Logic dictates that there is a God!

[Maugena]

Masquerading fallen angels would be proof of evolution? There are angels who are going to show up and try to deceive you with lies having to do with aliens and evolution maybe.

I want to make this my new signature.

[jay_a2j]

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah I hate Henry Morris Blah Blah Blah young earth creationists suck Blah Blah Blah Blah I'm an evolution expert Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah right wing conspiracy Blah Blah Blah Blah Obama's the best evah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Bible is what I say it is Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah if you REALLY knew anything about evolution Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah we must stop young earth creationists Blah Blah Blah evangelicals are liars Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah fundamentalists are wrong and I'm right Blah Blah Blah Blah nobody can ever refute me cause evolution is my field of study Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Jay, you know nothing Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah My views are all mainstream Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ICR is the devil Blah Blah Blah Blah true Christians believe in evolution Blah Blah Blah that has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I wrote, NOTHING Blah Blah Blah Blah unite to save science from young earth believers Blah Blah Blah Blah

And that folks, about sums up PLAYERS stance on any topic here.

[PLAYER57832]

at least I offer something other than criticism of things I never bother to read.

[PLAYER57832]

Here is an article that pretty well represents young earth criticisms of evolution:

Full link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp
I am giving only the first few parts, and have deleted some strictly opinion sections to save space.

The title is National Geographic is wrong and so is Darwin
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)

[natty dread]

This thread is stuck on an endless loop.

[jrl332005]

that's what makes it fun!

[tzor]

This thread is stuck on an endless loop.

But that is half of the fun of circular reasoning.

That and the deja vu all over again feeling (didn't we already cover this two pages ago).

[PLAYER57832]

We are obviously all masochists.

[PLAYER57832]

I am putting down the various arguments for each side, in this other thread, rather than spinning this one more.

Page 22, here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=114455&p=2647497#p2647497

[Lionz]

Tzor,

He created plants and animals before Adam and then later Adam was put into Eden and more plants and animals were created and Adam named creatures perhaps. Where is there a contradiction?

Player,

You refer to stuff I already replied to?

How about refer to a true and verified example of a feathered dinosaur if there is one? How about try to come up with a most compelling example if you feel you have more than one?

Where would one concentrate on in poking at a theory if not somewhere with real questions? You would be hard pressed to find a young earth creationist who claims that speciation does not occur perhaps.

Who claimed Werner Gitt was a leading expert or claimed that he's a laughing stock in a profession? Are you trying to criticise him in regards to knowledge of information theory? He started his career at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology and ended up being Head of Q4 Information Technology for about 25 years before retiring in 2002 perhaps. You cut off wikipedia stuff mid-sentence in quoting for some mysterious reason maybe.

If you just heard about a theory concerning original kinds being at a genus or family type level for the first time within the last couple months or so, does that mean that it's a new theory? Can you name anyone who has ever claimed that Noah brought chihuahuas on the ark?

Who utterly ignores a vast variety of plants and animals existing on earth?

If you claim mutations lead to new information, can you define new? You can mix up letters in the word computer and come up with a number of things included the words pot and mut perhaps, but will you ever get the word zoo from it?

What is there to theorize about in regards to where beetles of flight have come from if He created beetles of flight directly out of non-living material?

Where does a paragraph attempt to claim an entire theory cannot be true because Darwin did not know something or mention something? And where does the article claim that something having to do with finches is proof against evolution? You might get stuff out of words that are not intended.

What is claimed to have happened before and after the flood that would require utter suspension of most science?

You claim one or more specific individual cannot truly explain away all the evidence that exists for something? What evidence do you refer to if so and how much do you expect to be addressed in a single answersingenesis article if you refer to one?

What's wrong with showing that similarity in shape and design can be viewed as evidence for a common designer if you are criticising someone for doing that? Whether there are believers in Him who believe in a mainstream evolutionary theory or not?

You ask who determines what is and is not believable? What do you mean, if so? The earth revolving around the sun should not be far fetched to anyone who has walked around and seen things move around them maybe.

Embryology is one of four evidence for evolution categories presented by National Geographic whether or not National Geographic technically claims ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny perhaps.

