I am impressed you replied back, so I took the time to form my replied as well.
The difference is my belief is evidence based, not mythology based
Your believe is based on mythology, it also has evidence which is interpeted to fit the story. This is the same for creationists. both are religious views. Otherwise get a mouse and evolve wings on it. If you cant repeat it, test it and confirm it, it isn't operational science and falls into the "must take on faith" basket.
Now you've stated that you believe the Bible isn't mythology, but it has all the markings of it.
I can see how you would think that. What a surprise that God would actually do things in a book about him.
So you have to go out of your way to make the evidence fit the mythology. Scientists used to be much more religious, but abandoned it because the evidence didn't support it.
All the major lines of science were by creationists. copy and paste below
- The creationist Robert Boyle (1627–1691) fathered modern chemistry and demolished the faulty Aristotelian four-elements theory. He also funded lectures to defend Christianity and sponsored missionaries and Bible translation work.
- Cell phones depend on electromagnetic radiation theory, which was pioneered by creationist James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879).
- Computing machines were invented by Charles Babbage (1791–1871), who was not a biblical creationist but was a creationist in the broad sense. He “believed that the study of the works of nature with scientific precision, was a necessary and indispensable preparation to the understanding and interpreting their testimony of the wisdom and goodness of their Divine Author.”
- The creationist brothers Orville (1871–1948) and Wilbur Wright (1867–1912) invented the airplane after studying God’s design of birds.
- The theory of planetary orbits was invented by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), famous for claiming that his discoveries were “thinking God’s thoughts after him”. Kepler also calculated a creation date of 3992 BC, close to Ussher’s.
- The theory of gravity and the laws of motion, essential for the moon landings, were discovered by the creationist Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727), who also discovered the spectrum of light (so was the forerunner of my own speciality, spectroscopy), invented the reflecting telescope, discovered the exponential law of cooling, and co-invented calculus.
- The moon landing program was headed by Wernher von Braun (1912–1977), who believed in a designer and opposed evolution. And a biblical creationist, James Irwin (1930–1991), walked on the moon.
Fair enough, but if God could make the animals come to Noah, he could make them behave on the boat too. For that matter, he didn't need Noah to undertake the superhuman task of creating such a large boat in the first place.
We dont know how the animals behaved in the ship. I would say alot like what they would do now for the ones that were not sleeping. It wasn't exactly a superhuman task to build a ship. Yes it took 100 years to build it. Side note: People lived longer because they were genetically perfect to start with and then DNA errors came in for each generation hence each generation lived shorter (except for Methuselah which his name means It will come when he dies, which was the year of the flood, so his long life was a form of grace by God.).
Oh, is that all? Even allowing that, you suppose one man and his family was able to store food for 20,000 "kinds", which you then have to double for pairs (or 7 pairs, as the case may be), and have enough food to last for months? And the food didn't rot during this time? Come on, this story is fit for children, not grown adults with an education.
I found a link describing alot of your questions about the Ark. The Ark
The Grand Canyon is easy to pick on because of the meandering that it does. See this video [youtube.com] for an explanation of why a flood wouldn't show that pattern through rock. The article you link to mentions this problem, and then inexplicably, to counter it they use the Wadden Sea as an example that shows meandering, but that's a sandbank! It doesn't cut through hard rock.
Figure 18 shows the Colorado River at the level of Marble Canyon, and, as can be seen, it is meandering in hard rock!
One prerequisite for a river to meander is that the sediments it flows across are soft, not hard. Meandering is caused by a combination of erosion and deposition of sediments. What could possibly explain that the Colorado River is meandering in hard rock? The likely answer to this would be that such rock wasn’t that hard when the Colorado River originally carved its first shape.
Another prerequisite for meandering is that the water has to flow slowly enough to deposit the sediments. Therefore the BDT is not adequate to explain this, but the RFS is.
The uniformitarian explanation for this feature is that the river first formed in deposited alluvium and that after uplift of the Colorado Plateau it continued eroding down through the hard rock.10-15 Nevertheless, at Marble Canyon there is no alluvium on the plateau, neither is there any trace of a previous alluvium.
