NationStates Jolt Archive

i tried this a few years back and want to give it another go. it's a sort of collective project for nsg. creationists are always going on about how they deserve an equal hearing as science. well if they want biblical science, then we should treat their claims like any other scientific hypotheses. a lot of the stuff they claim happened would leave all sorts of evidence that it did ('cause the bible does not say "and then god covered it all up and framed the dinosaurs" anywhere as far as i know). so let's come up with some empirical consequences for them.

the story so far (i may have missed a few):

we should not be able to find sequences of tree rings stretching back beyond 6000 years or so

A world-wide flood would leave behind a layer of sediment covering the globe.
also, we should find fossils in that layer that are a total jumble of all forms of life, not sorted into any particular pattern.

We should not be able to find evidence of human societies that existed prior to 6000 odd years ago.

Not to mention a lot more water than exists on Earth today. Of course, given that their explanation is a liquid water canopy somehow suspended 900 miles above the Earth, it's not hard to see that there are no issues they can't argue around.
though that claim itself (which is only vaguely biblical, but i guess we can allow it) probably has one or two empirical consequences. like a significant greenhouse effect perhaps, which should be visible in various climate proxies at that time. of course, we shouldn't be able to have climate proxies for any times earlier than that 6000ish year mark...

we should find the ruins of many cities around the world all of which we destroyed at essentially the same time by a great flood.

we should be able to trace the spread of humanity from mt ararat outward to the rest of the world.

we should be unable to find any evidence of radioactive materials that have been decaying from more than that magic 6000 year line.

assuming the literal day interpretation:
there should be a general mix of all fossil forms within the same layers, segregated by ancient ecologies and other such things. except for the flood layer, which should just be a jumble. there shouldn't be any extinct forms at all, and certainly no ordered development of species over time.

going instead with the day-age type idea:
the earliest layers in which we find fossils should contain fossil plants, particularly seed and fruit bearing ones, and absolutely no other types of life. later layers should have the above as well as ocean life and birds, and nothing else. and the layers after that should have all land animals, especially cattle.

not that that explains things older than that yet. like the clovis points that are more than 11,000 year old human artifacts found in north america.
(there should not be any human artifacts older than 6000 years bp [ed.])

No stars, galaxies or nebulae should be more than 6000 light years away.

no, if evolution was true, new species would emerge, if there is no evolution, we are stuck with the existing ones and natural selection would decrease their number every day.
(there fossil record should record a decrease in diversity over time [ed.])

to put it in creationist hypothesis form, we should not be able to find anywhere on the planet with more than approx. 6000 annual ice layers.

if the speed of light has been decreasing then more distant objects would be observed effectively in slow motion - there were many 'frames' of light sent originally in a given time period, but now they are 'played' much slower. so we should expect that more distant pulsars and variable stars should do their thing dramatically slower than closer ones. so no variable stars whatsoever outside our own galaxy.

also, the speed of light should be noticeably decreasing while i type this.

Fossil evidence should demonstrate a complete destruction of all life on Earth at about 2000 BC (the approximate time of Noah and the ark). Life of all types should then appear to repopulate the Earth from a single point (the mountain on which the ark landed).and based on this idea, it should be very much later before life got back to the more distant parts of the globe - the tip of south america would be empty for thousands of years probably. and i'm thinking hawaii should be utterly lacking in most things pretty much up to the present day.

Day and night would have to come from a light source independent of the sun.

either there should be no genetic variation within species, or all individuals should have equal reproductive success.

We should not be able to see further then roughly 10,000 light-years into space, at which point god created light.

Don't forget the linguistic effects that would result from such a spread!Then we should theoretically be able to trace all present-day languages back to several distinct, unrelated ancestor languages dating back to a few thousand years ago, and before that point, all language should be identical.

humans should show a genetic bottleneck in the rather recent past - especially because the first couple hundred years are blown on really long generation times.

domesticated animals, particularly cattle, should appear in the fossil record either before or at functionally the same time as the first humans (depending on long or short 'days').

In addition to dinosaur bones, we should find the bones of 12' tall humans with wings and nearby graves of their 8' tall human/angel hybrid children.

there should not be any transitional fossils found anywhere, ever.

everything should show up in the fossil record all at once in fully modern form.

life should not rather neatly cluster into higher groupings except for those explicitly mentioned in the genesis. and they certainly should not be groupable on the basis of noncoding stretches of mitochondrial or chloroplast dna - especially not into the same groupings you might make based on morphology.

i'm thinking of breaking it up into a couple categories. maybe like genetics, linguistics, paleontology, geology, etc. or would some other way work better?

A world-wide flood would leave behind a layer of sediment covering the globe.

There is no such layer, of course...

We should not be able to find evidence of human societies that existed prior to 6000 odd years ago.

A world-wide flood would leave behind a layer of sediment covering the globe.

Not to mention a lot more water than exists on Earth today. Of course, given that their explanation is a liquid water canopy somehow suspended 900 miles above the Earth, it's not hard to see that there are no issues they can't argue around.

we should be able to trace the spread of humanity from mt ararat outward to the rest of the world.

A world-wide flood would leave behind a layer of sediment covering the globe.

also, we should find fossils in that layer that are a total jumble of all forms of life, not sorted into any particular pattern.

Of course, given that their explanation is a liquid water canopy somehow suspended 900 miles above the Earth...

I guess that's why the space shuttle astronauts practice in pools, and all this time I thought it was because it was an approximation of a zero gravity environment.

I guess that's why the space shuttle astronauts practice in pools, and all this time I thought it was because it was an approximation of a zero gravity environment.

Well, don't forget that the stars are only suspended several miles above the Earth...that's why the moon landings had to be faked.

Of course, given that their explanation is a liquid water canopy somehow suspended 900 miles above the Earth, it's not hard to see that there are no issues they can't argue around.

though that claim itself (which is only vaguely biblical, but i guess we can allow it) probably has one or two empirical consequences. like a significant greenhouse effect perhaps, which should be visible in various climate proxies at that time. of course, we shouldn't be able to have climate proxies for any times earlier than that 6000ish year mark...

Oh and remember chemistry with c14 dating? That no longer exists. Things don't have half-lifes. The whole Half-Life measuring thing was invented by God because he sits on a throne twiddling his fingers like montgomery burns while trying to plot a way to fool us foolish mortals.

though that claim itself (which is only vaguely biblical, but i guess we can allow it) probably has one or two empirical consequences. like a significant greenhouse effect perhaps, which should be visible in various climate proxies at that time. of course, we shouldn't be able to have climate proxies for any times earlier than that 6000ish year mark...

The greenhouse effect doesn't exist in creationist circles, remember?

The greenhouse effect doesn't exist in creationist circles, remember?

yeah, but we aren't allowing the fact that they are idiots to get them out of the obvious empirical consequences of their claims

Oh and remember chemistry with c14 dating? That no longer exists. Things don't have half-lifes. The whole Half-Life measuring thing was invented by God because he sits on a throne twiddling his fingers like montgomery burns while trying to plot a way to fool us foolish mortals.

nah, i can't see any biblical hypothesis that claims there is no such thing as radioactive decay. that would be especially bad for them. but it does explicitly claim that we should be unable to find any evidence of radioactive materials that have been decaying from more than that magic 6000 year line.

People put too much fucking stock in the Bible, FFS, it never says alot of the stuff most Christians are supposed to believe in.

People put too much fucking stock in the Bible, FFS, it never says alot of the stuff most Christians are supposed to believe in.

well it is supposedly the word of some god - it'd be weird if people who believed that didn't put quite a bit of stock in the thing.

I hate to spoil your faith-bashing fun but creationism was already tested on almost every claim and proven false each time. There's no need to do it again.

Also, why do you always equate catastophic AGW skeptics with creationists?

There's no need to do it again.

if only that were the case. unfortunately it hasn't seemed to get through to them yet, so we must try again.

Also, why do you always equate catastophic AGW skeptics with creationists?

'cause the arguments are pretty much the same and equally bad. and the tactics are identical. and the cultural milieu out of which they arise is one and the same (though in the global warming denialists' case, that milieu is being manipulated by rich bastards rather than good old fashioned mystics and con-men).

We should not be able to find evidence of human societies that existed prior to 6000 odd years ago.

we should find the ruins of many cities around the world all of which we destroyed at essentially the same time by a great flood.

assuming the literal day interpretation:
there should be a general mix of all fossil forms within the same layers, segregated by ancient ecologies and other such things. except for the flood layer, which should just be a jumble. there shouldn't be any extinct forms at all, and certainly no ordered development of species over time.

going instead with the day-age type idea:
the earliest layers in which we find fossils should contain fossil plants, particularly seed and fruit bearing ones, and absolutely no other types of life. later layers should have the above as well as ocean life and birds, and nothing else. and the layers after that should have all land animals, especially cattle.

You know, I've always wondered: is it only Christians who try to get things like Intelligent Design and creationism supported in schools, or do people of other faiths also attempt this and only the Christian attempts are considered newsworthy?

You know, I've always wondered: is it only Christians who try to get things like Intelligent Design and creationism supported in schools, or do people of other faiths also attempt this and only the Christian attempts are considered newsworthy?

in USia, only the christians exist in big enough numbers to try it in public schools.

You know, I've always wondered: is it only Christians who try to get things like Intelligent Design and creationism supported in schools, or do people of other faiths also attempt this and only the Christian attempts are considered newsworthy?
So far as I know, it's only been the Jesus-types--probably because they're the only group with enough stroke to even get it considered.

we should not be able to find sequences of tree rings stretching back beyond 6000 years or so

That would just mean that we haven't found a tree that's older than 6,000 years old- it doesn't mean that the Earth is 6,000 years old. By that logic, I could find the oldest human and declare that the Earth hasn't been around longer than that human has, because I can't find an older human.

I did a paper on "testable Creationism" and I found nothing. The only things scientifically that Creationists do is blast evolution, thinking that by blasting evolution they've created an alternative. That is simply not true. They're quite crafty, inventing formulas that can explain things like radioactive decay readings (one by Russell Humphries did such a thing, suggesting an "accelarated" rate) and by twisting facts (one tract stated that we haven't yet discovered the Oort Cloud or any comets that could suggest its existence- when in fact we have), but have yet to provide a testable, scientific theory to support their case. If Creationists can provide a theory using evidence (and not just saying that our erosion records don't go back past 6,000 years), then I'll be inclined to believe it's a credible scientific theory.

So far as I know, it's only been the Jesus-types--probably because they're the only group with enough stroke to even get it considered.

And they wonder why we make fun of them. Silly religious people, school is for facts!

And they wonder why we make fun of them. Silly religious people, school is for facts!

Hey. Just because religion produces some whack-jobs doesn't mean all religion is bad. I'm an atheist, but I must defend honestly held spiritually beliefs as they are often extremely beneficial to those that hold them, all pseudo-science to the contrary.

That would just mean that we haven't found a tree that's older than 6,000 years old- it doesn't mean that the Earth is 6,000 years old. By that logic, I could find the oldest human and declare that the Earth hasn't been around longer than that human has, because I can't find an older human.

it isn't intended to be positive evidence in favor of creationism, just an empirical consequence of it. it would just be necessarily true. it would literally be impossible for there to be older trees. finding such a sequence would disprove the hypothesis, or at least throw it into considerable doubt.

Hey. Just because religion produces some whack-jobs doesn't mean all religion is bad. I'm an atheist, but I must defend honestly held spiritually beliefs as they are often extremely beneficial to those that hold them, all pseudo-science to the contrary.

I'll agree to that. I've met those with honestly held spiritual beliefs. My entire immediate family, for one. It's the ones who don't have honestly held beliefs that I make fun of. Which is most of them, it seems.

it isn't intended to be positive evidence in favor of creationism, just an empirical consequence of it. it would just be necessarily true. it would literally be impossible for there to be older trees. finding such a sequence would disprove the hypothesis, or at least throw it into considerable doubt.

It sounded to me like a case of throwing all of your eggs in one basket, and while I understand that's not what you're trying to do here, I've seen many a Creationist use that kind of argument.

Now, if the goal of this thread is to create a testable Creationist theory then I'll do the best I can to help, although I think it'll be an incredibly shaky theory at best.

it isn't intended to be positive evidence in favor of creationism, just an empirical consequence of it. it would just be necessarily true. it would literally be impossible for there to be older trees. finding such a sequence would disprove the hypothesis, or at least throw it into considerable doubt.

well yes but perhaps just as adam and eve were created as adults instead of children, trees were also created full grown so that a newly created bristlecone pine might have 2000 years worth of growth rings.

Well, don't forget that the stars are only suspended several miles above the Earth...that's why the moon landings had to be faked.

I recall this exchange between Winston and O'Brien in Orwell's 1984:

"But the world itself is only a speck of dust. And man is tiny helpless! How long has he been in existence? For millions of years the earth was uninhabited."

"Nonsense. The earth is as old as we are, no older. How could it be older? Nothing exists except through human consciousness."

"But the rocks are full of the bones of extinct animals -- mammoths and mastodons and enormous reptiles which lived here long before man was ever heard of."