[tzor]

Tzor,

He created plants and animals before Adam and then later Adam was put into Eden and more plants and animals were created and Adam named creatures perhaps. Where is there a contradiction?

Because if you want to competely unify chapter one and chapter two, you have to put the time line of chapter two as a single day.

"... male and female he created them. ... Evening came, and morning followed--the sixth day."

In the second chapter God laments that is it not good for man to be "alone" therefore requiring the creation of animals. But if He had already created them why create them again? This implies that in the story in chapter two, man comes first, then animals, then woman.

[Lionz]

What if Genesis 2 goes into detail on the 6th day and some animals were created before Adam and some animals were created after Adam? Why would He create animals after Adam if He already did before? How about to fill up Eden and to get Adam to see Him create animals and to get Adam to name animals?

[Maugena]

What if Genesis 2 goes into detail on the 6th day and some animals were created before Adam and some animals were created after Adam? Why would He create animals after Adam if He already did before? How about to fill up Eden and to get Adam to see Him create animals and to get Adam to name animals?

The strikethrough part is irrelevant to the argument-no one cares.
Also, are you trying to interpret the bible, Lionz?
I was under the impression that you might be a YEC.
I thought you only took the bible literally. Mayhaps that's just jay_a2j.

Edit:
On a serious note, if the Bible contradicts itself, that would imply that it is imperfect.
And if your definition of god includes 'him' being perfect and that god made the Bible, then something is wrong.
One or the other must be false.
Either god must not be perfect or the Bible was not written by god.

Edit: Lulz @ "musts".

[PLAYER57832]

" ...."

About one thing I am sure. We each care about our children and their education deeply, which is why this topic is important to each of us.

I only wish you were willing to at least look at the evidence.. the full and recent evidence, not just what you learned in school years back. If you are correct, then you have lost nothing but a little time (less than you have spent debating this likely). However, if I am correct, and you don't bother to look, then it's quite likely your daughter will find out herself. Then, finding you were wrong on this.. not just wrong, but not even truly willing to think about the other side, she will question all you say in profound ways.

I have seen that happen over and over again, and had to deal with the aftermath. Only sometimes are the children (adults by then) able to return to Christ. Christ has no need of lies. So, anything young earthers say that is wrong, no matter how well intentioned is not of Christ. The same is, of course true for evolutionists. The thing is, evolutionists don't pretend anything else. Every scientific discovery comes with an "understood" challenge. Things are published, the scientist says "hey, here is what I have found and here is how I did it", sometimes, they might add in an "and this is what I believe it means" or "I suspect this will lead to...". BUT, then, they stand back (essentially) and say "OK, now just try to prove me wrong". Of coruse, only frauds publish things they don't believe are true, but it is only when the published material withstands multiple challenges, usually over many years or with pretty substantial evidence, that it gets "accepted".
Even then, the challenge is always there. Scientists only look at what evidence exists and then frame theories to match it, changing as we gain knowledge. The theories that make up the theory of evolution have changed significantly in recent years, mostly clarifications and refinements. However, the change required to allow for even a few of the young earth theories would mean doing away with most all of science, truly.

[notyou2]

So....it's decided? Everyone agrees? We achieved consensus? God is dead?

[Lionz]

Maugena,

What would someone trying to interpret scripture have to do with whether or not they take scripture literally?

I'm not claiming He wrote a Bible and you refer to a collection of works that were written by men maybe, but does something suggest to you that forty or more men wrote lies to back eachother up in sixty-six or more works spread out over hundreds of years?

Player,

Is there certain evidence you want to bring up for discussion?

[PLAYER57832]

Lionz... I repeat my answer, from page 22 of the "young earth creationism.. again" thread.

Who said a Bible was supposed to be a full and complete creation list or that evolution means an absense of Him or that most or all Christians believe the earth is young? .

This post is just one of the reasons why I am no longer answering your questions.

I will, however, continue answering other people's questions or points.

[2dimes]

So....it's decided? Everyone agrees? We achieved consensus? God is dead?

He's just hiding.

[Lionz]

How about at least help me understand what about that offends you? You were attacking things no one in there is standing up for maybe.

[jay_a2j]

" ...."

About one thing I am sure. We each care about our children and their education deeply, which is why this topic is important to each of us.

