule in the fertilized egg. So again the question is where did this information come from for the different kinds of plants and animals? It didn’t come from time and chance and the laws of nature.
DNA can be altered prior to fertilization and sometimes after. Whether God is directing this is not a question science is currently able to answer. Science remains nuetral on the point of God.

And we must never lose sight of the evolutionists continued use of Ernst Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings—see Something fishy about gill slits! Yet, like Darwin and many science textbooks15 and evolutionist books for laymen,16 NG endorses embryonic recapitulation (p. 13).
The saying referred to here is "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". Anyway, at one point there was the idea that everything, (humans, etc.) went through all the evolutionary stages as embryos. Thus we began as fish, went to amphibians, etc. as embryos within the womb. This was long since discredited. In the case of the NG article on Darwin, it is a reference to history. It is definitely NOT a currently accepted idea!

Tactic: Ignore modern research in favor of older research that is then refuted. Never mind that modern evolutionists also refute it! (and long before young earthers got into the subject)

[PLAYER57832]

Part 2 of Darwin got it wrong and National Geographic, too.

NG claims vestigial characteristics or organs as proof of evolution.
More that vestigial parts are a result of evolution. That is, we have vestigial parts because evolution has moved to eliminate them. For example, some of our earliest ancestors had tails. Our line of descent long since did without them and the trait dissappeared, but not entirely. We still have a slight vestigial "tail". However, that vestigial part could be completely absent and still not disprove evolution.

Tactic: shift what is believed about evolution very slightly, then spin that off into a premise that is just wrong.
These are aspects of the body that are claimed to be useless leftovers from our animal ancestry. There are two problems with this argument. One, the loss of function (through the loss of genetic information) cannot be evidence of the ascendance from a lowly kind of creature up to a higher form (which would require an increase of information).
Why not? Why can't simplification be a part of evolution?

In part, this gets back to a "misunderstanding" of natural selection. If you had asked Darwin, he might have said that evolution tends toward "higher" species (fitter species). No one even accepts the pure "survival of the fittest" model any longer. Survival of one over another operates only when species are in close competition and only when the conditions really do favor one particular characteristic over time. When the situation is unstable or highly changed, this happens relatively quickly (we are in such a period now). Species that suddenly find a primary food source lost, for example, either adapt or die. However, for the most part saying "survival of the lucky" is probably more accurate. Even "needed" parts can be eliminated through pure "chance" (perhaps a reason we cannot detect or perhaps no real reason, "God's plan" is absolutely an option, just not one proveable by science, so one that is not often discussed).

Most of the time, if something is not needed, then the likelihood is that expending energy to support that unneeded function will mean those without (or where it is reduced) may have a slight advantage. In fact, just the opposite of the "must" this young earther claims.

Tactic: Make a claim that superficially seems to make sense, but which really has no basis or is even outright wrong. Whenever possible, tie this to outdated evolutionary theories, which can then be confidently shown to be invalid.

Secondly, nearly all of the 180 “vestigial organs” in man cited by evolutionists as proof of evolution at the turn of the 20th century are now known (because of medical research) to have at least one function. See Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional. In fact, NG ludicrously uses male nipples as proof of evolution (pp. 12–13)—do they think males evolved from a race entirely comprised of breasted-female humans?
I see, so first they claim that having parts without form is proof against evolution. Now they claim that the fact that they have a use means they are not proof of evolution? My head is spinning!

Seriously, the truth is that whether vestigial parts still have a function or do not is absolutely irrelevant, except for understanding the exact details of evolution. The premise of evolution is that things change over time. Any "direction" is only seen afterward. Most Christians, yes, will see humans as the "endpoint". However, that is a religious premise, not a scientific one. Science does not, from the outset, "favor" one particular outcome over another, except that circumstances might make one more likely than another. (if 100 animals have red hair and one blonde, then it is more likely that the red hair will be passed on than the blonde hair, unless some other factor, such as behavior or genetic dominance, favors the blonde hair)


NG makes a big deal about plants, animals, bacteria and viruses changing to resist herbicides, insecticides and antibiotics. In fact, the article says that “there’s no better or more immediate evidence supporting the Darwinian theory than this process of forced transformation among our inimical germs” (p. 21).

But in each cited example we have a certain kind of creature changing into another variety of that same kind of creature. One flu strain changing into another flu strain, or one staph bacterium changing into a different staph bacterium, or one variety of house fly turning into another variety of house fly is not an explanation of where the information to make the flu, staph or house fly came from in the first place.
Again, this just shows HOW mutations wind up dominating, how they wind up taking hold within a changing environment. The "where they came from " is answered by genetic studies.

Tactic: Point out a "question" that doesn't really exist and then conveniently ignore any "inconvenient" answers. Again, these tactics fail when people actually study science. However, if a child is taught this is true, then when they hear other things, they distrust it. Two things happen. Either they distrust every science finding they hear in favor of what is told them in church (Dr Morris' "wish") OR they wind up seeing that science is real and too often then begin distrusting their church and then churches as whole, the Bible and often religion in general. We are taught to build our houses on stone, not sand. There is no weaker foundation than lies.

And we always find that the change is actually going in the opposite direction to what evolution requires—see Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?
Going in the opposite direction that evolution requires ??? Says who? Science observes what is! Nor is such supposition taught within the Bible. Do they presume to understand the will of God? Suggesting that anyone knows what evolution can and cannot do, where it "must" head (except that it much reach the present that exists, of course) is hubris of the utmost.

Tactic: place wild limitations upon the theory they wish to dispute, never mind any tie to reality.


But how does this variation occur? Prominent evolutionist, Francisco Ayala tell us:

Insect resistance to a pesticide was first reported in 1947 for the Housefly (Musca domestica) with respect to DDT. Since then resistance to one or more pesticides has been reported in at least 225 species of insects and other arthropods. The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.17

Research shows that the same can apply to antibiotic resistance.

Scientists at the University of Alberta have revived bacteria from members of the historic Franklin expedition who mysteriously perished in the Arctic nearly 150 years ago. Not only are the six strains of bacteria almost certainly the oldest ever revived, says medical microbiologist Dr. Kinga Kowalewska-Grochowska, three of them also happen to be resistant to antibiotics. In this case, the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin, both of which were developed more than a century after the men died, were among those used.18
This much is true.