"Have you ever seen those bones, Winston? Of course not. Nineteenth-century biologists invented them. Before man there was nothing. After man, if he could come to an end, there would be nothing. Outside man there is nothing."

"But the whole universe is outside us. Look at the stars! Some of them are a million light-years away. They are out of our reach for ever."

"What are the stars?' said O'Brien indifferently. 'They are bits of fire a few kilometres away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out. The earth is the centre of the universe. The sun and the stars go round it."

Winston made another convulsive movement. This time he did not say anything.
Sounds awfully familiar...

well yes but perhaps just as adam and eve were created as adults instead of children, trees were also created full grown so that a newly created bristlecone pine might have 2000 years worth of growth rings.

*applauds*

well yes but perhaps just as adam and eve were created as adults instead of children, trees were also created full grown so that a newly created bristlecone pine might have 2000 years worth of growth rings.

maybe. but we have no reason to think that a fully formed bristlecone pine would have 2000 rather than 50 years of apparent age. but even allowing an apparently ancient tree with 2000 pseudo-growth rings, that only bumps us back to 8000 years bp.

maybe. but we have no reason to think that a fully formed bristlecone pine would have 2000 rather than 50 years of apparent age. but even allowing an apparently ancient tree with 2000 pseudo-growth rings, that only bumps us back to 8000 years bp.

very true but i think that it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the oldest tree is more than 6000 years old because of how it was created rather than being good proof that the earth is older than 6000 years.

not that that explains things older than that yet. like the clovis points that are more than 11,000 year old human artifacts found in north america.

I hate to spoil your faith-bashing fun but creationism was already tested on almost every claim and proven false each time. There's no need to do it again.When and how were non-falsifiable claims proven false?

A world-wide flood would leave behind a layer of sediment covering the globe.
There is no such layer, of course...However, there is one in Mesopotamia. With pottery above and beneath, so it can be dated roughly to the 32. century BCE. Astonishingly this is also the time frame in which the Maya date their flood (3113/14 BCE, the start of their calendar system). Maybe a really bad el niño year?

No stars, galaxies or nebulae should be more than 6000 light years away.

No stars, galaxies or nebulae should be more than 6000 light years away.

But any science showing that must clearly be evil and created by Satan!!!11!! :rolleyes:

Ice cores from the poles show millions of years of climate change. The grand canyon did NOT form in 6000 years.

I read somewhere that christian schools are teaching the kids that light was faster in the past. So that galaxies further away than the bible allows for can be explained. They also use the grand canyon as EVIDENCE for the great flood.

Maybe someone can help, is the 6000 year age reached by adding together the ages of all the descendents of adam and eve? or does it actually say somewhere the age of the earth?

Ice cores from the poles show millions of years of climate change.Do they?

I read somewhere that christian schools are teaching the kids that light was faster in the past. So that galaxies further away than the bible allows for can be explained.So the universe is losing Energy?

They also use the grand canyon as EVIDENCE for the great flood.How?

Maybe someone can help, is the 6000 year age reached by adding together the ages of all the descendents of adam and eve? or does it actually say somewhere the age of the earth?Yes. That's how Jewish "scholars" calculated the earth's age. Silly, isn't it?

The number of species would be constantly declining down to 1.

The number of species would be constantly declining down to 1.It does. :(
But to what question do you post this answer?

no, if evolution was true, new species would emerge, if there is no evolution, we are stuck with the existing ones and natural selection would decrease their number every day.

no, if evolution was true, new species would emerge, if there is no evolution, we are stuck with the existing ones and natural selection would decrease their number every day.Humanity and its impact decrease their number every day.
On the other hand new, or rather altered, species do emerge.

This is what I mean.

This is what I mean.What is what you mean?

On the other hand new, or rather altered, species do emerge.

This

ThisWeren't you rejecting evolution?

Ice cores from the poles show millions of years of climate change. The grand canyon did NOT form in 6000 years.

I read somewhere that christian schools are teaching the kids that light was faster in the past. So that galaxies further away than the bible allows for can be explained. They also use the grand canyon as EVIDENCE for the great flood.

Maybe someone can help, is the 6000 year age reached by adding together the ages of all the descendents of adam and eve? or does it actually say somewhere the age of the earth?

i dont think that the ages of enough people are put into the bible (or more importantly the age at which they had their children) to have it just be a string of ages adding up to 4004 bc.

it was calculated by christian scholars in the mid 17th century. they used the bible and histories from the mediterranean area, made some assumptions, did some calculations and it tursn out that the world was created on october 23, 4004 bc at 9 am. adam and eve didnt make a full month in eden, they were kicked out just short of 3 weeks later on november 10th. ive known people like that.

here is a page with an excerpt from james ussher archbishop of armagh and vice-chancellor of trinity college in dublin.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm

i dont think that the ages of enough people are put into the bible (or more importantly the age at which they had their children) to have it just be a string of ages adding up to 4004 bc.

it was calculated by christian scholars in the mid 17th century. they used the bible and histories from the mediterranean area, made some assumptions, did some calculations and it tursn out that the world was created on october 23, 4004 bc at 9 am. adam and eve didnt make a full month in eden, they were kicked out just short of 3 weeks later on november 10th. ive known people like that.

here is a page with an excerpt from james ussher archbishop of armagh and vice-chancellor of trinity college in dublin.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm

Dating Creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_Creation)

Ice cores from the poles show millions of years of climate change.

to put it in creationist hypothesis form, we should not be able to find anywhere on the planet with more than approx. 6000 annual ice layers.

I read somewhere that christian schools are teaching the kids that light was faster in the past.

ok, so then that would itself have testable consequences (even though that is clearly not biblical at all and just some magical handwaving they started doing to save their idiotic idea). hmm, let's see...
if the speed of light has been decreasing then more distant objects would be observed effectively in slow motion - there were many 'frames' of light sent originally in a given time period, but now they are 'played' much slower. so we should expect that more distant pulsars and variable stars should do their thing dramatically slower than closer ones. so no variable stars whatsoever outside our own galaxy.

also, the speed of light should be noticeably decreasing while i type this.

Maybe someone can help, is the 6000 year age reached by adding together the ages of all the descendents of adam and eve?

yeah, a bit of addition and some historical traditional assumptions for how long the hebrews imagined their non-existent slave ancestors to have been stuck in egypt and such.

Creationists fail to come up with testable hypothesis shocker.

very true but i think that it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the oldest tree is more than 6000 years old because of how it was created rather than being good proof that the earth is older than 6000 years.

well, except that a number of our dendrochronologies are based in things that aren't bristlecone pines, like oak trees which only have a lifespan in the hundreds of years. so to get, for example, the 11000 year chronology they have in germany you'd need not only fully formed ancient living trees at the time of creation, but also consistent, fully formed dead trees from a great number of pseudo-generations. and there just ain't no support for such bullshitting and handwaving, so the creationists don't get to make that move.

well, except that a number of our dendrochronologies are based in things that aren't bristlecone pines, like oak trees which only have a lifespan in the hundreds of years. so to get, for example, the 11000 year chronology they have in germany you'd need not only fully formed ancient living trees at the time of creation, but also consistent, fully formed dead trees from a great number of pseudo-generations. and there just ain't no support for such bullshitting and handwaving, so the creationists don't get to make that move.

im lost.

how does the ring count of trees that only last a few hundred years come into the dating of creation?

we have come up with a really good list of things that should be true if young earth creationism is true. perhaps you would put them all into one post so that the next time someone talks about the science of creationism someone can just link to it and save time.

it would give creationists a list of hurdles to jump over before they can begin to diss evolution.

well, except that a number of our dendrochronologies are based in things that aren't bristlecone pines, like oak trees which only have a lifespan in the hundreds of years. so to get, for example, the 11000 year chronology they have in germany you'd need not only fully formed ancient living trees at the time of creation, but also consistent, fully formed dead trees from a great number of pseudo-generations. and there just ain't no support for such bullshitting and handwaving, so the creationists don't get to make that move.dendrochronology has never worked and never will. piecing together trees from different periods and regions simply does not produce any reliable datings. it's just as trying to get absolute values out of radiocarbon dating.

im lost.

how does the ring count of trees that only last a few hundred years come into the dating of creation?

we have come up with a really good list of things that should be true if young earth creationism is true. perhaps you would put them all into one post so that the next time someone talks about the science of creationism someone can just link to it and save time.

it would give creationists a list of hurdles to jump over before they can begin to diss evolution.the pattern of the rings of one tree (which reflects the changes in local climate over the tree's lifespan) can be compared with patterns form older tree fragments and thus be put in a sequence.

We should not be able to find any intelligent lifeforms besides humanity, period. Especially if they have more than 6000 years of written history ;)

So.. if the aliens land, creationism is disproven.

im lost.

how does the ring count of trees that only last a few hundred years come into the dating of creation?

trees in a particular area are subject to the same environmental conditions. these conditions influence things like the size of a particular growth ring (wet or dry years, for example). we can line up a whole bunch of tree ring samples, match up the places where the rings overlap, and have an exact record of the history of that region in tree rings. this can be used to study ancient climate, ecology, and provide general dates for particular trees and for wood artifacts.

http://sonic.net/bristlecone/images/ring_graphic.gif


we have come up with a really good list of things that should be true if young earth creationism is true. perhaps you would put them all into one post so that the next time someone talks about the science of creationism someone can just link to it and save time.

it would give creationists a list of hurdles to jump over before they can begin to diss evolution.

that's the plan. i'll start the compilation in a bit.

trees in a particular area are subject to the same environmental conditions. these conditions influence things like the size of a particular growth ring (wet or dry years, for example). we can line up a whole bunch of tree ring samples, match up the places where the rings overlap, and have an exact record of the history of that region in tree rings. this can be used to study ancient climate, ecology, and provide general dates for particular trees and for wood artifacts.

http://sonic.net/bristlecone/images/ring_graphic.gif




that's the plan. i'll start the compilation in a bit.


interesting. it sounds incredibly tedious.

interesting. it sounds incredibly tedious.

that's why i don't do the science. but it is remarkably useful.

the collection so far

we should not be able to find sequences of tree rings stretching back beyond 6000 years or so

A world-wide flood would leave behind a layer of sediment covering the globe.
also, we should find fossils in that layer that are a total jumble of all forms of life, not sorted into any particular pattern.

We should not be able to find evidence of human societies that existed prior to 6000 odd years ago.

Not to mention a lot more water than exists on Earth today. Of course, given that their explanation is a liquid water canopy somehow suspended 900 miles above the Earth, it's not hard to see that there are no issues they can't argue around.
though that claim itself (which is only vaguely biblical, but i guess we can allow it) probably has one or two empirical consequences. like a significant greenhouse effect perhaps, which should be visible in various climate proxies at that time. of course, we shouldn't be able to have climate proxies for any times earlier than that 6000ish year mark...

we should find the ruins of many cities around the world all of which we destroyed at essentially the same time by a great flood.

we should be able to trace the spread of humanity from mt ararat outward to the rest of the world.

we should be unable to find any evidence of radioactive materials that have been decaying from more than that magic 6000 year line.

assuming the literal day interpretation:
there should be a general mix of all fossil forms within the same layers, segregated by ancient ecologies and other such things. except for the flood layer, which should just be a jumble. there shouldn't be any extinct forms at all, and certainly no ordered development of species over time.

going instead with the day-age type idea:
the earliest layers in which we find fossils should contain fossil plants, particularly seed and fruit bearing ones, and absolutely no other types of life. later layers should have the above as well as ocean life and birds, and nothing else. and the layers after that should have all land animals, especially cattle.

not that that explains things older than that yet. like the clovis points that are more than 11,000 year old human artifacts found in north america.
(there should not be any human artifacts older than 6000 years bp [ed.])

No stars, galaxies or nebulae should be more than 6000 light years away.

no, if evolution was true, new species would emerge, if there is no evolution, we are stuck with the existing ones and natural selection would decrease their number every day.
(there fossil record should record a decrease in diversity over time [ed.])

to put it in creationist hypothesis form, we should not be able to find anywhere on the planet with more than approx. 6000 annual ice layers.

if the speed of light has been decreasing then more distant objects would be observed effectively in slow motion - there were many 'frames' of light sent originally in a given time period, but now they are 'played' much slower. so we should expect that more distant pulsars and variable stars should do their thing dramatically slower than closer ones. so no variable stars whatsoever outside our own galaxy.

also, the speed of light should be noticeably decreasing while i type this.

we should probably organize them better somehow.

We should be able to scream into the sky "Oi! God! You around?" and get an answer. We should also be able to make jesus in a particle accelorator.

trees in a particular area are subject to the same environmental conditions. these conditions influence things like the size of a particular growth ring (wet or dry years, for example). we can line up a whole bunch of tree ring samples, match up the places where the rings overlap, and have an exact record of the history of that region in tree rings. this can be used to study ancient climate, ecology, and provide general dates for particular trees and for wood artifacts.

http://sonic.net/bristlecone/images/ring_graphic.gif

that's the plan. i'll start the compilation in a bit.that's how it's supposed to work. however, dendrochronology has come unter heavy fire in recent years because it has become more and more apparent that even trees growing only 100 meters apart can produce considerably different ring patterns, so piecing together trees from an entire region or even continent is actually arbitrary.