I only wish you were willing to at least look at the evidence.. the full and recent evidence, not just what you learned in school years back. If you are correct, then you have lost nothing but a little time (less than you have spent debating this likely). However, if I am correct, and you don't bother to look, then it's quite likely your daughter will find out herself. Then, finding you were wrong on this.. not just wrong, but not even truly willing to think about the other side, she will question all you say in profound ways.

I have seen that happen over and over again, and had to deal with the aftermath. Only sometimes are the children (adults by then) able to return to Christ. Christ has no need of lies. So, anything young earthers say that is wrong, no matter how well intentioned is not of Christ. The same is, of course true for evolutionists. The thing is, evolutionists don't pretend anything else. Every scientific discovery comes with an "understood" challenge. Things are published, the scientist says "hey, here is what I have found and here is how I did it", sometimes, they might add in an "and this is what I believe it means" or "I suspect this will lead to...". BUT, then, they stand back (essentially) and say "OK, now just try to prove me wrong". Of coruse, only frauds publish things they don't believe are true, but it is only when the published material withstands multiple challenges, usually over many years or with pretty substantial evidence, that it gets "accepted".
Even then, the challenge is always there. Scientists only look at what evidence exists and then frame theories to match it, changing as we gain knowledge. The theories that make up the theory of evolution have changed significantly in recent years, mostly clarifications and refinements. However, the change required to allow for even a few of the young earth theories would mean doing away with most all of science, truly.

It just seems to me that your thinking is 1 sided. Your side. You don't even think for a moment that the earth could be younger than some scientists believe. The whole young earth thing to me is not an issue. I do hold to the belief that it has been approximately 6,000 years from ADAM to present day. I believe we are living in the 7th day (he rested) and that this day is about done. That Adam was created by God as a full human being, not evolved from other life forms. That the time from creation of earth to the time of Adam is unimportant to me as it does not effect my faith in the least bit. (It DOES affect your faith because you are banking on EVOLUTION to get to Adam in which case you would need a looooong time to elapse to get there, whereas I do not. I believe NOTHING is impossible for God.)

Do you allow for the possibility that Carbon dating is flawed?

Do you allow for the possibility for Darwin's theory to be wrong?

Do you allow for God to accomplish what is impossible for man to even conceive much less understand?

Do you put more faith in science then the God who is responsible for it?

[tzor]

Do you allow for the possibility that Carbon dating is flawed?

Do you allow for the possibility for Darwin's theory to be wrong?

Do you allow for God to accomplish what is impossible for man to even conceive much less understand?

Do you put more faith in science then the God who is responsible for it?

Jay the question of whether something is flawed is a moot one; since no observation is perfect, no theory is either. All theories have flaws. Newton's understanding of gravity and Keppler's notion of eliptical orbits still could not explain the orbit of Mercury; only Einstien could. There are various cases where carbon dating can produce inaccurate numbers. But inaccuracies as to the order of magnitude you describe? No way.

This brings us back to Darwin. I thought we were discussing evolution, much like gravity, which is more than just one individual man's theory.

Yes I belive that God can accomplish what seems impossible for man (but with God all things are possible for man), but that begs the question. If God made the universe, and if that universe was "good" (see Genesis), and since God, being all good cannot go against his own nature, then the universe, which He designed can neither deceive nor lie.

When I took physics in college, my minor was in astrophysics. Here the evidence is very solid and the counter evidence of people who try to insist on a young earth/universe seems more like they have been smoking some good stuff. Yes I put a massive amount of faith in God; He made a universe that does not lie or deceive.

[PLAYER57832]

" ...."

About one thing I am sure. We each care about our children and their education deeply, which is why this topic is important to each of us.

I only wish you were willing to at least look at the evidence.. the full and recent evidence, not just what you learned in school years back. If you are correct, then you have lost nothing but a little time (less than you have spent debating this likely). However, if I am correct, and you don't bother to look, then it's quite likely your daughter will find out herself. Then, finding you were wrong on this.. not just wrong, but not even truly willing to think about the other side, she will question all you say in profound ways.