Thats an interesting video, but the article explains how not the BDT but the RFS that caused the first cut into the then freashly laid soft rock. It then says the scenerio of the uniformitarian explanation also requires soft alluvium but yet there is none there. Here you have two competing theories, one which gives a plusable scenerio of how it cut thru freashly laid sedimentary layer and the other requires you to believe in a the non existant top alluvium layer
Even if I were to accept the creationist view that these are flood events, the challenge for you is to link all these features to the same time period. The Three Sisters article offered a date of "33,720 +/- 430 years". So where's the corresponding evidence with those dates?
The age of 33Kys is in referance to fossil wood found inside the Hawkesbury Sandstone.
In June 1997 a large finger-sized piece of fossil wood was discovered in a Hawkesbury Sandstone slab just cut from the quarry face at Bundanoon (see photo, right).8 Though reddish-brown and hardened by petrifaction, the original character of the wood was still evident. Identification of the genus is not certain, but more than likely it was the forked-frond seed-fern Dicroidium, well known from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.2,7 The fossil was probably the wood from the stem of a frond.
Radiocarbon (14C) analysis
Because this fossil wood now appears impregnated with silica and hematite, it was uncertain whether any original organic carbon remained, especially since it is supposed to be 225–230 million years old. Nevertheless, a piece of the fossil wood was sent for radiocarbon (14C) analysis to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), a reputable internationally-recognized commercial laboratory. This laboratory uses the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique, recognized as producing the most reliable radiocarbon results, even on minute quantities of carbon in samples.
The laboratory staff were not told exactly where the fossil wood came from, or its supposed evolutionary age, to ensure there would be no resultant bias. Following routine lab procedure, the sample (their lab code GX–23644) was treated first with hot dilute hydrochloric acid to remove any carbonates, and then with hot dilute caustic soda to remove any humic acids or other organic contaminants. After washing and drying, it was combusted to recover any carbon dioxide for the radiocarbon analysis.
The analytical report from the laboratory indicated detectable radiocarbon had been found in the fossil wood, yielding a supposed 14C ‘age’ of 33,720 ± 430 years BP (before present). This result had been ‘13C corrected’ by the lab staff, after they had obtained a d13CPDB value of –24.0.9 This value is consistent with the analyzed carbon in the fossil wood representing organic carbon from the original wood, and not from any contamination. Of course, if this fossil wood really were 225–230 million years old as is supposed, it should be impossible to obtain a finite radiocarbon age, because all detectable 14C should have decayed away in a fraction of that alleged time—a few tens of thousands of years.
See Hawkesbury Sandstone
A Creationist does not accept the dating method from radiometic dating techniques as they have been proven wrong many times with rocks of known ages, and they often contradict each other.
That being said, since there is at current rates of decay for c14 dating a upper limit of 50,000 years, anything living thing with c14 in it must therefor be less than 50,000 years.
Hence when one dating technique says 220,000,000 years and another says 33,000 it shows that the 220,000,000 has hidden assumptions behind it proven to be incorrect as something can not be both 33K and 220M yrs old at the same time.
(We also say the 33Kyr age is wrong based on other assumpions that it does not take into account the flood which would make any ages greater than 4000 yrs appear alot older.)
This is a big problem for evolutionists as they need the millions of years, yet there own dating techinques show the major contradictions.
For example, Back in my home country of New Zealand, there was a vocaino that exploded 3.5 million years ago on June 30, 1954. radioactive dating failure
Most importantly, where's the extinction event in the fossil record? It would be obvious from such a worldwide flood, especially one so recent.
The entire record speaks of a major catastrophe where all breathing life on the surface died. I get the hint you were also trying to mix theorys where the flood was only just 1 layer in the "geologic column" (which is only found in the textbooks) hence all fossils would be in that layer. There is some debate about where the boundaries of the flood / pre flood are, and I can't be bother to read up it, but it's in that creation.com website if you want to read up on it.
That's what early geologists who were raised in Hebrew mythology expected to find, but they didn't. That's why science has grown to dominantly rejects such myths.