But many times the changes are due to mutations, which are copying mistakes in the DNA molecule in the process of reproduction. What NG doesn’t tell the readers is that mutations result in a loss of genetic information in the creature. Most mutations are deleterious, if not fatal, to the organism. It is not on the way up (evolving), but on the way down (devolving). Sometimes, the mutation does improve the chance of survival, but it always involves a loss of genetic information.
While it is true that many mutations do harm, the rest of that paragraph is just not true. In fact, "copying mistakes" are just one type of mutation. Further, mutations absolutely CAN create new genes. Far from this high limitation that this article wishes to impose on mutation, the more genes are studied, the more kinds of variation is found.
From wikkipeadia:
Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication.[1][2][3] They can also be induced by the organism itself, by cellular processes such as hypermutation. Mutation can result in several different types of change in DNA sequences; these can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely.

Human genetics are a bit more specific. However, the bottom line is that mutations do not "always result in a loss of genetic material". This is just not true. Why, then is it repeated in young earth creationist literature so often?

For example, the bacterium, Helicobacter pylori, is troublesome to humans, but doctors can destroy it with an antibiotic. After the patient takes the antibiotic, it is absorbed through the cell wall of the bacterium. It has the genetic information to make an enzyme which reacts with the antibiotic converting it into a poison, killing the bacterium. But due to a mutation, some H. pylori cannot make the enzyme and so cannot convert the antibiotic and so do not die but reproduce, giving the patient and doctor a new problem. The mutant survived through a loss of information, which is not a process that will eventually lead to an increase of information to change a bacterium over millions of years into a biologist.
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is not individual resistance.

What happens is this: Bacteria flourish in a human, make that human sick. By the time an illness appears, likely millions of bacteria have infected that person. In any population of a million there is going to be significant variability, including variations that will cause varied susceptability to antibiotics. So, a doctor percribes an antibiotic for a person. An antibiotic kills off a large portion of the bacteria. It is very difficult to impossible to kill off all of the bacteria. The bacteria that are "weaker", more susceptible to the antibiotic will die off first, followed by those with a bit more resistance, etc. until the only bacteria that are left are those that are highly resistant to the antibiotic. Often it is impossible to eliminate all of any bacteria, say within a human. The goal of doctors is to push that bacterial population down below the point of viability, to where either they just cannot grow/reproduce enough or the body can fight it off. However, if enough of the bacteria remain, they will resurge, cause a "relapse". Since all the weaker bacteria were eliminated by the first course of antibiotics, those that are now reproducing are resistant.

So, the above description of how that particular antibiotic works is irrelevant. The explanation comes from a gross misunderstanding of how resistance is passed on. In a population as great as the population of bacteria in a human, there will be variation. That some of that variation translates into resistance to an antibiotic is essentially cooincidental.

Tactic: Take advantage of places where the average person tends to grossly misunderstand a process, such as in resistance and then exploit this misunderstanding. Becuase no one who actually studies this would truly make such a mistake, it is one place where I personally believe there has to be intentional deceit involved.


As Dr. Lee Spetner, a Jewish scientist and expert on mutations, has stated in his excellent book, Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, pp. 159–60:

But all these mutations reduce the information in the gene by making a protein less specific. They add no information and they add no new molecular capability. Indeed, all mutations studied destroy information. None of them can serve as an example of a mutation that can lead to the large changes of macroevolution. ... Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume.

So much for mutations being any help to the evolutionist. Just like natural selection, they don’t produce the new genetic information that the theory requires. But like natural selection, mutations fit perfectly with what the Bible teaches. They are the result of the curse of God on creation when Adam and Eve sinned (Genesis 3:20, Romans 8:20–22).
First, off, Spetner is a biophysicist, not an "expert in mutations". Second, he is not even truly against evolution. Instead, he published a book that questioned a small aspect, then tried to tie it to the Bible and for that reason has been used by folks such as the article I am critiquing here.
This comes from a discussion of the book (link: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/spetner.cfm) :
In fact, Spetner's theory itself is that of evolution. Contrary to what some readers could conclude from the title and subtitle, Spetner's argumentation is not against the theory of evolution per se. Spetner actually only argues against some aspects of the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, namely against the idea that evolution necessarily included random variations, suggesting instead what he calls "Non-Random Evolutionary Hypothesis" (NREH).

However, the term used by Spetner for his hypothesis, Non-Random Evolutionary Hypothesis, is itself misleading. The Neo-Darwinism does not maintain that evolution occurred in a purely random way. On the contrary, the Darwinian theories in all of their modifications maintain that evolution included both random and non-random elements. According to the neo-Darwinian approach, the random element of the evolution entails mutations in the genome. Mutations are believed to be random - this is indeed the assumption of the Neo-Darwinism (although even this assumption must be qualified – see a further discussion). However, the evolution theory is rather far from being limited to mutations. Its second, equally crucial part is the concept of natural selection. The latter is by no means random. The natural selection is directed by the environment. Using Spetner's terminology, natural selection is led by the signals from the environment. In that sense, evolution according to Neo-Darwinism is governed both by random and non-random factors.

Spetner seems to be blissfully unaware of the actual basic principles of the Darwinian evolution theory. If he paid attention to what actually the Darwinist theory of evolution entails, he would have realized that the the concept of randomness is only a part of that theory which entail non-random elements as well.

Moreover, whereas the adherents of Neo-Darwinism who are the target of Spetner's assault, do indeed view mutations as occurring randomly, they do qualify that concept in a quite substantial way. For example, one of the most distinguished defenders of Darwinism, Richard Dawkins, who, unlike Spetner, is a professional biologist, in his very popular book [3] provides five aspects in which the mutations are not completely random (pages 305-307 in Dawkins's book). Here is just one brief quotation from Dawkins' book (page 306): "There are, in truth, many respects in which mutation is not random." On page 308 Dawkins continues: "The Darwinian says that variation is random in the sense that it is not directed toward improvement, and that the tendency toward improvement in evolution comes from selection."

In view of the above, the very name Spetner chose for his hypothesis sounds as an obvious misnomer. As the matter stands now, Spetner seems to fight against a straw man.