OK, one more question: where is heaven?

However, there is one in Mesopotamia. With pottery above and beneath, so it can be dated roughly to the 32. century BCE. Astonishingly this is also the time frame in which the Maya date their flood (3113/14 BCE, the start of their calendar system). Maybe a really bad el niño year?

this is just dumb. they found a evidence of a flood in mesopotamia?! that's astounding (http://classics.uc.edu/~johnson/myth/maps/mesopotamia.jpg)!

Fossil evidence should demonstrate a complete destruction of all life on Earth at about 2000 BC (the approximate time of Noah and the ark). Life of all types should then appear to repopulate the Earth from a single point (the mountain on which the ark landed).

this is just dumb. they found a evidence of a flood in mesopotamia?! that's astounding (http://classics.uc.edu/~johnson/myth/maps/mesopotamia.jpg)!

yes, they found evidence of a flood in mesopotamia. maybe the one that was later exaggerated to be the biblical flood. and is that really the best map you could find for mesopotamia?

Fossil evidence should demonstrate a complete destruction of all life on Earth at about 2000 BC (the approximate time of Noah and the ark). Life of all types should then appear to repopulate the Earth from a single point (the mountain on which the ark landed).

No you idiot! Conservatives are supposed to be on painkillers, LIBERALS are supposed to be on illegal drugs!

that's how it's supposed to work. however, dendrochronology has come unter heavy fire in recent years because it has become more and more apparent that even trees growing only 100 meters apart can produce considerably different ring patterns, so piecing together trees from an entire region or even continent is actually arbitrary.

source?

'cause here's the thing - chronologies can be and have been independently checked against various other dating methods. and low and behold, they work out. amazing! everything - including historical documents - must be all wrong in radically different ways that just happen to make it look like they work when they really don't.

Fossil evidence should demonstrate a complete destruction of all life on Earth at about 2000 BC (the approximate time of Noah and the ark). Life of all types should then appear to repopulate the Earth from a single point (the mountain on which the ark landed).

nice. and based on this idea, it should be very much later before life got back to the more distant parts of the globe - the tip of south america would be empty for thousands of years probably. and i'm thinking hawaii should be utterly lacking in most things pretty much up to the present day.

source?

'cause here's the thing - chronologies can be and have been independently checked against various other dating methods. and low and behold, they work out. amazing! everything - including historical documents - must be all wrong in radically different ways that just happen to make it look like they work when they really don't.dendrochronology can by its nature only record climate conditions and other things that have an effect on the growth of a tree in a particular place. so against what other dating method has dendrochronology been checked really?
i will see if i can find a source. a while ago I#ve had a chart that shows the differences between dendrochronology dating and historical dating.

Facts vs Mythology? This oughta be good.

Religious fact, god created all of you...I win! *runs away victorious*

Religious fact

which differs from regular facts, how?

which differs from regular facts, how?

goodfacts vs realfacts?

which differs from regular facts, how?

As in it's a fact because someone said it was.

Note: Religiousfact = a spoof from a regular tested scientific fact. Any arguement against faith based facts cannot be won as they cannot be disproven.*

*They are often disproven, but the opponent will claim something they saw on a Religious website (outrageous claims) or simply ignore it and continue on with the arguement.

nice. and based on this idea, it should be very much later before life got back to the more distant parts of the globe - the tip of south america would be empty for thousands of years probably. and i'm thinking hawaii should be utterly lacking in most things pretty much up to the present day.

But no, cos an eagle could pick up other animals and take them there, and that sort of shit happened all the time in the olden days.

so against what other dating method has dendrochronology been checked really?

C-14, for one

But no, cos an eagle could pick up other animals and take them there, and that sort of shit happened all the time in the olden days.

ah, yes, the famed "swallow carrying a coconut" method. one question - african or european?

C-14, for oneWhich is equally inexact. Wonderful.

Day and night would have to come from a light source independent of the sun.

Which is equally inexact. Wonderful.

inexact on the order of years, not thousands or tens of thousands of years.

Day and night would have to come from a light source independent of the sun.

yeah, i'd really like to hear a creationist actually attempt to deal with this one

yeah, i'd really like to hear a creationist actually attempt to deal with this one

It's clearly the light of God's love. Duh.

It's clearly the light of God's love. Duh.

well obviously. it's just weird that god's love seems to be inherently linked to whether the sun is on this side of the planet or not, or if sun is being blocked by the moon for a bit.

Ice cores from the poles show millions of years of climate change. Do they?

Just for the record, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is 4km thick and has 500 000 years of past climate records in it. Source (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/About_Antarctica/)

well obviously. it's just weird that god's love seems to be inherently linked to whether the sun is on this side of the planet or not, or if sun is being blocked by the moon for a bit.


It proves that god cant in fact be everywhere at once. :P

Which is equally inexact. Wonderful.

I see you've fallen prey to creationist propoganda. C-14 dating is extremely exact, due to its short half-life of 5730 years.

Dating Creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_Creation)

I dated Creation a while ago until I found out she was lying about her age. She kept claiming that she was only 6,000 years old but then I found an isotope analysis in her house which indicated that she was over 4.5 billion years old! Bitch. :mad:

i've got a slightly technical one. either there should be no genetic variation within species, or all individuals should have equal reproductive success. cause if neither of those conditions are met, then evolution happens.

bumps

we should be able to trace the spread of humanity from mt ararat outward to the rest of the world.

Don't forget the linguistic effects that would result from such a spread!

Slightly off topic, but on a similar note:

We should not be able to see further then roughly 10,000 light-years into space, at which point god created light.

Most of the Milky Way would be out of view.

i tried this a few years back and want to give it another go. it's a sort of collective project for nsg. creationists are always going on about how they deserve an equal hearing as science. well if they want biblical science, then we should treat their claims like any other scientific hypotheses. a lot of the stuff they claim happened would leave all sorts of evidence that it did ('cause the bible does not say "and then god covered it all up and framed the dinosaurs" anywhere as far as i know). so let's come up with some empirical consequences for them.

i'll start:

we should not be able to find sequences of tree rings stretching back beyond 6000 years or so

So could you start off by showing where in what biblical teachings that it says that the earth is less then lets say a billion years old, lets start off with you thinking about whether your claim of what the other is claiming is correct.
Sorry just read the first post and it annoyed the hell out of me if sum1 already stated something about sorry.

Don't forget the linguistic effects that would result from such a spread!

mmmm good point.

was the tower of babel before or after the flood?

So could you start off by showing where in what biblical teachings that it says that the earth is less then lets say a billion years old, lets start off with you thinking about whether your claim of what the other is claiming is correct.
Sorry just read the first post and it annoyed the hell out of me if sum1 already stated something about sorry.

you mean you dont know that there are fundamentalist christians who insist to this day that the earth was created in a literal 6 days starting on october 23rd 4004 bc?

this isnt about intelligent designers who simply suggest a guided course of evolution, its about young earth creationists who believe that the bible is the literal and inerrant word of god.

if you dont believe that way, its not intended to diss you.

you mean you dont know that there are fundamentalist christians who insist to this day that the earth was created in a literal 6 days starting on october 23rd 4004 bc?

this isnt about intelligent designers who simply suggest a guided course of evolution, its about young earth creationists who believe that the bible is the literal and inerrant word of god.

if you dont believe that way, its not intended to diss you.

Ok yea sure their are people who claim that the earth was created at about a certain time, however the majority of Creationists do not, even if we look at just the very start of Genesis. Does it say that 1 day corresponded to 1 of our days, nope. There wasn't even a sun for our measurement of day in the begging anyway, from day 1 to day 2 could be 18 trillion years.

Ok yea sure their are people who claim that the earth was created at about a certain time, however the majority of Creationists do not, even if we look at just the very start of Genesis. Does it say that 1 day corresponded to 1 of our days, nope. There wasn't even a sun for our measurement of day in the begging anyway, from day 1 to day 2 could be 18 trillion years.

And even providing for that direct biblical creationism is silly

Just basing it on the order of the proposed creations ..

was the tower of babel before or after the flood?

after

So could you start off by showing where in what biblical teachings that it says that the earth is less then lets say a billion years old

it directly follows from the listing of generations. in fact, making the creation days longer than an actual day fucks things up even worse. like ridiculously so.


Sorry just read the first post and it annoyed the hell out of me

so what empirical consequences do you think creationism necessitates?

Ok yea sure their are people who claim that the earth was created at about a certain time, however the majority of Creationists do not, even if we look at just the very start of Genesis. Does it say that 1 day corresponded to 1 of our days, nope. There wasn't even a sun for our measurement of day in the begging anyway, from day 1 to day 2 could be 18 trillion years.

even then the bible has the earth created on the first day and the stars on the 4th. not very likely. it reflects the ancient cosmology that has the universe as concentric spheres with the earth at the center, sky in the middle and heaven as the outermost.

most thinking people should at least accept that creation took a very long time but polls show that a large percentage of americans believe in a literal 6 day creation as outlined in the book of genesis.

after

Then we should theoretically be able to trace all present-day languages back to several distinct, unrelated ancestor languages dating back to a few thousand years ago, and before that point, all language should be identical.

(Unless God is playing weird tricks with us... after what He did to Job, who knows?)

Then we should theoretically be able to trace all present-day languages back to several distinct, unrelated ancestor languages dating back to a few thousand years ago, and before that point, all language should be identical.

(Unless God is playing weird tricks with us... after what He did to Job, who knows?)

Interesting ... I have not heard that argument before ... cool.

Then we should theoretically be able to trace all present-day languages back to several distinct, unrelated ancestor languages dating back to a few thousand years ago, and before that point, all language should be identical.

yep. tradition puts the tower of babel in the generation with peleg ("for in his days the earth was divided"), which puts it about 100-200 years after the flood, and something on the order of 2200 bce. of course, the tower of babel story is clearly just thrown in where it is because the redactor wasn't much of an editor, but creationists don't go in for higher criticism...

(Unless God is playing weird tricks with us... after what He did to Job, who knows?)

man, i can't believe they left that book in there

snip


man, i can't believe they left that book in there

Yeah talk about prime example of god being a dick ... sure it is inspirational for what JOB did but god playing the part of the villain is a bit interesting to say the least ...

though that claim itself (which is only vaguely biblical, but i guess we can allow it) probably has one or two empirical consequences. like a significant greenhouse effect perhaps, which should be visible in various climate proxies at that time. of course, we shouldn't be able to have climate proxies for any times earlier than that 6000ish year mark...

theological yes. Biblical no.

Slightly off topic, but on a similar note:

We should not be able to see further then roughly 10,000 light-years into space, at which point god created light.

Most of the Milky Way would be out of view.Why? Isn't it just painted on the firmament?

The greenhouse effect doesn't exist in creationist circles, remember?

it doesn't? I'm a creationist but we believe in the greenhouse effect. It is the violation of God's 2nd commandment he gave to us through Adam.

yep. tradition puts the tower of babel in the generation with peleg ("for in his days the earth was divided"), which puts it about 100-200 years after the flood, and something on the order of 2200 bce. of course, the tower of babel story is clearly just thrown in where it is because the redactor wasn't much of an editor, but creationists don't go in for higher criticism...After which chronology? Isn't the Tower of Babel normally dated to 2900 BCE ?

nah, i can't see any biblical hypothesis that claims there is no such thing as radioactive decay. that would be especially bad for them. but it does explicitly claim that we should be unable to find any evidence of radioactive materials that have been decaying from more than that magic 6000 year line.

Where does it say in the Bible that the earth was created approximately 6,000 years ago. Can you qoute the verse?

we should find the ruins of many cities around the world all of which we destroyed at essentially the same time by a great flood.

eh. rather, if there was a great flood and there was less water on the earth as the theologians say, we should be finding some ruins of ancient cities or roads under the oceans.

You know, I've always wondered: is it only Christians who try to get things like Intelligent Design and creationism supported in schools, or do people of other faiths also attempt this and only the Christian attempts are considered newsworthy?

its the muslims too. Though they believe it was 6 periods and not 6 literal days.

Where does it say in the Bible that the earth was created approximately 6,000 years ago. Can you qoute the verse?Add up the lifespans of the biblical figures. And damn, don't you trust the Jewish calendar? Shouldn't those folks know? After all they wrote the Bible.

Add up the lifespans of the biblical figures. And damn, don't you trust the Jewish calendar? Shouldn't those folks know? After all they wrote the Bible.

eh? You do know that they censored the Bible and some of their own records to get rid of any connection with Christianity? Just like the Christians tried to censor their own Bible to disconnect with the Jews and make christianity more politically acceptable for their time period?