Gelogists were able to explain the worlds formation quite well, it was because of Charles Lyell that the idea of long ages came into popularity. One such example is when he visited Niagara falls, seen the gorge that was cut out by the falls and made the report that it took 35000 years to do, but he ignored reports from the locals where the river receded 45 meters in 40 years, which would of only been 12000 years and thats not counting the flood again. see link http://creation.com/niagara-falls-and-the-bible
With the video:
- It talked about some small things changing but yet they remain things
- Horse shoe crab
These appear in the fossil record exactly like the living Horse crabs today. This is what you call a living fossil. No evolution over 400Myr, or no changes over 4000 years. - Neopilina
I found a evolution web site stating that is molluscs special place in the evolution's tree was that is gills had seperated comparments yet this site says new studies shows otherwise but it doesn't give any referances for me to track down.
Also this is a living fossil again. And it is a fully formed mollusc, even if it insides are little different from other molluscs.
evolutionwiki.org. - Onychophora
http://creation.com/what-is-peripatus
- Ichthyostega
Ah, the walking fish. This is a classic case of trying to fit a story involving multiple creatures, lets break down the story
The sequence goes: Rhipidistians (Eusthenopteron) -> Panderichthys -> Tiktaalik -> Acanthostega -> Ichthyostega
This sequence is based on the phyisical looks of the creature yet when taken a closer look we find the order in the record not correct.
The Panderichthys is dated eariler than it's supposed predecessor Eusthenopteron. The Acanthostega is dated to be comtemories to Ichthyostega.
In all cases the fins were fully fins and the legs were fully legs. Mosaics creatures (like duck pill platypus) do not count as a tranisition form when all components of the creature are fully formed.
But lets get a quote from Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum (Natural History) in LondonIn 1978 that museum published a book on evolution by Patterson.6 Designed to be a popular book on the subject, it is still being sold in museums, even here in Australia. So it is still regarded as an authoritative presentation on evolution, including the fossil record. Yet, even though fossils are mentioned in a number of places in the book, nowhere does Patterson illustrate any ‘missing links’ between major types of organisms, such as between fish and amphibians.
In 1979 American Luther Sunderland read Patterson’s book and noticed this rather obvious lack of even a single photograph or drawing of a transitional fossil. So he wrote to Patterson asking why this omission, and in a letter dated 10 April 1979 Patterson replied in these words:
‘ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’
Other this series you will find a dramatically different structure of the fins / feet, with the Eusthenopteron having only 5 "fingers" in the fin yet Ichthyostega having 7 and Acanthostega having 8. This is indication that they did not developed from each other but were always fully distinct like in the fossil record.
There was a classic evolutionist argument that the first fist to walk on land was the coelacanth which was extinct for 65 million years, until 1938 were it was caught alive. Now now only does this say that evolution doesn't happen, (evolutionist make the excuse that creatures dont need to change) but the argument with this fish was that it's fins were legs yet we found out that it's only used to holding on to rocks, it doesn't walk at all.
To quote a book below:
A very recent find of the fossil of an amphibian in the Upper Devonian rocks in the Catskill Formation of Pennsylvania greatly reinforces the evidence that those creatures believed to be the oldest amphibians were fully developed with no evidence of transitional forms. The report on this amphimain, designated Hynerpeton bassetti, appear in the July 29 1994, issue of Science by Daeschler, Shubin, Thomson, and Amaral. They state
Derived features of the shoulder girdle indicate that appendicular mechanisms of support and propulsion were well developed even in the earliest phases of tetrapod history.
What we have here is a creature, believed to be older than the creatures previously thought to be the oldest known ampibians, that is 100% amphibian, with fully developed amphibian limbs and other features believed to be advanced, This further falsifies predictions based on evolutionary theory, but provides powerful additional evidence for creation.
Fossilization is a rare event, but despite that we keep on finding more and keep on filling in gaps. There are transitional fossils.
I disagree with the transitional fossils but fossilation is rare, you need to be buried quickly otherwise the body will just rot and be eaten.
Fossilised JellyFish. Trees do not wait for millions of years eaither Yellow Stone Again and again.
So what would send many many layers of mud over something to be buried, well it needs alot of water, it would have to be devastating, it would have to be sudden, oh I know, global flood :-).
No, the lack of fossils is evidence for a particular kind of evolution, one that does leaves traces, but just not as many.