Tactic: find a few evolutionists or credible scientists who have published anything that can possibly be slanted to favor the young earth theories and go with them. Never mind what the research really says or what the scientist in question really believes. Few people will bother to verify the references, anyway! (people are generally lazy, regardless of beliefs)

NG is simply “hurling elephants” at their readers when it says that additional evidence for evolution comes from “population genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology, and ... genomics” (p. 20).
Interesting assertion.

Tactic: Rather than actually look at the evidence, just dismiss it all out of hand. Only a very few readers will look further.
[i]
Readers will see the insurmountable problems for evolution from biochemistry in Michael Behe’s (Ph.D. university biochemist) Darwin’s Black Box.
This excerpt from the Wikkipeadia article on the book explains the science answer well:

The book has been a source of controversy, as the scientific community at large considers intelligent design and its constituent arguments to be religious, creationism, and pseudoscience. Common criticisms were that Behe's ideas are not falsifiable, that his definition of an irreducibly complex system is ambiguous, and that he ignores previous work in biochemical evolution. Though influential within the intelligent design movement for several years, the book has lost some of its currency as more and more examples given by Behe as evidence of irreducible complexity have been shown to be explicable by known evolutionary mechanisms, something Behe conceded under cross examination while testifying as an expert witness on behalf of the defendants in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

For an agnostic, university molecular biologist’s strictly scientific evaluation of evolution, see Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (particularly chapter 10).

An excerpt from the response (link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html ) by Mark I. Vuletic :
In his 1985 book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton argues for a typological model of nature - a model in which "...all the variation exhibited by the individual members of a particular class [is] merely a variation on an underlying theme or design which [is] fundamentally invariant or immutable" (Denton, 1985, p. 94). This model is in direct contradiction with the evolutionary account of the history of life, in which all organisms are linked by common descent. Denton claims that while microevolution and speciation are proven phenomena, the common evolutionary descent of all organisms is "a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from the self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocateswould have us believe [it is]" (Denton, 1985, p. 77); that is to say, Denton argues that there is no evidence for macroevolution.

Evolutionists - even those who agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"(Dobzhansky, 1973) - would be surprised by Denton's suggestion that they hold macroevolution to be a "self-evident axiom." Evolutionists do not believe that macroevolution is an a priori truth; rather, they believe that the force of numerous lines of evidence must compel any good scientist to accept it a posteriori. Some of the typical lines of evidence offered in support of the common evolutionary descent of all lifeforms are (1) the gradation of organisms in systematics, (2) the biogeographical distribution of species, (3) the existence of homologous and vestigial structures as demonstrated in comparative anatomy, embryology, and molecular biology, and (4) the presence of transitional forms and gradual sequences in the fossil record. To the evolutionist's surprise, however, Denton seeks to show that these lines of evidence are either nonexistent or support typology more than they do common descent. However, Denton does not stop even there - in addition to attacking the evidence for evolution, he argues that there is no mechanism that could, even in principle, cause macroevolution.

I will argue in this paper that both of Denton's attempts to make an adequate challenge to evolutionary biology fail - neither does Denton manage to undermine the evidence for evolution, nor does he succeed in demonstrating that macroevolutionary mechanisms are inherently implausible.



Darwinism and religion
NG wraps things up by asserting that “no one needs to, and no one should, accept evolution merely as a matter of faith” (p. . But that is precisely what most of the world, including most scientists (who are just laymen outside their own field of expertise), have done. Evolution is believed because it appears to be scientific due to “smoke and mirrors” arguments and because it gives people an excuse for not submitting to their Creator. As Romans 1:18–20 says, people suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
Suppression of truth IS unrighteousness. So why do young earth creationist present so many outright lies and distortions as if they were truth?

Sadly, many within the church have never taken the time to truly consider all the evidence that actually exists. Instead, they believe what they have been taught.

The bottom line is that if you wish to believe that the earth was created in 6 days, there is nothing preventing that. The problem comes when people such as these here try to bring for "scientific evidence" and criticisms of evidence that are truly lies and heavy distortions.


But what is Darwin’s theory’s relationship to religion? Certainly, a person can believe in a vaguely defined “religion” and in evolution at the same time (see Is evolution “anti-religion”? It depends). NG claims the compatibility of evolution with papal pronouncements and Roman Catholic dogma (p. 6). However, as far as the likes of NG are concerned, when the Pope says you can believe in evolution, he’s an enlightened religious leader who should be heeded. But when he speaks on the sanctity of human life from conception and marriage, and thus opposes abortion and homosexual behavior, then he’s just an old bigot who should keep his religion to himself.

But even the NG’s premise can be debated. There are Roman Catholics who don’t believe evolution or millions of years is compatible with their faith (or true science). For example, most of the scientists in the video Evolution ... Fact or Belief? and in the geology video Experiments in Stratification are Catholic. But the real issue is whether the theory of millions of years of evolution is compatible with the Creator’s Word, the Bible. For two centuries, young-earth creationists have shown clearly that it is not. See The Great Turning Point, Creation and Change, and these articles: Two histories of death, Two world-views in conflict and The god of an old earth.
This is the closest this article comes to a real true dispute in this debate.
That some in all churches have come to believe these young earth ideas is not surprise. The state of science teaching in our schools is horrible and people cannot accept what they don't understand, what they have never truly been taught.

The problem here is not that some people wish to believe one, what they call literal translation of the Bible, that they see one meaning, while others see a different one. How one views and sees the Bible is a matter of belief. It is religion, which means that it has a validity outside of and apart from science. It cannot be proven through science.

The problem here is that young earthers find it necessary to distort things that ARE known, to deny truths that ARE proven and to claim that the theory of evolution has limitations that really don't exists and/or just plain says something that it simply does not. In short, the problem is not that our beliefs differ, the problem is that young earth creationists insist on distorting the facts.

Conclusion
NG is wrong that scientific evidence proves goo-to-you-via-the-zoo evolution. The evidence has never supported Darwin’s theory, which is why an increasing number of Ph.D. scientists and well-informed laymen and students are rejecting what they have been taught (brainwashed) in schools, museums, TV science programs and in National Geographic all their lives.