The Bible actually doesn't say whether Adam was created as a child or as an adult.
The problem with the Bible, is that it's just too vague to be used for most science purposes.

eh? You do know that they censored the Bible and some of their own records to get rid of any connection with Christianity? Just like the Christians tried to censor their own Bible to disconnect with the Jews and make christianity more politically acceptable for their time period?what? for what would they censor their own bible when christians use the same bible?

The Bible actually doesn't say whether Adam was created as a child or as an adult.
The problem with the Bible, is that it's just too vague to be used for most science purposes.?? the bible mentions Adam's age and when he fathered his sons. whether Adam was created as a child or as an adult is of no relevance for determining his lifespan.

what? for what would they censor their own bible when christians use the same bible?

?? the bible mentions Adam's age and when he fathered his sons. whether Adam was created as a child or as an adult is of no relevance for determining his lifespan.

and his lifespan has what to do with the age of the earth?

After which chronology? Isn't the Tower of Babel normally dated to 2900 BCE ?

start from 4000ish bce

adam to seth = 130
seth to enosh = 105
enosh to kenan = 90
kenan to mahalalel = 70
mahalale to jared = 65
jared to enoch = 162
enoch to methuselah = 65
methuselah to lamech = 187
lamech to noah = 182
noah to the flood = 600

grand total so far = 1526
4000ish - 1526 = 2474ish bce

so that's a no on the 2900 bce date, especially considering nimrod isn't around to found his city in the land of shinar for a couple more generations, and it is there that they start construction of the tower.

and to get to peleg we've got
flood to arpachshad = 2
arpachshad to shelah = 35
shelah to eber = 30
eber to peleg = 34
and peleg lived 239 years. which puts the days of peleg somewhere in the region of 2373ish - 2134ish bce

i've got a slightly technical one. either there should be no genetic variation within species, or all individuals should have equal reproductive success. cause if neither of those conditions are met, then evolution happens.

Ummmm.... proves that microevolution exists, not that macroevolution does.

Lookit, I have a formal scientific training, and I still can't get this one knocked down.

We've bred fruit flies (1 day/gen) for 150 years... we've made fruit flies with extra wings, no wings, red eyes, blue eyes, no eyes, etc. etc. ad nauseum... but we still end up with fruit flies.

Not trying to dis, but seriously, if we were genetically changing from one species to another through tried and true adaptation, don't you think we'd be able to get at least one new species in 50000 generations of breeding these little beasties????

I'm not some freaky exact creationist... I think that 5.5 billion years is probably a pretty sound number for the earth, BUT I think we're all missing something wonderful here. Something drives the changes, but what is it? Show me one significant change that has happened in all of human history regarding evolution, and I mean macro (large scale, not internal species manipulations) and I'll buy you a coke.

Besides, even if evolution works fine, who's to say that God didn't invent THAT just to make you all happy???? :)


Someone asked about Aliens a little while ago... maybe THEY did it to us...

Or that spaghetti monster (mmmm, had "communion" this evening... good sauce!)

I'm just asking the questions, folks, I'm not pretending to know...

and his lifespan has what to do with the age of the earth?

because he's the first person, and there were only a couple days of existence before him. even if you are willing to bite the bullet and accept the nonsense that follows from trying to stretch out those days (that does mean that you have to have plants existing for however many millions of years you want without the sun, after all), that still puts an absolute limit on the age of human civilization and human existence more generally.

start from 4000ish bce

adam to seth = 130
seth to enosh = 105
enosh to kenan = 90
kenan to mahalalel = 70
mahalale to jared = 65
jared to enoch = 162
enoch to methuselah = 65
methuselah to lamech = 187
lamech to noah = 182
noah to the flood = 600

grand total so far = 1526
4000ish - 1526 = 2474ish bce

so that's a no on the 2900 bce date, especially considering nimrod isn't around to found his city in the land of shinar for a couple more generations, and it is there that they start construction of the tower.

and to get to peleg we've got
flood to arpachshad = 2
arpachshad to shelah = 35
shelah to eber = 30
eber to peleg = 34
and peleg lived 239 years. which puts the days of peleg somewhere in the region of 2373ish - 2134ish bceShouldn't you calculate backwards from a certain date? Abraham came to Egypt around 1850 BCE. Would this produce the same result?
And according to the Bible, when was the Tower of Babel (=of Eridu) built by Nimrud (=Enmerkar) ?

I have one: we should be able to find evidence of "accelerated" geological rates or cycles, since quite a bit of Creationist theory rests on the idea of these cycles being "faster" before the Flood. One main argument they make is that many of the Earth's geological cycles can only be traced back considerably later than 4.6 billion years without any evidence of their existence before then. The problem is some of their numbers are off: for example, the erosion cycle has been calculated to only date back 12 million years. It's not 4.6 billion years, yes, but since erosion occurs on Earth it needs to exist for that cycle to exist, so the Earth has to be at least 12 million years old, not 6,000. The solution? An accelerated cycle. Now I just want proof of that.

Where does it say in the Bible that the earth was created approximately 6,000 years ago. Can you qoute the verse?

E.H. Andrews quoted the verse 2 Peter 3:8 which he says reads that to God a day is a thousand years. However, the verse really reads:

“With the LORD a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day” (emphasis added)

The verse doesn't say that in Genesis, a day is one thousand years- rather it says that to the LORD, time is irrelevant. There is no attempt to explain Genesis in that verse. Plus, if that verse did actually read what Andrews says it does, then every "day" in the Bible would be 1,000 years, not just those in Genesis.

I recall this exchange between Winston and O'Brien in Orwell's 1984
Sounds awfully familiar...

well done sir!

Maybe someone can help, is the 6000 year age reached by adding together the ages of all the descendents of adam and eve? or does it actually say somewhere the age of the earth?

Revelations:
20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the
bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the
Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a
seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the
thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed
a little season.
20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was
given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded
for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had
not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received
his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and
reigned with Christ a thousand years.
20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years
were finished. This is the first resurrection.

this is the first piece of the puzzle - the thousand years (millennium)

unfortunately i can't find the references i was after for the next bit, so this'll be a bit vague..

at some point (i can't recall) it was decided that a millennium was equal to one of the days of creation
therefore, if creation took seven days, the existence of the creation would be seven thousand years
revelation states (above) that the rapture will come at the start of the thousand years of satan's chaining in the lake of fire and jesus christ's reign

therefore by logical deduction, the whole of creation cannot be older than six thousand years

i just wish i could find the reference for the millennium = 1 day of creation argument's origins...

E.H. Andrews quoted the verse 2 Peter 3:8 which he says reads that to God a day is a thousand years. However, the verse really reads:

“With the LORD a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day” (emphasis added)

The verse doesn't say that in Genesis, a day is one thousand years- rather it says that to the LORD, time is irrelevant. There is no attempt to explain Genesis in that verse. Plus, if that verse did actually read what Andrews says it does, then every "day" in the Bible would be 1,000 years, not just those in Genesis.

ah! brilliant - the gremlins are working for me for once...

Revelations:
20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the
bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the
Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a
seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the
thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed
a little season.
20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was
given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded
for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had
not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received
his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and
reigned with Christ a thousand years.
20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years
were finished. This is the first resurrection.

this is the first piece of the puzzle - the thousand years (millennium)

unfortunately i can't find the references i was after for the next bit, so this'll be a bit vague..

at some point (i can't recall) it was decided that a millennium was equal to one of the days of creation
therefore, if creation took seven days, the existence of the creation would be seven thousand years
revelation states (above) that the rapture will come at the start of the thousand years of satan's chaining in the lake of fire and jesus christ's reign

therefore by logical deduction, the whole of creation cannot be older than six thousand years

i just wish i could find the reference for the millennium = 1 day of creation argument's origins...Isn't Revelations set in the future?

Isn't Revelations set in the future?

yes
it's a prophecy

yes
it's a prophecyso how would it tell anything about the earth's age?

E.H. Andrews quoted the verse 2 Peter 3:8 which he says reads that to God a day is a thousand years. However, the verse really reads:

“With the LORD a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day” (emphasis added)

The verse doesn't say that in Genesis, a day is one thousand years- rather it says that to the LORD, time is irrelevant. There is no attempt to explain Genesis in that verse. Plus, if that verse did actually read what Andrews says it does, then every "day" in the Bible would be 1,000 years, not just those in Genesis.

[QUOTE=United Beleriand;12144627]so how would it tell anything about the earth's age?

the assumption is made that a millennium equates to one day of the Creation
note that Revelation is the only book in the Bible that refers to the 'thousand years' that so much other prophecy is built upon...

the assumption is made that a millennium equates to one day of the Creationin revelations?
note that Revelation is the only book in the Bible that uses the term "millennium"...the latin word?

in revelations?
the latin word?

the assumption is made by... someone i can't find to quote right now (dammit!)

but i've just corrected myself - no the word 'millennium' isn't actually used
but repeated references to the concept of 'one thousand years' are made in Revelations

Ummmm.... proves that microevolution exists, not that macroevolution does.

they are one and the same

eh. rather, if there was a great flood and there was less water on the earth as the theologians say, we should be finding some ruins of ancient cities or roads under the oceans.

good point! there are some ruins to be found underwater in places like the caspian sea but i dont think they are from 6000 years ago.

Free Soviets, what are you smoking?

start from 4000ish bce

adam to seth = 130
seth to enosh = 105
enosh to kenan = 90
kenan to mahalalel = 70
mahalale to jared = 65
jared to enoch = 162
enoch to methuselah = 65
methuselah to lamech = 187
lamech to noah = 182
noah to the flood = 600

grand total so far = 1526
4000ish - 1526 = 2474ish bce

so that's a no on the 2900 bce date, especially considering nimrod isn't around to found his city in the land of shinar for a couple more generations, and it is there that they start construction of the tower.

and to get to peleg we've got
flood to arpachshad = 2
arpachshad to shelah = 35
shelah to eber = 30
eber to peleg = 34
and peleg lived 239 years. which puts the days of peleg somewhere in the region of 2373ish - 2134ish bce

is abraham related to noah? once the grandkids end up in egypt, is there a discussion of exactly how many years they were there before moses came along?

Lookit, I have a formal scientific training, and I still can't get this one knocked down.

-snip-

I'm not some freaky exact creationist... I think that 5.5 billion years is probably a pretty sound number for the earth

The generally accepted figure is 4.6 billion, may I ask which scientific discipline you were trained in? Also, if you have a scientific background then you should know that there is no difference is the mechanisms of micro and macro evolution, it's a purely arbitrary distinction created by dishonest creationists.

they are one and the same


Fine, then SHOW ME.

That's the level of acceptance you all want to put on God, then I propose you be held to the same standard.

50000 generations... more than humans have been here... no mutations that make them not fruit flies.

That's all I'm asking. Show me with a species that has enough generations that we can see (logically) in our lifetimes... fruit flies, dragonflies... something bigger than a virus...

In the end, what I am getting at is that SOMETHING (...body???) had to throw the switch, and occasionally force some changes on us...

Weird don't you think, that every change comes in spurts, and it isn't the cataclysms that drive it... it's something else...

Also, ancient Hebrew came from a nomadic desert culture, who mostly transmitted their information down by story telling, so therefore all of the Creation story should be taken as that, story. It's as good an allegory as they could come up with when the Grays gave them the information about how they came to be :eek: :D

Again, I have to disagree with you until you show me a direct genetic mutation that has taken hold in a scale that makes sense... not adaptation inside of a species (that makes them still able to reproduce with the rest of the species) but a true jump to being a new species. Otherwise you are asking me to take "science" on faith... which is what we are really talking about here, anyway...

BTW, my oldest daughter is an athiest simply because God didn't make Mommy and Daddy get back together and move back to the big blue house when she was 4. Therefore, God doesn't exist...

God is too big to have time to deal with every little thing you mere mortals want to command Him (English puts the indeterminate pronoun as masculine, deal with it) to do what YOU want Him to do. To which, God says :upyours:

Shouldn't you calculate backwards from a certain date? Abraham came to Egypt around 1850 BCE. Would this produce the same result?

that seems a bit late, but adding back from there puts us in the same general ballpark. especially considering the range of variation between different versions of the text and the slight inconsistency on when abram was born.