Follow the evidence, If the evidence disagrees with you, you dont just work around it. But all evolutionists do that, so I cant blame you that much, oh wait dont you claim science on your side?
she was is that the evidence for human evolution is irrefutable
Irrefuted. and again
This year’s study further strengthens creationist predictions. Tel Aviv University anthropologists determined that Lucy’s mandibular ramus, or lower jaw bone, not only appears in Australopithecus robustus, but closely resembles that of a gorilla. As a result, the evolutionary researchers concluded that Lucy should no longer be considered man’s direct ancestor. As is typically the case in the field of human evolution, a single bone structure overturns years of grossly exaggerated claims.
More like they refuse to acknowledge it. A simple example is nylonase [wikipedia.org].
This link describs it
This is an interesting thing you have raised, TIL about Plasmids. This is why I love to argue, I tend to pick up new things all the time.
Finally, Mr Cerutti is out of date about this new nylon digesting ability allegedly from a frame shift. New evidence shows that the ability was due to plasmids [e.g. K. Kato, et al., ‘A plasmid encoding enzymes for nylon oligomer degradation: Nucleotide sequence analysis of pOAD2’, Microbiology (Reading) 141(10):2585–2590, 1995.] In fact, more than one species of bacteria have the ability, residing on plasmids. This suggests that the information probably already existed, and was just passed between different types of bacteria.
So the question here is plasmids a designed feature? because if the main chromosome changes too quickly the host dies, hence having plasmids allow for rapid changes with mutations without risking the lethal mutations to the host.
I am almost yelling at my computer, no thats not true, that true,, thats not true, thats correct, thats not true, you just made that up, oh you are skipping over the good parts, thats bs too, when I am watching your video.
Again, if you're going to copy and paste from creation sites, please quote and give links. Now that you've listed what Archaeopteryx has in common with birds, this site [talkorigins.org] talks about what it has in common with reptiles. Again, that's what you would expect from a transitional species, where there's a mingling of features.
Again, if you're going to copy and paste from creation sites, please quote and give links. Now that you've listed what Archaeopteryx has in common with birds, this site [talkorigins.org] talks about what it has in common with reptiles. Again, that's what you would expect from a transitional species, where there's a mingling of features.
Archaeopteryx is truly unique, and appears to exhibit a mosaic of characters, sharing some in common with the class Aves and some with the class Reptilia. It seems to have been suited to a lifestyle of short flights and agile crawling in trees, and those features which make it unquestionably a bird for classification purposes are uniquely and completely present and perfect. The feathers are not halfway transition from scales to feathers, an assumed transformation of the most astounding complexity. If for no other reason, this would disqualify it as a transitional form. A bat is not a transitional form between bird and mammal, nor is a platypus transitional between duck and mammal, even though it exhibits some features of both.
The bible never mentions cells.
I wonder why not, when it was the only form of life on the planet for billions of years. The germ theory of disease would have been pretty handy to know about, too, instead of crude dietary restrictions.
Note: Louis Pasteur was the founder of germ theory, a creationist. :-) just wanted to through that one in.
Again you are mixing a fairy tale of evolution with the bible. The bible does not support that fiction and so by trying to add a false premise you only end up comfirming your own assumptions. When you want to attack the other persons view, you must do so in the entirety of that view. So there is no billions of years in the bible.
The rules that were put down were vastly better than the highly train Egyptian medical knownleged, because for them to heal a wound you had to rub various types of shit over it. Read up on thier practices for a good laugh.
The Bible isn't a science book either its a history book, but when it does make sciencific statements they have turned out correct. Do you believe that space is expanding?
This is retarded. Seriously. Please watch these [youtube.com] videos [youtube.com].
The mud flow layering is down by moving flowing water. I couldn't find the link about it.
That video does put up a valid argument as to why you get certian creatures in certain layers. But now it's too late i need to sleep, I'll get back to you on that.
My argument of smart creatures surviving better does seem very week I will need to look into that. I hate "just so" stories.
I'll look forward to your reply.
If you have an argument with one of my positions, you can usually check out what I would say by doing a quick search on creation.com. It contains a lot of information on these subject matter. I will try and look into why you tend to get certain fossils often in certain layers (Note: We have for example found ducks, owls, piper, parrots, loons, flamingos etc in the Cretaceous layers So I dont hold that birds are only in the recent layers).
Cheers