Darwin was partially right about natural selection explaining the origin of species. But because he didn’t pay attention to the Bible (but rather rejected it because of his rebellion against his Creator), he didn’t understand that speciation is simply the God-designed way for the original supernaturally created kinds to produce wonderful variety and perpetuate themselves in the changing environments of a sin-cursed world that would be radically changed by a global year-long Flood at the time of Noah.

The Bible fits the facts, which explains why an increasing number of Ph.D. scientists are creationists—see In Six Days, On the Seventh Day, and our website section Creation scientists and other biographies of interest. Evolution doesn’t agree with the scientific evidence. It cannot stand careful scrutiny, which is why evolutionists have to use political and academic power and legal intimidation to keep criticisms of evolution out of public schools. In fact, the atheistic anti-creationist Eugenie Scott tacitly admitted that if students were presented such criticisms, they might end up not believing it!

In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.19

It is sad to see that Philip Gingerich is an evolutionist, and not a Bible-believing Christian, today because his church didn’t teach him correctly. He said, “I grew up in a conservative church in the Midwest and was not taught anything about evolution. The subject was clearly skirted.” (p. 31)

Churches that don’t equip their youth and adults to deal with the myth of evolution are likely to see them deceived by articles like this one in NG and many of them will drift away from the truth of God’s Word.

This conclusion speaks for itself.
Scientists must ensure that scientific principals are taught.

Christians who accept science MUST also speak up and not let this highly distorted view prevail.

[PLAYER57832]

OK, now some questions from me:

1. If all sedimentation came from the flood, then how do you explain the many places where ALL these layers are tilted (such as in the Sierra's or the Rocky's) or are "bent" the way layers of blankets would be "bent" if pushed? (such as the appalcians and cumberland mountains).

2. If the Grand Canyon and so forth are created by the flood, then why are there not more such features?

3. Why are the various layers so very, very different in chemistry, consistancy, etc. if they all came from the same basic source?

[Lionz]

I'm going to be trying to honor a Sabbath Day in just a bit and will not get around to responding to last 8 posts from you for a while maybe, but maybe you keep adding stuff anyway. How about you tell me when you're done and want a reply?

[Lionz]

How about responses to 1-3 for now at least?

1. Maybe I'm not an expert on the hydroplate theory and I'm not claiming it's correct, but I would refer to stuff having to do with it in explaining mountains perhaps.

You might want to check this out and flip through a number of pages....

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... view2.html

What can we do to explain this if there were not massive layers of mud that were compacted together rapidly while in a putty-like state?

Major Mountain Ranges. How did mountain ranges form? Major mountains are often crumpled like an accordion. [See Figure 49.] Satellite photos of mountain ranges show that some resemble throw rugs that have been pushed against walls. But what force could push a long, thick slab of rock and cause it to buckle and sometimes fold back on itself? Besides, any force large enough to overcome the friction at the base of the slab, would crush the end being pushed before movement could even begin. Therefore, a mountain would not form.

We can see, especially in mountains and road cuts, thinly layered rocks folded like doubled-over phone books. Other “bent” rocks are small enough to hold in one’s hand. The tiny, crystalline grains in those folds are not stretched. So, how could brittle rock, showing little evidence of heating or cracking, fold? Rocks are strong in compression but weak in tension, so their stretched outer surfaces should have easily fractured. Bent sedimentary rocks, found worldwide, often look as if they had the consistency of putty when they were compressed. They must have been squeezed and folded soon after the sediments were laid down, but before they hardened chemically. What squeezed and folded them?

The earth expanded rapidly during or immediately after the flood or both and sliding plates led to there being mountain ranges in certain places possibly.

























2. That might come down to definition, but fountains of the great deep did not break up just anywhere maybe. Earth contains geothermal features and geysers and more than half of the former and 80% of the later are found in an area known as the volcanically active Yellowstone region perhaps.

I don't have a time machine that can take me to the past maybe, but I might be able to theorize. Something gigantic and unnaturally shaped from the heavens impacted land currently in Arizona causing Barringer Crater and leading to subterranean water bursting forth in land now known as Yellowstone? Water then proceeded to smooth out Snake River Plain and cracks eventually spread across the earth with the help of water bursting forth in places now know as oceanic ridges? There are mountains of Ararat that are in an amazing position in regards to being away from cracks?







3. Maybe whether any two layers of anything are very very different comes down to definition, but this should help explain layers in sedimentary rock to you maybe.



Where's evidence of erosion between layers if there is a photograph to the right with millions of years of layers represented?

Note: This contains an image with words that are not mine depending on definition at least and images that are cropped off and that should contain more for all I know and this is missing one or more hyperlink and I'm misquoting in here and you should check this out maybe...

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... view4.html

Also, there's quite a bit of stuff that you've said and that I have not read as of now perhaps... maybe you should not complain if I'm bringing up something that you have already addressed and I will get back to quite a bit of stuff a while later.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't object to your answering my questions before reviewing all my answers to yours. Its when you bombard me with 20 new questions, but most are not really new because you have not really read the answers I already gave. If you need more time, say so.

[Lionz]

Have you referred to Henry Morris or John Morris or both or neither? I used Morris to refer to Henry Morris and said stuff wrong maybe.

[PLAYER57832]

Have you referred to Henry Morris or John Morris or both or neither? I used Morris to refer to Henry Morris and said stuff wrong maybe.

Tthe only "Morris" to which I have referred was Dr Henry Morris, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research. However, John Morris, his son is the current director. The casual references I made, could probably apply equally to both. Basically, they are both die-hard believers in the young earth theories and have gone to extreme lengths to dispute accepted science.

I did get a couple of details wrong. I was going on memory, not research when I referred to the Institute as "beginning" in the early 1980's. In fact, it began in 1972, (though Dr Morris has said 1970). I became aware of it in the 1980's, when California allowed the Institute to begin offering degree programs and when, as a result it came onto the news. I believe they expanded their facilities some then. What I said about creationism becoming a "hot topic" in California schools and changing the curriculum in the late 70's is absolutely true.

The permission for the Institute to offer degrees in California was later removed. The Institute moved to Texas, where it hoped to get accredation and permission to offer master's degrees. However, even in Texas, this approval was not granted. In 2009, the Institute began a lawsuit against Texas, claiming discrimination.