And according to the Bible, when was the Tower of Babel (=of Eridu) built by Nimrud (=Enmerkar) ?

it doesn't actually say when, but it takes place in the land ruled by nimrod. it's linked by tradition (jewish and christian) to the time of peleg.

is abraham related to noah? once the grandkids end up in egypt, is there a discussion of exactly how many years they were there before moses came along?

everyone is related to noah

additional empirical consequence! humans should show a genetic bottleneck in the rather recent past - especially because the first couple hundred years are blown on really long generation times.

abraham is one of the descendants of shem, and supposedly learned religion from noah and shem directly (according to tradition, anyway). the peleg i mentioned before is abraham's great-great-great-grandfather (and his father, eber, is where the name hebrews came from in their whole folk history).

i don't recall the exact number, or where to find it exactly, but the captivity was supposedly something like 400 or 430 years.

everyone is related to noah

additional empirical consequence! humans should show a genetic bottleneck in the rather recent past - especially because the first couple hundred years are blown on really long generation times.

abraham is one of the descendants of shem, and supposedly learned religion from noah and shem directly (according to tradition, anyway). the peleg i mentioned before is abraham's great-great-great-grandfather (and his father, eber, is where the name hebrews came from in their whole folk history).

i don't recall the exact number, or where to find it exactly, but the captivity was supposedly something like 400 or 430 years.

lol. oh yeah.

i guess what i meant was, is there a geneology from noah to abraham with years the same way there is one from adam to noah with years?

dont we find ourselves suddenly in the time of moses at the beginning of exodus with no real discussion of how many years lapsed between the time of joseph and the time of moses?

dont we find ourselves suddenly in the time of moses at the beginning of exodus with no real discussion of how many years lapsed between the time of joseph and the time of moses?

yeah, but it's mentioned somewhere else. hey, i know where i can look this up. quick robin, to the internet!

aha. it's mentioned in exodus 12:40-41

"Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt."

yeah, but it's mentioned somewhere else. hey, i know where i can look this up. quick robin, to the internet!

aha. it's mentioned in exodus 12:40-41

"Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt."

430 years is a long time. the united states has only existed for 230.

well then the bible drifts off into that other stuff that i can never be bothered to read. kings and chronicles and stuff.

Ummmm.... proves that microevolution exists, not that macroevolution does.

Lookit, I have a formal scientific training, and I still can't get this one knocked down.

We've bred fruit flies (1 day/gen) for 150 years... we've made fruit flies with extra wings, no wings, red eyes, blue eyes, no eyes, etc. etc. ad nauseum... but we still end up with fruit flies.

Not trying to dis, but seriously, if we were genetically changing from one species to another through tried and true adaptation, don't you think we'd be able to get at least one new species in 50000 generations of breeding these little beasties????

I'm not some freaky exact creationist... I think that 5.5 billion years is probably a pretty sound number for the earth, BUT I think we're all missing something wonderful here. Something drives the changes, but what is it? Show me one significant change that has happened in all of human history regarding evolution, and I mean macro (large scale, not internal species manipulations) and I'll buy you a coke.

Besides, even if evolution works fine, who's to say that God didn't invent THAT just to make you all happy???? :)


Someone asked about Aliens a little while ago... maybe THEY did it to us...

Or that spaghetti monster (mmmm, had "communion" this evening... good sauce!)

I'm just asking the questions, folks, I'm not pretending to know...

It is written, "And God created them after their kind" not "God created them exactly as they are today".

because he's the first person, and there were only a couple days of existence before him. even if you are willing to bite the bullet and accept the nonsense that follows from trying to stretch out those days (that does mean that you have to have plants existing for however many millions of years you want without the sun, after all), that still puts an absolute limit on the age of human civilization and human existence more generally.

consider that man was the last thing to be created. And everything else came before him. The bible says this. Does science dispute it?

consider that man was the last thing to be created. And everything else came before him. The bible says this. Does science dispute it?

yes

btw, new empirical consequence - domesticated animals, particularly cattle, should appear in the fossil record before the first humans.

I have one: we should be able to find evidence of "accelerated" geological rates or cycles, since quite a bit of Creationist theory rests on the idea of these cycles being "faster" before the Flood. One main argument they make is that many of the Earth's geological cycles can only be traced back considerably later than 4.6 billion years without any evidence of their existence before then. The problem is some of their numbers are off: for example, the erosion cycle has been calculated to only date back 12 million years. It's not 4.6 billion years, yes, but since erosion occurs on Earth it needs to exist for that cycle to exist, so the Earth has to be at least 12 million years old, not 6,000. The solution? An accelerated cycle. Now I just want proof of that.



E.H. Andrews quoted the verse 2 Peter 3:8 which he says reads that to God a day is a thousand years. However, the verse really reads:

“With the LORD a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day” (emphasis added)

The verse doesn't say that in Genesis, a day is one thousand years- rather it says that to the LORD, time is irrelevant. There is no attempt to explain Genesis in that verse. Plus, if that verse did actually read what Andrews says it does, then every "day" in the Bible would be 1,000 years, not just those in Genesis.or it might be saying 'don't worry about how long it took the earth to form, its not important' ;)

[QUOTE=Yaltabaoth;12144523]

the assumption is made that a millennium equates to one day of the Creation
note that Revelation is the only book in the Bible that refers to the 'thousand years' that so much other prophecy is built upon...

there is just one problem with that interpretation of the scripture. If a day is thousand years or one literal day. there are a lot of places where its says "in those days" "in his day"
We already know that "in his day" means more than just one literal day. And "in those days" means more than just a couple of literal days of the weeks.

or it might be saying 'don't worry about how long it took the earth to form, its not important' ;)

Pity the order is. And that is where the problem truly lies.

consider that man was the last thing to be created. And everything else came before him. The bible says this. Does science dispute it?

Not true. According to Genesis 2, Adam was created before plants and animals. All other human beings were created after.

good point! there are some ruins to be found underwater in places like the caspian sea but i dont think they are from 6000 years ago.

stop smoking whatever you are smoking. There is nothing under the water except natural water formations and fishies. LOL

yes

btw, new empirical consequence - domesticated animals, particularly cattle, should appear in the fossil record before the first humans.
what new species came after humans?

what new species came after humans?

Americans.

what new species came after humans?

every domesticated species of plant and animal, for one. and hundreds of others, some within my lifetime. and some within just the past few years.

what new species came after humans?

Define "human".

exodus 12:40-41

"Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.4yi

The Length of the Israelite Sojourn in most commentaries or popular books on the Old Testament you will read that the Israelite Sojoum in the land of Egypt lasted four hundred and thirty years. However, this figure is by no means certain. In fact, there is clear evidence that the true period of the Sojoum was no more than two hundred and fifteen years.
In the Masoretic version of the Old Testament the passage in Exodus 12:40 reads as follows:

The time that the Israelites spent in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.

If we turn to the history of Israel recorded by Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews [Chapter XV:2] we get an entirely different version of events:

They (the Israelites) left Egypt in the month of Xanthicus, on the fifteenth day of the lunar month; four hundred and thirty years after our forefather Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred and fifteen years only after Jacob removed into Egypt.

Now, according to the statements of Josephus himself, he had access to very old documents formerly housed in the Temple of Jerusalem from which to draw his account of early Israelite history. Josephus lived in the first century CE and so his writings are dated hundreds of years before the Masoretic text of the Tanakh (Hebrew Old Testament) was compiled in the fourth century CE. If his source documents were genuine, then the information he gives for the duration of the Sojourn derives from a much earlier period than that employed by the Masoretes when they made their version of the history of Israel and a further several centuries before the earliest extant copy of the Masoretic text.
It is fairly easy to see what happened in the interval of time between Josephus day and that of the Masoretes. During the process of copying down the original scrolls over the intervening centuries, a section of text something on the lines of and in the land of Canaan had fallen out (or had been edited out). This is confirmed by the Greek rendition of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX) which retains the original full version of the passage:

And the sojourning of the children of Israel, which they sojourned in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, was four hundred and thirty years. [Exodus 12:40]

The Septuagint was first written down in the time of Ptolemy 1 Soter during the third century BC and the earliest surviving manuscript is again much older than the earliest surviving Masoretic copy. The Samaritan version of the first five books of the Old Testament (the Pentateuch) is also considerably more ancient than the Masoretic scriptures and it too retains the longer rendition of the passage on the length of the Sojourn. Thus, three out of four sources for the book of Exodus state that the four-hundred-and-thirty-year interval represents the whole period from Abraham's descent into Canaan all the way down to the Exodus of Moses and the Israelites from Egypt. Various passages in the book of Genesis have led scholars to determine that the period from Abraham's descent to Jacob's arrival in the Land of Goshen was two hundred and fifteen years and so the Sojourn in Egypt (from Jacob's arrival to the Exodus) lasted around the same length of time - in other words circa two hundred and fifteen years.
We can find support for this duration in the long genealogy of Joshua found in I Chronicles 7:20-27. There ten generations are recorded from Joshua (a man of fighting age at the time of Exodus back to Joseph's son, Ephraim (who would have been something like five years old when Jacob arrived in Egypt). Using an average twenty-year generation, we can arrive at an approximate duration of two hundred and twenty years for the eleven generations - pretty close to the two hundred and fifteen years of Exodus 12:40 (LXX).
With the biblical date of the Exodus set at circa 1447 BC (Year 4 of Solomon = c. 967 + 480 years of I Kings 6:1-2 = 1447) we can now add the two hundred and fifteen years of the Sojourn period to arrive at the date of circa 1662 BC for the arrival of Jacob and the Israelites in Egypt.

from A Test of Time

what new species came after humans?Intelligent humans.

Not true. According to Genesis 2, Adam was created before plants and animals. All other human beings were created after.

Genesis Chapter 1:

1= Heavens and the Earth (to include the universe)
3=day and night and that was day 1
6= the sky, and that was day 2
9=continents, islands, oceans, and seas, plants according to their various kinds. That was the third day.
14= "let there be lights in the heavens for seasons, days and years", the sun, the moon, and the stars. That was the 4th day.
(the plants apparently got light from the ambient stuff that God had created earlier and evolved when the sun came along)
20=sea life according to their various kinds, birds according to their kind. God said to them "Be fruitful and multiply". I was having a problem with the birds but then I remembered that birds are descended from dinosaurs so dinosaurs must be just big prehistoric birds without wings. That was the 5th day.
24: all the land animals except man after their kind, mankind who is given rulership over all the earth. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." That was the sixth day.

Chapter 2 does not give an order for creation except to say that man came before woman and that mankind originally lived in a state of nature where they had more freedoms than people have today.

Genesis Chapter 1:

Yes, that is one account. It has one order. The second account gives a different story.

Chapter 2 does not give an order for creation except to say that man came before woman and that mankind originally lived in a state of nature where they had more freedoms than people have today.

Incorrect. It doesn't give a bulleted list like Genesis 1, but it does very clearly place things in a specified order:

In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; 6but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— 7then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. 8And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9Out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

In the same day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plants, God formed man. After forming man, God made trees.

10 through 14 is a geography lesson, so we'll skp that.

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. 16And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.’

18 Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’ 19So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.

Here, God forms all of the animals and birds after Adam and after the plants. In fact, they are created for Adam.

21So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

Ah, there's woman.

Genesis 2 is very clear that Adam was created before plants and animals.

Not true. According to Genesis 2, Adam was created before plants and animals. All other human beings were created after.Genesis 2 refers to field plants and domestic animals. Overall Genesis 2 refers to the start of agriculture after the creation in Genesis 1 was finished.

Genesis 2 refers to field plants and domestic animals. Overall Genesis 2 refers to the start of agriculture after the creation in Genesis 1 was finished.

But that would contradict Genesis 1:

11Then God said, ‘Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.’ And it was so. 12The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. 13And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

Since when does "every kind" mean "every kind except for some"?

20 And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.’ 21So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. 22God blessed them, saying, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.’ 23And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

Here, well before man is created, God creates "every winged bird of every kind". Yet, in Genesis 2, he creates all the birds *after* creating man. ((Certainly you aren't suggesting that "every bird of the air" in Genesis 2 refers to domesticated animals???))

24 And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.’ And it was so. 25God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.

Here, again, God creates animals before humankind. In Genesis 2, God creates cattle (domesticated animals!) after Adam as a possible helper for him. Not to mention the whole "every kind" thing not meaning the same thing as "every kind except a few."

Meanwhile, how can Genesis 2 refer to things that happen after creation occurs when it details parts of creation? Or is Adam not really the first man?

Genesis 2 refers to field plants and domestic animals. Overall Genesis 2 refers to the start of agriculture after the creation in Genesis 1 was finished.

That is true.

But that would contradict Genesis 1:



Since when does "every kind" mean "every kind except for some"?



Here, well before man is created, God creates "every winged bird of every kind". Yet, in Genesis 2, he creates all the birds *after* creating man. ((Certainly you aren't suggesting that "every bird of the air" in Genesis 2 refers to domesticated animals???))



Here, again, God creates animals before humankind. In Genesis 2, God creates cattle (domesticated animals!) after Adam as a possible helper for him. Not to mention the whole "every kind" thing not meaning the same thing as "every kind except a few."

Meanwhile, how can Genesis 2 refer to things that happen after creation occurs when it details parts of creation? Or is Adam not really the first man?which version are you using?

That is true.

Since when is every bird of the air a domesticated animal?

And how exactly does the reference in Genesis 1 to plants of *every* type exclude agricultural plants? How does making animals of all types (including cattle) exclude domesticated animals?

You're *really* reaching here. You have to redefine the word "every" to get there.

which version are you using?

The NRSV. Translated directly to English from the oldest texts available. The best would be to read the Hebrew itself, but I don't read Hebrew, so I go to direct translations.

Seriously, one only has to worry about the fact that there are two creation accounts if one is trying to take the whole thing as literal. The stretches people will pull to try and get there are amusing, but completely unnecessary if they just realize that they don't need it to be literally and scientifically true.

Since when is every bird of the air a domesticated animal?