I have seen that happen over and over again, and had to deal with the aftermath. Only sometimes are the children (adults by then) able to return to Christ. Christ has no need of lies. So, anything young earthers say that is wrong, no matter how well intentioned is not of Christ. The same is, of course true for evolutionists. The thing is, evolutionists don't pretend anything else. Every scientific discovery comes with an "understood" challenge. Things are published, the scientist says "hey, here is what I have found and here is how I did it", sometimes, they might add in an "and this is what I believe it means" or "I suspect this will lead to...". BUT, then, they stand back (essentially) and say "OK, now just try to prove me wrong". Of coruse, only frauds publish things they don't believe are true, but it is only when the published material withstands multiple challenges, usually over many years or with pretty substantial evidence, that it gets "accepted".
Even then, the challenge is always there. Scientists only look at what evidence exists and then frame theories to match it, changing as we gain knowledge. The theories that make up the theory of evolution have changed significantly in recent years, mostly clarifications and refinements. However, the change required to allow for even a few of the young earth theories would mean doing away with most all of science, truly.

It just seems to me that your thinking is 1 sided. Your side. You don't even think for a moment that the earth could be younger than some scientists believe.

This is because you are talking to me after years of trying, unsuccessfully, to find anything that would even begin to allow for young earth ideas. It is because after years of doing this, and, as I said, talking to more than a few biology students who saw their belief in Christ as tied to the earth being young coming into true spiritual crisis when they found that the science just plain does not support anything but that the earth is old.

The whole young earth thing to me is not an issue. I do hold to the belief that it has been approximately 6,000 years from ADAM to present day.

Human memory, that is, verified written and assorted physical evidence shows that civilization, not just humans, go back well before that. I have to say that reading about even the divirsity of cultures within the Bible has always lead me to believe that civilization was older than archeologists thought. Recent years has born that out. More discoveries keep pushing the dates back, not ahead.

Do you allow for the possibility that Carbon dating is flawed?

Do you allow for the possibility for Darwin's theory to be wrong?

Do you allow for God to accomplish what is impossible for man to even conceive much less understand

Do you put more faith in science then the God who is responsible for it?

Tzor already answered these pretty well.
But, I will add in this. Science revolves around people disproving one another. ANY scientific idea or theory can possibly be wrong. However, to do so requires refuting the evidence or providing a reasonable alternative explanation, one that matches what we do know. The problem with young earth creationists is not that they want to disagree, it is that they claim to have evidence they simply do not have and deny evidence that really exists. It is that they put forward ideas that plain and simply have been disproven.

Carbon-14 dating is not used to date fossils. To be used, requires presence of carbon and most fossils no longer contain carbon. (yet many creationist articles continue to refer to carbon dating errors as a reason why paleontologist dating of fossil record cannot be trusted) it is used for archeological sites. It has a wide error range ( It is more like the odometer of your car than a micrometer). Its limit is around 50,000 years. And, like many types of analysis has to be done correctly or it will be worng. Even so, it has been verified over and over to work within those ranges.

As for Darwin, not only is it not "his" theory, he was wrong a LOT. However, he got the general concepts correct (that things change over time, etc.). He is given credit for publishing the first account that became widely read and accepted in Europe and the Americas. For example, natural selection happens. However, it is not the only mover of evolution and might not even be the primary mover in evolution.

As for God. Of course God can do anything and can move people to do anything. However, God created the world we have for a reason. He told us it was for us and that it was good. Why would he create a lie? For creationism to be true means that he created this world and all its systems such that evidence shows it to be old, even when it is not. That doesn't seem consistant with how God operates. It also is not what young earth creationists assert.

[jay_a2j]

" ...."

About one thing I am sure. We each care about our children and their education deeply, which is why this topic is important to each of us.

I only wish you were willing to at least look at the evidence.. the full and recent evidence, not just what you learned in school years back. If you are correct, then you have lost nothing but a little time (less than you have spent debating this likely). However, if I am correct, and you don't bother to look, then it's quite likely your daughter will find out herself. Then, finding you were wrong on this.. not just wrong, but not even truly willing to think about the other side, she will question all you say in profound ways.