Again,as I have said many times, as others have said, the issue here is not that the Institute disagrees with mainline science. The issue, primarily, is how they do this. They adhere to a very narrow view of the Bible and dismiss any evidence they feel is in dispute of that, but claim to adhere to standards of proof and evidence, like real scientists do. I went over 2 articles you posted showing exactly why such articles are not accepted and some of the ways they distort the truth.

Bottom line -- people who come from a point of truth have no need to lie. They violate one of the fundamental tenants of the Bible, namely "though shalt not bear false witness".

from wikki:
The work of ICR creation science researchers is not published in any mainstream scientific journals, and there is no collaboration in research between these groups. ICR claims to use the same scientific principles and review the same evidence as the wider scientific community. However the wider, mainstream, scientific community generally takes a sharply different view, emphasizing that in true science all hypotheses are tentative and testable, and contrasting this to ICR's research, in which all scientific questions must accept at the outset a given established conclusion and the supernatural processes invoked cannot be tested by empirical evidence and reasoning within the scientific framework of methodological naturalism. As a result, the scientific community says such work conducted at the ICR cannot be called science.

According to Ronald Numbers' history of creationism The Creationists, "[d]espite its name, the institute for years conducted little research outside the confines of its modest library."[21]

and
Scientific criticisms
Creationism is rejected by nearly all scientists,[40][41] with more than 45 science organizations having criticized creationism as not science.[42] Professor Massimo Pigliucci, a professor of ecology and evolution at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, has criticized ICR for professing to present the same science as that taught in secular universities while at the same time requiring students and faculty to sign a statement of faith to ICR's fundamentalist religious mission, most notably in affirming conformity in all its work to Biblical doctrine. Pigliucci notes that any research conducted within the ICR's policy framework is prescribed at the outset by Biblical literalism, and thus antithetical to the methods and framework used by scientists.[43] As examples, Pigliucci cites ICR scientist Harold Slusher resorting to non-Euclidean and non-Einsteinian explanations of light travel to reconcile the vast distances light travels in space with the brief timescale given in young earth creationism, and the association adopted by the ICR between the second principle of thermodynamics and the Bible's account of the fall of Adam. Pigliucci further claimed that "some of the historical claims found in the ICR museum are also stunning and show how easily ideology gets the better of accuracy."[43]


Criticism from other creationists:
[edit] Criticism from creationists
Some creationists are opposed to the ICR. Gary North "opposes the ICR on the grounds that they" acknowledge the second principle of thermodynamics, and John W. Robbins considers the ICR's activities a "fraud."[43] The old-Earth creationist organization Answers In Creation criticizes the ICR,[47] including a critical review by Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D of the ICR's dating claims (see: RATE).[48] Henke concluded that the ICR's "research" was improperly conducted and "was unsuccessful in adequately separating the volcanic glass from the much older minerals.".[48] Another creationist opponent of ICR and its doctrine is Hugh Ross, who supports an ancient age of the Earth similar to mainstream scientists, and is critical of ICR's cosmological models, and their attempts to solve the starlight problem.[49][50]

[PLAYER57832]

To clarify, again. there really are 2 issues here, not just one.

The issue that Dr Morris and his ilk wish to assert is "the" issue is how one understands Genesis. This part is actually a legitimate debate, within religion. The problem, is not this belief, it is the proof.

People of have, throughout time, asserted that "xyz is wrong, I believe....". In some cases, they are correct. Science itself arose from just such questions and such questions continue to challenge and change the views "science" can be said to "hold" (though it is not one, uniform body, of course). From that perspective, someone saying that the Earth was created in 6 revolutions of the earth, whether because that is how they read the Bible or any other reason, is OK. The issue is when they go from saying "this is what I believe, I know it counters scientific proofs, but I believe they will be disproven in time" to "this is what is proven and all those scientists are simply lying".

[Lionz]

Henry Morris died years ago and you've said a number of things like he's still alive maybe.

I'm not sure if I've ever quoted a Morris perhaps. What do AiG and Hovind have to do with ICR?

There was a debate between Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross and you can watch some or all at these maybe...

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/categ ... 9ATfME2zB#
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/categ ... 61GJ7xEtPr

A debate you can learn quite a bit more about without watching video here maybe...

http://creation.com/rosshovind-debate-j ... an-sarfati

Speed of light can be changed and there's evidence that it has generally slowed down over time whether someone has used non-Euclidean and non-Einsteinian explanations of light travel or not perhaps.

Maybe we should be careful not to falsely accuse individuals of bearing false witness. What do you claim is an untruth that has been spread as truth by a young earth creationist and what do you claim counters scientific proof?

There are actually public school textbooks paid for by tax payers that use lies to try to back up universal common descent type evolution perhaps.

Here's a page having to do with that perhaps...
http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/seminar4.html

Here's two parts of a slideshow having to do with that perhaps...
http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... tbooks.htm
http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... tbooks.htm

And there's a video having to do with that under a Creation Seminars section here perhaps...
http://drdino.com/media-categories.php

There's still quite a bit in here from you that I have not read and I will get to quite a bit of stuff after a next sundown from here maybe.

[PLAYER57832]

Henry Morris died years ago and you've said a number of things like he's still alive maybe.

Yes, but that is because I was not aware there were 2 Dr Morris'. At any rate, like I said -- the broad statements I made, except the reference to the founding, would apply to each. I have not quoted either directly.

Speed of light can be changed and there's evidence that it has generally slowed down over time whether someone has used non-Euclidean and non-Einsteinian explanations of light travel or not perhaps.

I already said I am not a physicist and am not going to debate this. I CAN say that young earth theories are contradicted by physicists, but I am not qualified to get into the details.

You can find one or more video online showing debating between Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross maybe. How about let me know if you want me to find one for you?

Why?

What do you claim has been spread as truth by a young earth creatist and is an untruth and what do you claim counters scientific proof? There are actually lies used to back up universal common descent type evolution in public school textbooks that are paid for by tax payers perhaps.

Well, see, I have a few thousand scientists to back up what I am saying.
You have -- The creation science institute and a few other with similar views.
And, again, if you believe this is true, then you have NOT truly followed any of the evidence I presented. The proof is there. The evidence for evolution is not lies. Much of what is presented through young earth creationism definitely is.