And how exactly does the reference in Genesis 1 to plants of *every* type exclude agricultural plants? How does making animals of all types (including cattle) exclude domesticated animals?

You're *really* reaching here. You have to redefine the word "every" to get there.

actually Genesis 1 said that the domesticated kinds were created at the same time as the wild kinds.

First of all I would read "every kind" as "all kinds of", in a rather unspecific meaning. I've read the Bible in several languages and I really wouldn't over interpret every word, as in fact most translations are just inaccurate and very much reflect the current fashions in understanding that were held during the time in which the respective translation was made.
And after all this is a story pieced together out of legends from much earlier times (Akkadian, Sumerian, supposably even earlier), so it must be supposed that the Jewish authors did not necessarily get everything exactly right in transforming their sources into the monotheistic thingy they wanted to create.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-bible.htm

an odd and self contradictory site

actually Genesis 1 said that the domesticated kinds were created at the same time as the wild kinds.

...which was before humankind.

And yet, Genesis 2 is clear that at least some plants and animals were actually created after Adam was. Hence the contradiction.

First of all I would read "every kind" as "all kinds of", in a rather unspecific meaning. I've read the Bible in several languages and I really wouldn't over interpret every word, as in fact most translations are just inaccurate and very much reflect the current ashions in understanding that were held during the time in which the respective translation was made.

Even reading the text in a language that is not your first (ie. ancient Hebrew) would do that. Interesting, eh?

The problem is that, if you are going for a strict literal interpretation of the text, every word counts.

And after all this is a story pieced together out of legends from much earlier times.

Indeed. So you would expect some fuzziness. The problem comes in when someone is trying to use the stories that have been pieced together as an absolute literal history.

It gets to be even more of a problem when you realize that many who would take the text that literally consider the KJV the absolute word of God, despite the fact that it is a translation of a translation of a translation, commissioned by a king who would have had no qualms cutting off the heads of any translators who wrote something he didn't like.

Heb 11:3 (NIV) By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible

Apparently according these guys the order didn't really matter.

Reduction in age after the Flood: After the flood, according to the bible, there was an exponential reduction in mans life span from around 950 to 120 years. This may be because the water canopy protected man from harmful radiation from space.

Reduction in age after the Flood: After the flood, according to the bible, there was an exponential reduction in mans life span from around 950 to 120 years. This may be because the water canopy protected man from harmful radiation from space.

Ah,yes, the mythical "water canopy" that has no supporting evidence.

Really, the whole point of this thread was to try and get testable results for creationism.

Reduction in age after the Flood: After the flood, according to the bible, there was an exponential reduction in mans life span from around 950 to 120 years. This may be because the water canopy protected man from harmful radiation from space.1. what water canopy?
2. aging is not caused by radiation
3. wtf ??!!

Heb 11:3 (NIV) By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible

Apparently according these guys the order didn't really matter.

It doesn't, if you aren't looking for the Bible to be scientifically correct.

1. what water canopy?
2. aging is not caused by radiation
3. wtf ??!!

sorry, I was just pointing out some things from the site I linked to earlier that was odd.

Heb 11:3 (NIV) By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Apparently according these guys the order didn't really matter.You know that quoting anything from the NT isn't really helpful at all? The NT has no antiquity whatsoever and is completely a work of faith. There are no historical bits and pieces in it.

sorry, I was just pointing out some things from the site I linked to earlier that was odd.What where you pointing out? What's this water canopy?

After the flood, according to the bible, there was an exponential reduction in mans life span from around 950 to 120 years.

Genesis 11:10-15: "These are the generations of Shem. Shem was a hundred years old, and begot Arpachshad two years after the flood. And Shem lived after he begot Arpachshad five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters. And Arpachshad lived five and thirty years, and begot Shelah. And Arpachshad lived after he begot Shelah four hundred and three years, and begot sons and daughters. And Shelah lived thirty years, and begot Eber. And Shelah lived after he begot Eber four hundred and three years, and begot sons and daughters."

What where you pointing out? What's this water canopy?

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-bible.htm bottom of page

The tables they use make no sense however.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-bible.htm bottom of page

The tables they use make no sense however.there was no rain before the flood? are you insane?

You do know that the earth is partially hollow right?

You do know that the earth is partially hollow right?I rather know that's true for some people's heads... :rolleyes:

You do know that the earth is partially hollow right?

Really? If you could show me some hollow molten iron, I'd be terribly obliged.

Really? If you could show me some hollow molten iron, I'd be terribly obliged.

Are you sure hollow molten iron doesn't exist somewhere? LOL.

Caves, caverns, big holes in in the ground that lead to natural tunnels: the earth partially hollow. LOL

Are you sure hollow molten iron doesn't exist somewhere? LOL.

Caves, caverns, big holes in in the ground that lead to natural tunnels: the earth partially hollow. LOLWhat's so LOLable?

bumps

bumps

You should really see a doctor about those.

1. what water canopy?
2. aging is not caused by radiation
3. wtf ??!!

RE: #2...

No, but maybe by inbreeding because there was a very limited breeding stock to go with...


*banjo music starts*


RE: Rain

Genesis says that there was no rain before The Flood. And that the waters came from both below and above...

Also, anyone ever read any of the Flood mythology from the Mayans and other ancient cultures?

The Answer is Out There...

Oh Lord, the Christian bashfest has been initiated. My basic rule of thumb for creationism is centered on three theses.
1. Evolution is very provably not the answer.
2. Something does not come out of nothing. Everything has a beginning, and we certainly did not begin as some proteins in an ancient swamp.
3. Humans have an innate religious sense, even if we choose to ignore it. Our love of art, math, music, our complex emotions, etc are not just random quirks about us. We are above all other creatures in this world.

Oh Lord, the Christian bashfest has been initiated. My basic rule of thumb for creationism is centered on three theses.
1. Evolution is very provably not the answer.

then what is?

and why do you think that?


2. Something does not come out of nothing. Everything has a beginning, and we certainly did not begin as some proteins in an ancient swamp.

so where did we come from?

God snapped his fingers and there we were? that's pretty solidly in the category of "something from nothing", my friend

3. Humans have an innate religious sense, even if we choose to ignore it. Our love of art, math, music, our complex emotions, etc are not just random quirks about us. We are above all other creatures in this world.

you mean like those painting elephants, or the song of birds?

God snapped his fingers and there we were? that's pretty solidly in the category of "something from nothing", my friend



you mean like those painting elephants, or the song of birds?

Being hostile towards me will get you nowhere.
1. God is omnipotent, therefore nothing is out of the realm of possibilities for him, as he exists outside of time and space.
2. Yes, God's lower creatures can do some pretty cool things, but can they paint the Mona Lisa or compose the 8th Symphony?

Being hostile towards me will get you nowhere.

I'm going to hazard a guess that being reasonable with you will also get one nowhere.


1. God is omnipotent, therefore nothing is out of the realm of possibilities for him, as he exists outside of time and space.

Yeah, but you said something cannot come from nothing. Now you are saying something can. Pick a point and stick with it!


2. Yes, God's lower creatures can do some pretty cool things, but can they paint the Mona Lisa or compose the 8th Symphony?

Can you? I doubt it. Maybe you're one of the lower creatures yourself.

1. Evolution is very provably not the answer.

It sure is the answer to genetic changes in a population over time.


2. Something does not come out of nothing. Everything has a beginning, and we certainly did not begin as some proteins in an ancient swamp.

"Everything has a beginning," you say. Except God. So, your little rule is not a rule after all. Same again with "something does not come out of nothing." Since you've demonstrated in two posts just why these rules are not universal, they are irrelevant even if evolution WAS about "something from nothing" - which it isn't.


3. Humans have an innate religious sense, even if we choose to ignore it. Our love of art, math, music, our complex emotions, etc are not just random quirks about us. We are above all other creatures in this world.

Sentience is not "innate religious sense."

And frankly, pal, a love of music is from the sense of HEARING, not your mythical new age hippie "religious sense."

1. Evolution is very provably not the answer.

Nonsense. The evidence is overwhelming in favor of evolution.

2. Something does not come out of nothing.

God?

Everything has a beginning, and we certainly did not begin as some proteins in an ancient swamp.

Why not?

3. Humans have an innate religious sense, even if we choose to ignore it. Our love of art, math, music, our complex emotions, etc are not just random quirks about us. We are above all other creatures in this world.

Have you ever been any other creature in this world?

Oh Lord, the Christian bashfest has been initiated. My basic rule of thumb for creationism is centered on three theses.
1. Evolution is very provably not the answer.

Prove it then. You would gain a place in history - scientists would name things after you while several religious leaders will probably declare you a saint.

Of course, after having disproven evolution you will still have to disprove the thousands of explanations that are not creationism. I at least assume you know that other religions and ideas exist ?

2. Something does not come out of nothing. Everything has a beginning
So where did God come from ? ;) Say "he was always there" and you invalidate your own argument.

3. Humans have an innate religious sense, even if we choose to ignore it. Our love of art, math, music, our complex emotions, etc are not just random quirks about us. We are above all other creatures in this world.

And that is proof for creationism because.... you say so ?

RE: #2...
No, but maybe by inbreeding because there was a very limited breeding stock to go with...Is that why Jews are not supposed to mingle with non-Jews?


RE: Rain

Genesis says that there was no rain before The Flood. And that the waters came from both below and above...Show me.

Also, anyone ever read any of the Flood mythology from the Mayans and other ancient cultures?
The Answer is Out There...Funny, I posted a hint to that somewhere. And there are of course those Mesopotamian flood stories that have been used to fabricate the biblical story. etcsl (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/)

Also, anyone ever read any of the Flood mythology from the Mayans and other ancient cultures?

You mean those early civilisations also had their main settlements in the vicinity of water :O ?

Wow. I never would have guessed ;)

Now, prove that all those floods happened simultaneously.

yeah, but we aren't allowing the fact that they are idiots to get them out of the obvious empirical consequences of their claims
Despite all your testing methods, you cannot prove that God doesn't exist.

Despite all your testing methods, you cannot prove that God doesn't exist.

the onus is on you.....it would be like me claiming I'm the reincarnation of Buddha and asking you to disprove it, impossible and silly..... if you want to believe in an invisible being without any proof of it's existence you are free to do so.....but as to teaching creationism as if it were a science to my children, that's not going to happen.....

Despite all your testing methods, you cannot prove that God doesn't exist.

yeah, but i'm not concerned about the small impossible to see teapot that may or may not be in orbit around the sun somewhere between earth and mars either.

however, some things have empirical consequences, and people that claim those things happened must face the fact that those consequences don't exist.

Now, prove that all those floods happened simultaneously.

hell, even if they all did have a flood that happened at the same time, that wouldn't do anything for creationists. because even if there was evidence of simultaneous floods in many different parts of the world with civilization both above and below that flood layer, that would actually disprove creationism. hard for noah and friends to be the last people on earth after a global flood if the egyptians got right back to building pyramids the next week.

however, some things have empirical consequences, and people that claim those things happened must face the fact that those consequences don't exist.

But God/Allah/Anubis/Zeus/Thor/shrubbery/FSM waved his magic wand/staff/branch/appendage and all the consequences went away ! Isn't it obvious ?

i tried this a few years back and want to give it another go. it's a sort of collective project for nsg. creationists are always going on about how they deserve an equal hearing as science. well if they want biblical science, then we should treat their claims like any other scientific hypotheses. a lot of the stuff they claim happened would leave all sorts of evidence that it did ('cause the bible does not say "and then god covered it all up and framed the dinosaurs" anywhere as far as i know). so let's come up with some empirical consequences for them.

i'll start:

we should not be able to find sequences of tree rings stretching back beyond 6000 years or so

In addition to dinosaur bones, we should find the bones of 12' tall humans with wings and nearby graves of their 8' tall human/angel hybrid children.

A Rabbi in New Orleans should sacrifice a bull once a year and there would cease to be anymore hurricaines in the Gulf Region.

Oh Lord, the Christian bashfest has been initiated. My basic rule of thumb for creationism is centered on three theses.
1. Evolution is very provably not the answer.
2. Something does not come out of nothing. Everything has a beginning, and we certainly did not begin as some proteins in an ancient swamp.
3. Humans have an innate religious sense, even if we choose to ignore it. Our love of art, math, music, our complex emotions, etc are not just random quirks about us. We are above all other creatures in this world.

How has evolution been proven not to be the answer? Yes, it's disprovable, but it has never been disproved.

How do you know that we didn't start out as protiens in an ancient swamp? Simply because you don't want to believe it? That's not good enough.

Our love of art is directly at odds with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. All of them command us to make no likeness of anything under heaven. Islam goes one further and prohibits music. There is nothing about the love of art that supports the validity of religion. And math is constantly at odds with religion. Especially creationism.

Just wondering: Have any of you actually read a religious POV book on these issues, or do you all just present questions and make up what they answer and then discredit them?

A Rabbi in New Orleans should sacrifice a bull once a year and there would cease to be anymore hurricaines in the Gulf Region.Why a rabbi?