I have seen that happen over and over again, and had to deal with the aftermath. Only sometimes are the children (adults by then) able to return to Christ. Christ has no need of lies. So, anything young earthers say that is wrong, no matter how well intentioned is not of Christ. The same is, of course true for evolutionists. The thing is, evolutionists don't pretend anything else. Every scientific discovery comes with an "understood" challenge. Things are published, the scientist says "hey, here is what I have found and here is how I did it", sometimes, they might add in an "and this is what I believe it means" or "I suspect this will lead to...". BUT, then, they stand back (essentially) and say "OK, now just try to prove me wrong". Of coruse, only frauds publish things they don't believe are true, but it is only when the published material withstands multiple challenges, usually over many years or with pretty substantial evidence, that it gets "accepted".
Even then, the challenge is always there. Scientists only look at what evidence exists and then frame theories to match it, changing as we gain knowledge. The theories that make up the theory of evolution have changed significantly in recent years, mostly clarifications and refinements. However, the change required to allow for even a few of the young earth theories would mean doing away with most all of science, truly.

It just seems to me that your thinking is 1 sided. Your side. You don't even think for a moment that the earth could be younger than some scientists believe.

This is because you are talking to me after years of trying, unsuccessfully, to find anything that would even begin to allow for young earth ideas. It is because after years of doing this, and, as I said, talking to more than a few biology students who saw their belief in Christ as tied to the earth being young coming into true spiritual crisis when they found that the science just plain does not support anything but that the earth is old.

The whole young earth thing to me is not an issue. I do hold to the belief that it has been approximately 6,000 years from ADAM to present day.

Human memory, that is, verified written and assorted physical evidence shows that civilization, not just humans, go back well before that. I have to say that reading about even the divirsity of cultures within the Bible has always lead me to believe that civilization was older than archeologists thought. Recent years has born that out. More discoveries keep pushing the dates back, not ahead.

Do you allow for the possibility that Carbon dating is flawed?

Do you allow for the possibility for Darwin's theory to be wrong?

Do you allow for God to accomplish what is impossible for man to even conceive much less understand

Do you put more faith in science then the God who is responsible for it?

Tzor already answered these pretty well.
But, I will add in this. Science revolves around people disproving one another. ANY scientific idea or theory can possibly be wrong. However, to do so requires refuting the evidence or providing a reasonable alternative explanation, one that matches what we do know. The problem with young earth creationists is not that they want to disagree, it is that they claim to have evidence they simply do not have and deny evidence that really exists. It is that they put forward ideas that plain and simply have been disproven.

Carbon-14 dating is not used to date fossils. To be used, requires presence of carbon and most fossils no longer contain carbon. (yet many creationist articles continue to refer to carbon dating errors as a reason why paleontologist dating of fossil record cannot be trusted) it is used for archeological sites. It has a wide error range ( It is more like the odometer of your car than a micrometer). Its limit is around 50,000 years. And, like many types of analysis has to be done correctly or it will be worng. Even so, it has been verified over and over to work within those ranges.

As for Darwin, not only is it not "his" theory, he was wrong a LOT. However, he got the general concepts correct (that things change over time, etc.). He is given credit for publishing the first account that became widely read and accepted in Europe and the Americas. For example, natural selection happens. However, it is not the only mover of evolution and might not even be the primary mover in evolution.

As for God. Of course God can do anything and can move people to do anything. However, God created the world we have for a reason. He told us it was for us and that it was good. Why would he create a lie? For creationism to be true means that he created this world and all its systems such that evidence shows it to be old, even when it is not. That doesn't seem consistant with how God operates. It also is not what young earth creationists assert.

First thing I noticed is you cut a big chunk out of my post. Had you not done that you would not even attempt to call me a "young earther" as I clearly wrote why the age of the earth does not effect my faith but it does yours. If you want to accuse people of being something, in this case a young earther, please direct the readers of this thread to the post I said it in. Don't bother, you won't find it. My problem is with evolution not the age of the earth. But, that being said, do I think it possible for God to have created the earth 12,000 years ago? Sure.... He's God.

[Lionz]

Tzor,

Should we not actually expect for there to be preflood things that would date way off with carbon dating if there was an earthwide flood and earth had a vastly different atmosphere and much more plantlife on it before the flood?

It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.
Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.

In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.2
Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.