Here's a page having to do with that perhaps...

http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/seminar4.html

First, apparently the fact that this guy taught high school science for 15 years is supposed to make him an expert? The sad truth is too many high school teachers don't know the subject they teach. He makes it clear he doesn't in his talk.
Just to take this one excerpt:
Where’s the Geologic Column?
Now, you might want to know a couple of things about this geologic column—and I taught earth science for 15 years—the geologic column is the bible to the evolutionists. That’s their bible folks. Secondly, it can only be found one place in the world—in the textbook. The geologic column does not exist in reality. The textbooks admit that. "If there were a column of sediments...unfortunately no such column exists." The whole thing is imagination.
Now, it is true, the earth has many layers. That is not the question. I’ve been to the Grand Canyon, Royal Gorge, been to 49 states and 20 countries, been to the San Andreas Fault, the Hayward Fault, the New Madrid Fault—none of them are my fault but I’ve been there, done that, seen that, have a T-shirt. There’s no question the earth has layers. The question is how did they get that way? How did the earth get all those layers?
This part is just plain not true.

While there is no SINGLE, uniform geologic column, there are many, many series of columns that can be fit together very well. I address part of the remainder of his objections in that Bryce Canyon versus a testtube of sediment in the other. The plain truth is that there is just NO POSSIBILITY, none at all for the young earth explanation of all this to be true. And, that means either every one of them are simply utterly ignorant of the facts or a good many know and decide to lie about it. I suspect a combination of each.

Hydrologic Sorting

See, just the earth turning under the moon—the moon causes the tides, and if the earth were totally covered by water the tides would become harmonic. You music folks understand that. People have calculated that the tides would go [through a] 200-foot tidal change. If the earth were covered with water, there would be no continents to stop them. And with a 200-foot tidal change every 6 hours and 25 minutes, you would get reshuffling of the sediments down at the bottom for thousands and thousands of feet. You would get over a mile of sediments down there in finely stratified layers.
You can get a jar [of mud] out of your yard here, put some water in it, shake it up and set it down it will settle out into layers for you. Hydrologic sorting. They say those layers are different ages, I have a hard time with that because don’t you think if each one of those layers laid there for millions of years waiting for the next one there would be a few erosion marks in-between the layers? Why are there no canyons and gullies and cricks in-between the layers? I mean, why is it all stacked up like pancakes? Those layers are not different ages and the Grand Canyon did not take millions of years to form.

This kind of shuffling is not what is evidenced. Again, claiming this would explain the real evidence is a lie. Many of these core samples are saved. They are not open to the public, partly becuase they are not all that interesting to the public (different colors of dirt, rock and mud), but mostly because they are fragile. Just exposing them to air changes their chemistry in ways scientists wish to avoid as much as possible.

Do they have samples of ALL cores, from every place on Earth? No, but they do have more than enough to show clear geologic columns all over the world. LIke claims that "transition fossils just don't occur", these claims that the geologic column is not real, are just not true.

Here's two parts of a slideshow having to do with that perhaps...

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

And there's a video having to do with that under a Creation Seminars section here perhaps...

http://drdino.com/media-categories.php

Edit -- at first, I could not get the link to work. When I did, all I saw was a series of slides of Darwin's voyages and works, plus some that say things you have already said. NOTHING is even close to proof.

I mean, exactly what do they think putting up a picture of a wolf, a coyote and dog along with a banana and the caption "find the difference .. even a child could" and pretending that is a real point is childish itself. They say that the dog, the wolf and the coyote likely had a common ancestor .. pretty much what evolutionists beleive, but present it as if it were somehow evidence agains evolution.

This is exactly what I mean by misinformation. The only real claim is that the Bible says God created each in its kind. Evolutionists don't dispute that, they just see God using evolution to do it. Beyond that, they make claims of "silliness" and "illogic", but the real illogic is thinking the examples they present are real examples of what evolutionary theory describes.

There's still quite a bit in here from you that I have not read and I will get to quite a bit of stuff after a next sundown from here maybe, but maybe we should be careful about accusing individuals of bearing false witness.

Careful? Of course! However, in this case, while I am sure a lot of people are simply repeating what they have been told and believe to be true, a good many simply must know the real truth. Even among those who are simply lead, it is dishonest to claim to criticize something without really and truly investigating it.

And no, that doesn't apply here. I keep trying to find as many young earth arguments and discussions as I can. This is the first time someone has actually presented as much evidence here. It is the first time I have seen all of this from any one person. Usually when I counter one argument, the discussion stops with something like "well.. you just believe experts"

[Lionz]

I'm not sure what you want me to reread and I don't really want to read over a whole 17 plus page thread looking for stuff said by you that I can reread maybe. I will end up asking you more stuff a bit after a next sundown from here without doing so perhaps, but perhaps you can and should point out specific stuff you want me to read before doing so.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm not sure what you want me to reread and I don't really want to read over a whole 17 plus page thread looking for stuff said by you that I can reread maybe. I will end up asking you more stuff a bit after a next sundown from here without doing so perhaps, but perhaps you can and should point out specific stuff you want me to read before doing so.

You have yet to really read most of what I wrote, because you keep asking questions I already answered. I took the time to write it. If you cannot be bothered to read it, then don't ask the questions to begin. Half the time, you come down with 50 more questions before I even finish posting my first responses!

.. and I am working on responding to your answers, but it takes more time to look into things than it does to just spin off every little question that pops into one's head.

[Lionz]

I'm weary of making adamant statements and the amount of questions I ask is highly related to that perhaps. I make points with questions and do not intend for you to answer just any question that's ever been asked by me maybe.

I already have copied and pasted stuff from posts by you to save for later some perhaps, but I should do so more in case posts by you change later maybe. You and I might edit up posts quite a bit. Did you not just ask me to not ask you something unless I reread everything said by you or unless I reread questions by you or at least something like one or both? Did you edit a request out?

[PLAYER57832]

I'm weary of making adamant statements and the amount of questions I ask is highly related to that perhaps. I make points with questions and do not intend for you to answer just any question that's ever been asked by me maybe.

I already have copied and pasted stuff from posts by you to save for later some perhaps, but I should do so more in case posts by you change later maybe. You and I might edit up posts quite a bit. Did you not just ask me to not ask you something unless I reread everything said by you or unless I reread questions by you or at least something like one or both? Did you edit a request out?