Just wondering: Have any of you actually read a religious POV book on these issues, or do you all just present questions and make up what they answer and then discredit them?

creationist books are uniformly nonsensical. we've been putting out ideas that actually follow from their ideas. if you see any that seem wrong, explain how and we'll fix them.

Just wondering: Have any of you actually read a religious POV book on these issues

Yes.

or do you all just present questions and make up what they answer and then discredit them?

Admittedly - sometimes. Since I often get annoyed with the creationist side for doing the exact same thing with evolution that makes me a hypocrite.

Well.. lets make stopping it a new years resolution.

Why a rabbi?

Old testament rules on sacrifice.

creationist books are uniformly nonsensical. we've been putting out ideas that actually follow from their ideas. if you see any that seem wrong, explain how and we'll fix them.

Not that I’m anything even approaching a creationist, but you are being quite arrogant about the whole thing. If you really want them to listen, which I doubt you do, you can’t go about it that way.

Yeah. people rarely actually listen to whattheir "opponents" are saying.

I once told 2 kids who were having an argument that although they had to go to class (the bell had rung), they could continue their argument by yelling at a wall in their respective classrooms.

How has evolution been proven not to be the answer? Yes, it's disprovable, but it has never been disproved.

How do you know that we didn't start out as protiens in an ancient swamp? Simply because you don't want to believe it? That's not good enough.

Our love of art is directly at odds with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. All of them command us to make no likeness of anything under heaven. Islam goes one further and prohibits music. There is nothing about the love of art that supports the validity of religion. And math is constantly at odds with religion. Especially creationism.
Yes, it has been disproven to all but the persistent and wishful thinkers.
I know that we didn't start out as proteins in an ancient swamp because first of all, there is no fossil evidence of this happening, and second of all, the chances of proteins forming simple lifeforms alone are something like 10 to the 32nd power.

Old testament rules on sacrifice.Why then not use something older than the Old Testament? Why start there? The Old Testament does not contain anything original.

Yes, it has been disproven to all but the persistent and wishful thinkers.
I know that we didn't start out as proteins in an ancient swamp because first of all, there is no fossil evidence of this happening, and second of all, the chances of proteins forming simple lifeforms alone are something like 10 to the 32nd power.You calculated the chances? How? Based on what data?

You calculated the chances? How? Based on what data?
I didn't, scientists did.

Yes, it has been disproven to all but the persistent and wishful thinkers.

You mean 99,999% of all biologists ?

You calculated the chances? How? Based on what data?

And are they instant or time span calculations

you are being quite arrogant about the whole thing

how so?

Why then not use something older than the Old Testament? Why start there? The Old Testament does not contain anything original.

Ah. But now you are pretending there exist other religions than Abrahamic on this planet. Creationists dislike that.

You mean 99,999% of all biologists ?
That's quite an optimistic number;)

I didn't, scientists did.
That does not make them right
Nor your use of the statistic right

Assuming your sourceless claim is true to start with ...

That's quite an optimistic number;)

You are right. It probably is around 98%.
Still doesn't seem that many people that know what they are talking about agree with your notion that evolution has been disproven ;)

how so?

Maybe I’m misperceiving tone, but that’s how it comes across to me.

You are right. It probably is around 98%.
Still doesn't seem that many people that know what they are talking about agree with your notion that evolution has been disproven ;)
Yeah, well when they explain the Cambrian explosion and lack of transition fossils, I'll think about listening to their lunatic theories;)

Yeah, well when they explain the Cambrian explosion and lack of transition fossils, I'll think about listening to their lunatic theories;)

Eeehm.. they did both. Decades ago even.

Now your turn. Why is creationism better than all the other theories ? Not just evolution, but every single thing religious and other creative humans have thought up ?

Eeehm.. they did both. Decades ago even.

Now your turn. Why is creationism better than all the other theories ? Not just evolution, but every single thing religious and other creative humans have thought up ?
1. No they didn't. Are you out of your mind? You know, you don't have to lie straight to my face...Biologists are unable to explain why all of the animal phyla suddenly just appeared--fully formed. The laughable response to that problem is their concept of "punctuated equillibrium."
2. Because God said so.

I didn't, scientists did.
Which scientists? And you use scientists to fight against science?

1. No they didn't. Are you out of your mind? You know, you don't have to lie straight to my face...Biologists are unable to explain why all of the animal phyla suddenly just appeared--fully formed. The laughable response to that problem is their concept of "punctuated equillibrium."

We can argue that in a new thread - the last one on evolution was at least a week ago after all.

However, since this thread is meant to give positive arguments in favour of creationism, please answer my question which you so carefully ignored.

Ah. But now you are pretending there exist other religions than Abrahamic on this planet. Creationists dislike that.I don't have to pretend. There are and were.
And I don't give a poop for what Creationistians dislike or not.

1. No they didn't. Are you out of your mind? You know, you don't have to lie straight to my face...Biologists are unable to explain why all of the animal phyla suddenly just appeared--fully formed. The laughable response to that problem is their concept of "punctuated equillibrium."
2. Because God said so.

1.So you call him a liar while you just make up "facts" as you go along?

2. Speaking of "laughable".

I don't have to pretend. There are and were.

Nonononono.

God after all said there weren't -so there aren't. Please try to keep up with creationist logic.

Yeah, well when they explain the Cambrian explosion and lack of transition fossils, I'll think about listening to their lunatic theories;)

hey, an empirical consequence!

there should not be any transitional fossils found anywhere, ever.

(i'm not sure what you think you are talking about with the cambrian explosion - what do you think it shows that is an empirical prediction of creationisms?)

1. No they didn't. Are you out of your mind? You know, you don't have to lie straight to my face...Biologists are unable to explain why all of the animal phyla suddenly just appeared--fully formed.They can't and wouldn't because they don't claim that.

Nonononono.

God after all said there weren't -so there aren't. Please try to keep up with creationist logic.I won't. And creationists lack any logic. They are bad human trash.
And which God allegedly said that?

They can't and wouldn't because they don't claim that.

however, creationism does. well, not phyla as they cannot recognize that as a legitimate category. but everything should show up in the fossil record all at once in fully modern form.

Ummmm.... proves that microevolution exists, not that macroevolution does.

snip

We've bred fruit flies (1 day/gen) for 150 years... we've made fruit flies with extra wings, no wings, red eyes, blue eyes, no eyes, etc. etc. ad nauseum... but we still end up with fruit flies.

Not trying to dis, but seriously, if we were genetically changing from one species to another through tried and true adaptation, don't you think we'd be able to get at least one new species in 50000 generations of breeding these little beasties????

snip




Maybe I'm missing something, but is that bred 50 000 times or 50 000 generations? Also, doesn't evolution require some sort of selective action, in addition to just reproducing? If you just pulled out the wingless ones every time and bred ONLY them, generation after generation, wouldn't you eventually end up with wingless fruit flies? We do know that human kind is slowly changing. There is little doubt that people in the USA are significantly taller than they were just a 100 or so years ago. I think you'll find the same pattern in Europe. But does that mean anything since those people that are short aren't being "eliminated" from the gene pool???

So in a few millenia, when they dig up all the cemetaries that will be buried in the next great flood, they'll say, wow those guys must be different; look how big they were!!!

(Just gotta love the time and energy being put into this thread!!!)

I won't. And creationists lack any logic. They are bad human trash.
And which God allegedly said that?
Your arguments might be more valid if you do not come across so harshly.

1.So you call him a liar while you just make up "facts" as you go along?

2. Speaking of "laughable".

Oh please, disprove that bolded statement. It would impress a lot of biologists around the world;)

Why a rabbi?

Because fundamentalist Christianity acknowledges that blood sacrifice was part of the Covenant that God made with the Jews, but became uneccesary for those who follow Christ because Christ is the blood sacrifice that earns them forgiveness for God's wrath.

A Rabbi, still operating under the old Covenant, would be able to buy God's forgiveness with a slaughtered Bull. A Christian clergyman would have to get all of New Orleans to be fervently Christian, an unverifiable condition since if there were any hurricaines the Christian cleric would simply say "well they weren't sincere."

hey, an empirical consequence!

there should not be any transitional fossils found anywhere, ever.

(i'm not sure what you think you are talking about with the cambrian explosion - what do you think it shows that is an empirical prediction of creationisms?)
There aren't any.
& yes, I do think it sends a signal that we are not just randomly here;)

well, not phyla as they cannot recognize that as a legitimate category.

which reminds me - another empirical consequence is that life should not rather neatly cluster into higher groupings except for those explicitly mentioned in the genesis. and they certainly should not be groupable on the basis of noncoding stretches of mitochondrial or chloroplast dna - especially not into the same groupings you might make based on morphology..

Oh please, disprove that bolded statement. It would impress a lot of biologists around the world;)

You want me to prove a negative being that biologist DON'T claim what you state?

Do some reading:

References:

1. Caldwell, M. W. and M. S. Y. Lee, 1997. A snake with legs from the marine Cretaceous of the Middle East. Nature 386: 705-709.
2. Conway Morris, Simon, 1998. The Crucible of Creation, Oxford University Press.
3. Cronin, T. M., 1985. Speciation and stasis in marine ostracoda: climatic modulation of evolution. Science 227: 60-63.
4. Domning, Daryl P., 2001a. The earliest known fully quadupedal sirenian. Nature 413: 625-627.
5. Domning, Daryl P., 2001b. New "intermediate form" ties seacows firmly to land. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 21(5-6): 38-42.
6. Eldredge, Niles, 1972. Systematics and evolution of Phacops rana (Green, 1832) and Phacops iowensis Delo, 1935 (Trilobita) from the Middle Devonian of North America. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 147(2): 45-114.
7. Eldredge, Niles, 1974. Stability, diversity, and speciation in Paleozoic epeiric seas. Journal of Paleontology 48(3): 540-548.
8. Gerrienne, P. et al. 2004. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian seed plant precursor. Science 306: 856-858.
9. Gingerich, P. D., 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns of evolution of the species level in early Tertiary mammals. American Journal of Science 276(1): 1-28.
10. Gingerich, P. D., 1980. Evolutionary patterns in early Cenozoic mammals. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 8: 407-424.
11. Gingerich, P. D., 1983. Evidence for evolution from the vertebrate fossil record. Journal of Geological Education 31: 140-144.
12. Hallam, A., 1968. Morphology, palaeoecology and evolution of the genus Gryphaea in the British Lias. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 254: 91-128.
13. Lee, Michael S. Y., Gorden L. Bell Jr. and Michael W. Caldwell, 1999. The origin of snake feeding. Nature 400: 655-659.
14. Lewin, R., 1981. No gap here in the fossil record. Science 214: 645-646.
15. Lindsay, Don, 1997. A smooth fossil transition: Orbulina, a foram. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/orbulina.html
16. Malmgren, B. A., W. A. Berggren and G. P. Lohmann, 1984. Species formation through punctuated gradualism in planktonic foraminifera. Science 225: 317-319.
17. Miller, Kenneth R., 1999. Finding Darwin's God. New York: HarperCollins.
18. Pearson, P. N., N. J. Shackleton and M. A. Hall. 1997. Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (planktonic foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London 154: 295-302.
19. Poinar, G. O. Jr. and B. N. Danforth. 2006. A fossil bee from Early Cretaceous Burmese amber. Science 314: 614.
20. Richmond B. G. and D. S. Strait, 2000. Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor. Nature 404: 382-385. See also Collard, M. and L. C. Aiello, 2000. From forelimbs to two legs. Nature 404: 339-340.
21. Shu, D.-G. et al., 2004. Ancestral echinoderms from the Chengjiang deposits of China. Nature 430: 422-428.
22. Stanley, Steven M., 1974. Relative growth of the titanothere horn: A new approach to an old problem. Evolution 28: 447-457.
23. Strapple, R. R., 1978. Tracing three trilobites. Earth Science 31(4): 149-152.
24. Tchernov, E. et al., 2000. A fossil snake with limbs. Science 287: 2010-2012. See also Greene, H. W. and D. Cundall, 2000. Limbless tetrapods and snakes with legs. Science 287: 1939-1941.
25. Ward, L. W. and B. W. Blackwelder, 1975. Chesapecten, A new genus of Pectinidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) from the Miocene and Pliocene of eastern North America. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 861.

Further Reading:
Cohn, Martin J. and Cheryll Tickle. 1999. Developmental basis of limblessness and axial patterning in snakes. Nature 399: 474-479. (technical)

Cuffey, Clifford A. 2001. The fossil record: Evolution or "scientific creation". http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_00.htm or http://www.nogs.org/cuffeyart.html

Elsberry, Wesley R. 1995. Transitional fossil challenge. http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/argresp/tranform.html

Godfrey, L. R. 1983. Creationism and gaps in the fossil record. In: Godfrey, L. R. (ed.), Scientists Confront Creationism, New York: W. W. Norton, pp. 193-218.