The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3
What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.

What role might the Genesis Flood have played in the amount of carbon? The Flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms (plant and animal) to form today’s fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today. This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today. This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.

If that were the case, and this C-14 were distributed uniformly throughout the biosphere, and the total amount of biosphere C were, for example, 500 times that of today’s world, the resulting C-14/C-12 ratio would be 1/500 of today’s level....7
When the Flood is taken into account along with the decay of the magnetic field, it is reasonable to believe that the assumption of equilibrium is a false assumption.

Because of this false assumption, any age estimates using 14C prior to the Flood will give much older dates than the true age. Pre-Flood material would be dated at perhaps ten times the true age.

Quotes within and hyperlinks missing and numbers included that should be raised up higher and smaller and messed up formatting and misquoting maybe... you might want to check here... http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -the-bible

I might know little to nothing about astrophysics. What about it suggests to you that earth was created over 7,000 years ago?

Player,

Where is written or physical evidence that shows that civilization goes back way before 6,000 years? And do you mean to suggest carbon dating is used on things that have not been alive?

Tzor and Player,

If you claim it would have been deceptive of Him to have created earth instantly out of nothing with diamond in it or deceptive of Him to have created stars with light reaching earth from them right away, do you claim it would have been deceptive of Him to have created Adam as a full grown man with pubic hair?

[tzor]

Tzor,

Should we not actually expect for there to be preflood things that would date way off with carbon dating if there was an earthwide flood and earth had a vastly different atmosphere and much more plantlife on it before the flood?

Let's use a better quote source on second thought, let's use Wikipedia instead; I'm lazy.

A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is in turn affected by variations in the Earth's magnetosphere [11]. In addition, there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changes in the Earth's climate can affect the carbon flows between these reservoirs and the atmosphere, leading to changes in the atmosphere's 14C fraction.

Aside from these changes due to natural processes, the level has also been affected by human activities. From the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th century to the 1950s, the fractional level of 14C decreased because of the admixture of large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, due to the excavated oil reserves and combustion production of fossil fuel. This decline is known as the Suess effect, and also affects the 13C isotope. However, atmospheric 14C was almost doubled for a short period during the 1950s and 1960s due to atmospheric atomic bomb tests.

As a consequence, the radiocarbon method shows limitations on dating of materials that are younger than the industrial era. Due to these fluctuations, greater carbon-14 content cannot be taken to mean a lesser age. It is expected that in the future the radiocarbon method will become less effective. A calibration curve must sometimes be combined with contextual analysis, because there is not always a direct relationship between age and carbon-14 content.[12]

The cosmic ray intensity can tweek the system, but it cannot warp the system to the point that you need. Why? One very reasonable argument for global temperature variations is low level cloud cover which is caused by cosmic rays. Turn off the cosmic rays completely, for a long period of time and ... well it's not all that good for life as we know it.

But, I believe there is a passage in the Gospels about the testimony of two or more witnesses. So back to wiki again

Speleothems (such as stalagmites) are calcium carbonate deposits that form from drips in limestone caves. Individual speleothems can be tens of thousands of years old.[25] Scientists are attempting to extend the record of atmospheric carbon-14 by measuring radiocarbon in speleothems which have been independently dated using uranium-thorium dating.[26][27] These results are improving the calibration for the radiocarbon technique and extending its usefulness to 45,000 years into the past.[28]

Because uranium is soluble to some extent in all natural waters, any material that precipitates or is grown from such waters also contains trace uranium, typically at levels of between a few parts per billion and few parts per million by weight. In contrast, thorium is not soluble in natural waters under conditions found at or near the surface of the earth and so materials grown in or from these waters do not usually contain thorium. As time passes after the formation of such a material, the uranium-234 in the sample decays to thorium-230, with a half-life of 245,000 years. The thorium-230 is itself radioactive with a half-life of 75,000 years and so instead of accumulating indefinitely (as for instance is the case for the uranium-lead system) it instead approaches secular equilibrium with its parent isotope. At equilibrium, the number of thorium-230 decays per year within a sample is equal to the number of uranium-234 decays per year in the same sample.

No ratios are involved for Uranium-thorium dating. It starts off pure and decays.