Actually, I rarely change posts, other than to clarify a point I was told is confusing or to make spelling errors.. and I mention any major edit (spelling errors, typos or minor mis-types not included). I will occasionally post something that I specifically say is "in edit", either becuase I know it will take a while and I don't want the person to think I am forgetting or because I forget about the "save" feature.

As for the rereading bit. You started about 4 posts with basically the same question and then launched into essentially the same additional set. This tends to indicate you have not read the answers already given. I have answered in most cases anyway.

At this point, you have asked me quite a few questions and I have taken the time to answer them all. So, for you to say "you don't have to time read them" and then proceed to ask a bunch more makes you either very rude and inconsiderate, a troll or all of the above. That is why I said I was not going to answer more until you had actually read the previous answers. If you are not interested in the answers, don't ask the question. In particular, don't keep repeating the questions.

[Lionz]

Did you accidentally remove quite a bit of stuff from page 16 and did you just edit out a request?

I've asked you a number of questions that you have not answered and I've never told you that I did not have time to read something and we should be careful about not lying maybe.

[nietzsche]

blah blah blah

I'm still waiting for some evidence of how god created the world in 6 days

[Lionz]

How? What do you mean?

Maybe you should check this out in detail regardless...

http://www.halos.com/

[PLAYER57832]

How can we explain this if there were not massive layers of mud that were compacted together rapidly while in a putty-like state?

You have it backwards. If you are going to present an alternative theory, you need to provide proof that it could be true. Then it can be considered. And, to state that the prevailing theory is wrong, you need to counter evidence that exists to show the accepted theory is just not true.

I gave the scientifically accepted explanation and links to it above, I believe. However, here is another link, somewhat simpler probably than what I provided before:
http://www.mountain.org/education/subex ... lore02.cfm
As I say below, this is just an explanation. For the proof, you have to follow the citations. They exist, but I don't have the time or desire to follow them all. I have done this enough in college. I don't need to do it again. However, to challenge these findings, one DOES need to do just that -- follow the links that provide the proof. Creation scientists have not done that. They simply try to provide "alternative" explanations. They ignore most real proof.

[picture deleted to save space ... see it above]
I could not find a specific explanation tied to that picture you posted. (Not a surprise, I am sure the evidence exists, I just wasn't able to find it in the time I have available right now.) However, I did find a general explanation for the formation of the Rockies. I believe that picture is from the Rockies
http://www.mountainnature.com/geology/p ... tonics.htm

However, that is just the explanation. For proof, you have to dig quite a bit deeper. Because a lot of geologic research was done years ago, its not all easily accessible on then net. However, if you keep following the links provided within the sites above to their reference citations, you will, eventually come up with references to the original research into the matter. Note that not every portion of every mountain has a full explanation. However, even if the exact "story" of a particular mountain is not 100% known, there are absolutely many examples of many mountains of all kinds explained.

Major Mountain Ranges. How did mountain ranges form? Major mountains are often crumpled like an accordion. [See Figure 49.] Satellite photos of mountain ranges show that some resemble throw rugs that have been pushed against walls. But what force could push a long, thick slab of rock and cause it to buckle and sometimes fold back on itself? Besides, any force large enough to overcome the friction at the base of the slab, would crush the end being pushed before movement could even begin. Therefore, a mountain would not form.

This is just not true. Among other issues, when these slabs are pushed, they do "liquify" to an extent, under such extreme pressure. I am not a geologist, so all I can give is the rough outline, but all of this is explained in any basic geology textbook. Again, these ideas are based on proven evidence. Some parts of this are still considered theory (though theory well backed by evidence) and some are actually fact. To see the proofs, you need to follow the citations. In very basic text books, citations might not be included (though usually they are) because the information is so well accepted, been proven so many times over and over that citations are not longer needed. ( I once learned a rule that anything you can find in 5 independent published sources doesn't need a reference, but that was prior to the internet and the plethora of sites with completely unverified data. At any rate, this stuff about mountain formations has been published in probably 500 verified sources, not 5.) However, there are a lot of citations out there.

Sadly, young earth creationists don't bother with doing that kind of research, which is why thier institutions are not considered valid scientific institutions. Young earth creationists simply look at pictures, etc and try to come up with some kind of explanation. These explanations make sense to people who have never been taught of the real data and evidence that exists. This is why or keeping kids isolated in religious schools and/or homeschooling is so critical to this movement. If kids get the chance to learn about real evidence, they won't believe the young earth theories.

Science works just the opposite. Science allows various ideas. Now, I know young earth creationists keep trying to say that their ideas are not "given a fair trial". However, the real truth is that each of these theories has been disproven (with a few exceptions, mostly where young earthers point out errors that are fully acknowledged by regular scientists). The real truth is that young earth creationists do not provide any real evidence to support their theories. Even reading most of what they try to pass off as "scientific" discussions makes this absolutely clear. Take those articles you cited as examples. They are full of absolute misstatements regarding what evolution states, etc. There is no real proof, no citations referencing studies that prove given statements. In fact, most of the argument relies on a kind of "this just isn't logical, so don't believe it" argument. Science relies on proof, not what individuals do or do not think of as making sense. ("sense" is a starting point for investigation, but not proof!).

We can see, especially in mountains and road cuts, thinly layered rocks folded like doubled-over phone books. Other “bent” rocks are small enough to hold in one’s hand. The tiny, crystalline grains in those folds are not stretched. So, how could brittle rock, showing little evidence of heating or cracking, fold? Rocks are strong in compression but weak in tension, so their stretched outer surfaces should have easily fractured. Bent sedimentary rocks, found worldwide, often look as if they had the consistency of putty when they were compressed. They must have been squeezed and folded soon after the sediments were laid down, but before they hardened chemically. What squeezed and folded them?

Again, this ignores known physical processes.

The earth expanded rapidly during or immediately after the flood or both and sliding plates led to there being mountain ranges in certain places possibly.

Evidence?


[whole series of photos deleted. See them above, if interested]

You present a few pictures, but no evidence. Further, those picturese are directly counter to what the evidence shows did happen in most cases. That is, some of those things might have happened in some places, but not in conjunction with a world-wide flood. They explain small features, but not the earth's geology as a whole.