Morton, Glenn R. 2000. Phylum level evolution. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm

Pojeta, John Jr. and Dale A. Springer. 2001. Evolution and the Fossil Record, Alexandria, VA: American Geological Institute, http://www.agiweb.org/news/spot_06apr01_evolutionbk.htm , http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution.pdf , pg. 2.

Strahler, Arthur N. 1987. Science and Earth History, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, pp. 398-400.

Zimmer, Carl. 2000. In search of vertebrate origins: Beyond brain and bone. Science 287: 1576-1579.

Maybe I'm missing something, but is that bred 50 000 times or 50 000 generations? Also, doesn't evolution require some sort of selective action, in addition to just reproducing? If you just pulled out the wingless ones every time and bred ONLY them, generation after generation, wouldn't you eventually end up with wingless fruit flies? We do know that human kind is slowly changing. There is little doubt that people in the USA are significantly taller than they were just a 100 or so years ago. I think you'll find the same pattern in Europe. But does that mean anything since those people that are short aren't being "eliminated" from the gene pool???

So in a few millenia, when they dig up all the cemetaries that will be buried in the next great flood, they'll say, wow those guys must be different; look how big they were!!!

(Just gotta love the time and energy being put into this thread!!!)

people are getting taller but that is more likely the result of better diet....

Your arguments might be more valid if you do not come across so harshly.

The harshness of an argument does nothing to affect it's validity.

"Hitler was a mass murderer because he killed 12 million people in concentration camps" is equally valid to "Hitler was a Goddamned asswipe because he murdered 12 million people in his fucking camps."

The harshness of the statement does not make it less true. It might make you feel more justified in accepting a less justifiable position but you are essentially resorting to the completly invalid argument " Statement 'X' must be true because I don't like the people who believe not-'X'."

which reminds me - another empirical consequence is that life should not rather neatly cluster into higher groupings except for those explicitly mentioned in the genesis. and they certainly should not be groupable on the basis of noncoding stretches of mitochondrial or chloroplast dna - especially not into the same groupings you might make based on morphology..
Huh? Are you trying to outfox God Himself or something? Wow.
Although, you did just remind me that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics;)

Your arguments might be more valid if you do not come across so harshly.

validity is completely independent of perceived harshness

There aren't any.
& yes, I do think it sends a signal that we are not just randomly here;)

Now you're the liar.

1. Brocks, J. J., G. A. Logan, R. Buick and R. E. Summons, 1999. Archean molecular fossils and the early rise of eukaryotes. Science 285: 1033-1036. See also Knoll, A. H., 1999. A new molecular window on early life. Science 285: 1025-1026. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/285/5430/1025
2. Brown, Kathryn S., 1999. Deep Green rewrites evolutionary history of plants. Science 285: 990-991.
3. Canfield, D. E. and A. Teske, 1996. Late Proterozoic rise in atmospheric oxygen concentration inferred from phylogenetic and sulphur-isotope studies. Nature 382: 127-132. See also: Knoll, A. H., 1996. Breathing room for early animals. Nature 382: 111-112.
4. Carroll, Robert L., 1997. Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution. Cambridge University Press.
5. Chen, J.-Y. et al., 2000. Precambrian animal diversity: Putative phosphatized embryos from the Doushantuo Formation of China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(9): 4457-4462. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4457
6. Chen, J.-Y. et al., 2004. Small bilaterian fossils from 40 to 55 million years before the Cambrian. Science 305: 218-222, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1099213 . See also Stokstad, E., 2004. Controversial fossil could shed light on early animals' blueprint. Science 304: 1425.
7. Collins, Allen G., 1994. Metazoa: Fossil record. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/metazoafr.html
8. Conway Morris, Simon, 1998. The Crucible of Creation, Oxford.
9. Cook, P. J. and J. H. Shergold (eds.), 1986. Phosphate Deposits of the World, Volume 1. Proterozoic and Cambrian Phosphorites. Cambridge University Press.
10. Furnes, H., N. R. Banerjee, K. Muehlenbachs, H. Staudigel and M. de Wit, 2004. Early life recorded in Archean pillow lavas. Science 304: 578-581.
11. Hoffman, Paul F. et al., 1998. A Neoproterozoic snowball earth. Science 281: 1342-1346. See also: Kerr, Richard A., 1998. Did an ancient deep freeze nearly doom life? Science 281: 1259,1261.
12. Kerr, Richard A., 2000. An appealing snowball earth that's still hard to swallow. Science 287: 1734-1736.
13. Logan, G. A., J. M. Hayes, G. B. Hieshima and R. E. Summons, 1995. Terminal Proterozoic reorganization of biogeochemical cycles. Nature 376: 53-56. See also Walter, M., 1995. Faecal pellets in world events. Nature 376: 16-17.
14. Lipps, J. H. and P. W. Signor (eds.), 1992. Origin and Early Evolution of the Metazoa. New York: Plenum Press.
15. Martin, M. W. et al., 2000. Age of Neoproterozoic bilatarian body and trace fossils, White Sea, Russia: Implications for metazoan evolution. Science 288: 841-845. See also Kerr, Richard A., 2000. Stretching the reign of early animals. Science 288: 789.
16. Miller, Arnold I., 1997. Dissecting global diversity patterns: Examples from the Ordovician radiation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 85-104.
17. Porter, Susannah M. and Andrew H. Knoll, 2000. Testate amoebae in the Neoproterozoic Era: evidence from vase-shaped microfossils in the Chuar Group, Grand Canyon. Paleobiology 26(3): 360-385.
18. Rasmussen, B., S. Bengtson, I. R. Fletcher and N. J. McNaughton, 2002. Discoidal impressions and trace-like fossils more than 1200 million years old. Science 296: 1112-1115.
19. Schopf, J. W., 1993. Microfossils of the Early Archean Apex Chert: New evidence of the antiquity of life. Science 260: 640-646.
20. Shen, Y., R. Buick and D. E. Canfield, 2001. Isotopic evidence for microbial sulphate reduction in the early Archaean era. Nature 410: 77-81.
21. Thomas, A. L. R., 1997. The breath of life -- did increased oxygen levels trigger the Cambrian Explosion? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12: 44-45.
22. Valentine, James W., Allen G. Collins and C. Porter Meyer, 1994. Morphological complexity increase in metazoans. Paleobiology 20(2): 131-142.
23. Wang, D. Y.-C., S. Kumar and S. B. Hedges, 1999. Divergence time estimates for the early history of animal phyla and the origin of plants, animals and fungi. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 266: 163-71.

Further Reading:
Conway Morris, Simon. 1998. The Crucible of Creation. Oxford.

Conway Morris, Simon. 2000. The Cambrian "explosion": Slow-fuse or megatonnage? Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(9): 4426-4429. (technical)

Schopf, J. William. 2000. Solution to Darwin's dilemma: Discovery of the missing Precambrian record of life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(13): 6947-6953. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/13/6947

There aren't any.
& yes, I do think it sends a signal that we are not just randomly here;)

technically there is no such thing as a transitional fossil, each fossil is it's own correct form.....

You want me to prove a negative being that biologist DON'T claim what you state?

Do some reading:

References:

1. Caldwell, M. W. and M. S. Y. Lee, 1997. A snake with legs from the marine Cretaceous of the Middle East. Nature 386: 705-709.
2. Conway Morris, Simon, 1998. The Crucible of Creation, Oxford University Press.
3. Cronin, T. M., 1985. Speciation and stasis in marine ostracoda: climatic modulation of evolution. Science 227: 60-63.
4. Domning, Daryl P., 2001a. The earliest known fully quadupedal sirenian. Nature 413: 625-627.
5. Domning, Daryl P., 2001b. New "intermediate form" ties seacows firmly to land. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 21(5-6): 38-42.
6. Eldredge, Niles, 1972. Systematics and evolution of Phacops rana (Green, 1832) and Phacops iowensis Delo, 1935 (Trilobita) from the Middle Devonian of North America. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 147(2): 45-114.
7. Eldredge, Niles, 1974. Stability, diversity, and speciation in Paleozoic epeiric seas. Journal of Paleontology 48(3): 540-548.
8. Gerrienne, P. et al. 2004. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian seed plant precursor. Science 306: 856-858.
9. Gingerich, P. D., 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns of evolution of the species level in early Tertiary mammals. American Journal of Science 276(1): 1-28.
10. Gingerich, P. D., 1980. Evolutionary patterns in early Cenozoic mammals. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 8: 407-424.
11. Gingerich, P. D., 1983. Evidence for evolution from the vertebrate fossil record. Journal of Geological Education 31: 140-144.
12. Hallam, A., 1968. Morphology, palaeoecology and evolution of the genus Gryphaea in the British Lias. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 254: 91-128.
13. Lee, Michael S. Y., Gorden L. Bell Jr. and Michael W. Caldwell, 1999. The origin of snake feeding. Nature 400: 655-659.
14. Lewin, R., 1981. No gap here in the fossil record. Science 214: 645-646.
15. Lindsay, Don, 1997. A smooth fossil transition: Orbulina, a foram. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/orbulina.html
16. Malmgren, B. A., W. A. Berggren and G. P. Lohmann, 1984. Species formation through punctuated gradualism in planktonic foraminifera. Science 225: 317-319.
17. Miller, Kenneth R., 1999. Finding Darwin's God. New York: HarperCollins.
18. Pearson, P. N., N. J. Shackleton and M. A. Hall. 1997. Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (planktonic foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London 154: 295-302.
19. Poinar, G. O. Jr. and B. N. Danforth. 2006. A fossil bee from Early Cretaceous Burmese amber. Science 314: 614.
20. Richmond B. G. and D. S. Strait, 2000. Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor. Nature 404: 382-385. See also Collard, M. and L. C. Aiello, 2000. From forelimbs to two legs. Nature 404: 339-340.
21. Shu, D.-G. et al., 2004. Ancestral echinoderms from the Chengjiang deposits of China. Nature 430: 422-428.
22. Stanley, Steven M., 1974. Relative growth of the titanothere horn: A new approach to an old problem. Evolution 28: 447-457.
23. Strapple, R. R., 1978. Tracing three trilobites. Earth Science 31(4): 149-152.
24. Tchernov, E. et al., 2000. A fossil snake with limbs. Science 287: 2010-2012. See also Greene, H. W. and D. Cundall, 2000. Limbless tetrapods and snakes with legs. Science 287: 1939-1941.
25. Ward, L. W. and B. W. Blackwelder, 1975. Chesapecten, A new genus of Pectinidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) from the Miocene and Pliocene of eastern North America. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 861.

Further Reading:
Cohn, Martin J. and Cheryll Tickle. 1999. Developmental basis of limblessness and axial patterning in snakes. Nature 399: 474-479. (technical)

Cuffey, Clifford A. 2001. The fossil record: Evolution or "scientific creation". http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_00.htm or http://www.nogs.org/cuffeyart.html

Elsberry, Wesley R. 1995. Transitional fossil challenge. http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/argresp/tranform.html

Godfrey, L. R. 1983. Creationism and gaps in the fossil record. In: Godfrey, L. R. (ed.), Scientists Confront Creationism, New York: W. W. Norton, pp. 193-218.

Morton, Glenn R. 2000. Phylum level evolution. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm

Pojeta, John Jr. and Dale A. Springer. 2001. Evolution and the Fossil Record, Alexandria, VA: American Geological Institute, http://www.agiweb.org/news/spot_06apr01_evolutionbk.htm , http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution.pdf , pg. 2.

Strahler, Arthur N. 1987. Science and Earth History, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, pp. 398-400.

Zimmer, Carl. 2000. In search of vertebrate origins: Beyond brain and bone. Science 287: 1576-1579.

You're very sly, buddy. You should be able to point me to a simple source online explaining how the Cambrian explosion does not disprove evolution, not copy and paste a list of sources that you know no one is ever going to read, nor you've read yourself, dumbass.

Although, you did just remind me that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics;)

this is both stupid and not an empirical consequence of creationism. not the proper thread for it.

technically there is no such thing as a transitional fossil
& evolutionists accuse creationists of making up facts. How about you research before you pull stuff out of your ass, buddy.

people are getting taller but that is more likely the result of better diet....

Yes, the increased height in the last 100 years is almost entierly due to better diet, because all across northern Eurpoe people used to be much taller than the people in Rome who had the grain and beans diet that poor northerners had to adopt later, and then become as short as the Romans. When the short Europeans arrived and encountered Native Americans, they thought that the natives were giants. They didn't realize that they themselves were simply malnurished.

Evolution due to environment is better demonstrated in the rates of lactose intolerance in various groups around the world. Areas where people raise animals that give nutritous milk the rates of lactose intolerance were historically very low. In areas where such animals were not domesticated lactose intolerance was the norm, not a disorder.

Also, people with type A blood digest grains more efficiently than people with type O or B. And that blood type became most prevalent in areas that had the most intensively grain-based diet.

Huh? Are you trying to outfox God Himself or something? Wow.
Although, you did just remind me that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics;)


Only if you don't know anything about it.

As well as there as deals with averages ... It is not against the rules for local concentrations.

Only if you don't know anything about it.
Oh, I do. And it violates it, buddy.