2. That might come down to definition, but fountains of the great deep did not break up just anywhere maybe. Earth contains geothermal features and geysers and more than half of the former and 80% of the later are found in an area known as the volcanically active Yellowstone region perhaps.

Evidence?

Theories need evidence. This idea you present is directly counter to many known physical laws.

I don't have a time machine that can take me to the past maybe, but I might be able to theorize. Something gigantic and unnaturally shaped from the heavens impacted land currently in Arizona causing Barringer Crater and leading to subterranean water bursting forth in land now known as Yellowstone? Water then proceeded to smooth out Snake River Plain and cracks eventually spread across the earth with the help of water bursting forth in places now know as oceanic ridges? There are mountains of Ararat that are in an amazing position in regards to being away from cracks?

It is an interesting theory, but not based on any real evidence. In fact, much evidence disputes that this is possible.


3. Maybe whether any two layers of anything are very very different comes down to definition, but this should help explain layers in sedimentary rock to you maybe.


No, I already explained this. As I said, the kind of sorting shown on the left is NOT what is seen on the right. It is seen within some layers.

Where's evidence of erosion between layers if there is a photograph to the right with millions of years of layers represented?

Each of those gullies and "scars" is the result of erosion. Also, this was once one uniform platform eroded away. You show only one side of the canyon.

[PLAYER57832]

The final link in the post I just answered
( this one: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... view4.html )

repeats some of the theories you mention and brings in a few others. None are consistant with what is known from science. However, let's suppose that these people have evidence that disproves all the evidence compiled to date by science. Where are the citations? Where are the links to the studies? (since these are recent studied, internet links would be expected, unlike much traditional geology research that was conducted long before the internet and therefore is printed mostly in print media)

There are no links, no references, because the science just was not done! What is put forward is not real science, it is strings of suppositions that ignore most evidence that exists.

Again, the only evidence young earthers consider is the evidence they can disprove. Science, to contrast, considers ALL evidence. Many times science can only say "we don't know". That is legitimate. Saying "we don't believe this, so that means it is proven false" is not legitimate.

[PLAYER57832]

Did you accidentally remove quite a bit of stuff from page 16 and did you just edit out a request?

I've asked you a number of questions that you have not answered and I've never told you that I did not have time to read something and we should be careful about not lying maybe.

How about you look up the definition of "rarely", (as opposed to "never").. and also reread where I explained this deletion and the kinds of edits I will make.

[PLAYER57832]

You brought up a supposed negative link from teaching of evolution (a link that is disputed by evidence.. teen pregnancies, for example have gone down, not up -- I cited 1-2 references, but you can find many more).

So, how about this link? This young earth creationist movement is making a serious dent in teaching of science in this country. School districts are forced to spend valuable resources defending teaching science. Often times, they simply don't teach evolution and such.

The REAL result of young earth creationism is erosion of science that ALL kids are able to learn, including my own son. I take it very personnal when the same teacher that told my son absolutely incorrect information "just happens" to be long to a church that believes the young earth story. I take it personally when issues like watercours pollution and such don't get the attention they need because so many "just don't believe scientists".

The second result is to remove these Christians so thoroughly from science that the divide between believers and non-believers grows greater. I say that atheists give you fodder when they declare erroneously, that science proves there is no God. I say the reverse to you, that you give atheists power by trying to present such untruths and flat out ignorant arguments (as in ignorant of the evidence that exists) as valid and true arguments.

Science is at moral junctures in many instances. However, when the far right insists on tying young earth theories to those moral issues, they discredit those real moral arguments.

[Lionz]

PLAYER,

You keep adding more and more and I'm about to post the lengthiest cc post ever as a result possibly. Not sure if you're trying to scare me off with quantity or not maybe, but you might be increasing future frustration for yourself.

[PLAYER57832]

PLAYER,

You keep adding more and more and I'm about to post the lengthiest cc post ever as a result possibly. Not sure if you're trying to scare me off with quantity or not maybe, but you might be increasing future frustration for yourself.

I don't mind length, just endless repeats. If its very long, feel free to divide it up.

In the meantime, I found this video from National Geographic.
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/ ... e/26hzmwzt

An important point, though is that this video itself would not be considered "proof'. It tells a story, based on the proof. You hear references to dates, for example. In one case, the man pulls out a post and says its "maybe 7,000, maybe 9,000 years old". Quite a span! he is being cautious, as most scientists are trained to do. He won't be more firm unless and until various studies/tests are done. To find the proof, you have to find the citations in the journals, including the original descriptions of all the techniques used.

Now, I know enough to just watch a video like this and pretty much accept what is said. In that, we are similar. You do that with creationist videos and texts. HOWEVER, and this is a pretty big "however", the difference is what backs the articles and films. In my case, I can say for certain that these things that are published, put forward have proof. They have undergone a very thorough analysis and testing, almost all of which is open and available. It might not be easy to get at all times and some things are not open for various reasons. For example, locations of digs are often "couched" so try to hide their exact location, to ward off looters and such in any public information (even journal articles). This is admitted, and the reasons are given. Some data regarding things like sea depth, or even specific chemical properties of water might have potential military application and might perhaps be withheld for those types of reasons. Still, the techniques they use are usually public, even if the details of a specific study are not.

In the case of creation science, this is just not true. Studies are rarely even cited. When they are, it is common for things to be taken well out of context (I gave several examples already). More often, though, the argument comes down to either "this is not what [the speaker thinks] the Bible says" (actually a legitimate argument, just not a scientific one) or "this is not logical". That last is almost never a legitimate argument. I won't say "never, never" because there are no doubt exceptions. Occasionally, creation scientists do twist the truth, if not outright lie. Mostly this is misrepresenting what common theories say. Sometimes it is possible to give the speaker the "benefit of the doubt" and believe they just don't understand the theory, but too often the misinterpretations are so "carefully close to the truth" or so often repeated that it seems pretty implausible that the people won't know they are tellling falsehoods. Maybe these scientists really just are idiots, but...

Anyway. this video gives a pretty good example of how science learns and changes. Note, though, that rather than reducing the age of civilization, what is being found indicates a much longer realm of humanity than was previously thought.