QUESTIONS

"so basically , the less people understand science, the more people believe in creationism...i have to hand it to you- you're starting to make sense."
--For me I have found it is the exact opposite...------------------

"What, so basically , the more people understand science, the less people believe in creationism?"
--lol, nice try Joz, more like 'the more people understand science, the more people would be to believe in creationism', IMHO.------------------

"I get chuckles everytime i read something like that...the more science you have,the more likely you are to buy into recycled mythology,huh? "
--I don't see the relevance of chuckling at an unsubstantiated argument.------------------

"Right so we have various Bsc`s, PHD`s, at least one professor (SLP at least probably more) and presumeably some Msc`s as well who, get this, think evolution is right and creationism wrong...."
--I don't think that that substantiates anything really, being an argument from athority, ie, saying that because the Ph.D.'s are Old earthers, that means the earth is old. I know your not directly asserting this, though its as it seems."Are you saying that those of us with scientific qualifications don`t understand science? If not your assertion falls at the first hurdle...."
--Catch Sentance Suffix, (IMHO), also, it would not be their science that is flawed if anything, it would be their interperetation of course.------------------

"You dont think its funny to say that the level of belief in creationist fairy tales of someone is directly proportional to their level of science? i do"
--I could say the exact same thing in my perspective, but it would substantiate nothing, so I think it is wize for me not to bother, besides, its an unsupported assertion.-------------------

"No you couldn't. There is no science to support creation belief,despite what you may wish to believe."
--I quote mysefl:

quote:

---

--I could say the exact same thing in my perspective, but it would substantiate nothing, so I think it is wize for me not to bother, besides, its an unsupported assertion.

---

--and nothing short of opinionated without support."The only place where we can get evidence of 6 day creations and biblical floods is in the Bible itself...no part of those tales is substanciated anywhere else on earth."
--Hm... I guess if I 'must' quote again:

quote:

---

--I could say the exact same thing in my perspective, but it would substantiate nothing, so I think it is wize for me not to bother, besides, its an unsupported assertion.

---

--And again opinionated being without a supportive sentance."Evolution and old earth however,is supported by tons of scientific data,even if you chose not to recognize it."
--I do recognize it, and do date, everything it says, is in cooperation with a young earth in light of a different interperetation. Which is completely plausable, you have yet to show this as incorrect.------------------

"1)It isn`t an arguement from authority, you made the assertion that the more people understood science the more (likely?) they would be to accept creationism, I was meerly showing you that the people here on these boards with scientific training seem to predominantly disagree with creation...."
--Yes on these boards your right, though to say that that makes relevance to either interperetation being the correct one isn't the wizest conclusion. Though I know that this is not what you are asserting, I was simply making the point for someone who may thing this as a significance."I`m not saying that because they have qualifications they are right by default, rather that they have qualifications that demonstrate their understanding of science...."
--Right."The fact that they are predominantly evo`s seems to disproove your original assertion...."
--What was my original assertion?"2)Science is interpretation TC the rest is just data...."
--Science is the study of your data, interperetation is what you make of that study.------------------

"TC- could you tell me why the most experienced scientists laugh at creationism?"
--Because of many factors, when a christian is braught up these days, half are going to believe that science is stupid or does not want part in it because they have the idea that it is contrary to their biblical belief because of evolution. Thus, many are not even going to have the interest to start, which is finally starting to change these days, atleast a small percentage of the general population knows that creation science exists. Also because of problem of religion and bias, a naturalistic explinaiton for anything is much more atractive than anything a supernatural explination (even though there is much less of the super-natural than one would think). Fortunatelly creationists are beginning to step on some toes and get some attention. There is also the problem of censoring creationists out of technical journals because they may say instead of 'scientists belive', they would say 'so after God had created', or something along the lines of that.------------------

"here are some questions. I'd like to see if creationists can tackle them."
--If I must..."1). Given that rats and rabbits are some of the most common animals in the world, shouldn’t we expect to find their remains in the same strata as some of the more common dinosaurs? The same question can be asked of whales and plesiosaurs, or of any modern mammal and any common dinosaur. Creationism has never presented a credible response to this dilemma."
--where do we find rodents and where do we find rabbits in the geo-column. I would expect them to be very close appearing in the fossil record. Also you sertainly would not see them in the same place as dinosaurs, though would appear shortly after the K-T boundary. Also I already explained the plesiosaur one, they would have died along with the rest of the dinosaurs, being forced to breath the air would have to stay considerably shallow in the water at times to breath, though it would be very cold for the top many meters of water by the effects of a slight nuclear winter. Whales are mammals and therefore produce their own body heat, being able to suffurface for breath vastly easier than the others, along with the dolphins and whales (even though they are relatives)."2). It is probably a safe assumption that Nobel Prize winners are among the most brilliant scientists in the world. These are people who have demonstrated keen insight into some cutting edge scientific breakthroughs. If Creationism is a credible movement, then why aren’t any of these Nobel Prize winners Creationists?"
--I havent done the research, though I know the explination why it would be much more on the other side is from the history of creation and evolution, scopes (monkey trial), and the hoaxes of alleged evidences of human ancestory, etc. Refer to my previous message for a continuance."3). Why do multiple, independent methods all agree on an estimated age of the earth at 4.5 billion years?"
--Wouldn't know enough to argue this point."4). Can you provide a good reason, using Creation Science, as to why a bird would be more closely related (genetically) to a snake than a bat?"
--Reference?"5). Gallup polls have shown that the more education that a person has, the more likely they are to reject Creationism in favor of evolution. This is even more apparent if the education is specialized in the sciences. What is the Creationist explanation for this?"
--See last post."6). Can you name a scientific advance that Creation Science has been responsible for? By this, I don’t mean something that Isaac Newton came up with long before the Theory of Evolution was proposed. I mean an advance that was arrived at using the Creationist model."
--Name something that had to be discovered under the influence of Evolution.. Evolution doesn't advance science, neither does Creation, science is advanced by knowledge through experimentation, and observation."8).There would be no segregation of fossils. If all organisms lived at the same time, we would expect to see trilobites, brachiopods, ammonites, dinosaurs, and mammals (including humans) all randomly mixed together in the worldwide blanket described in point #1. This is not what is observed. The fossil record exhibits an order consistent with the theory of evolution (but inconsistent with creationism), from simple forms to more complex forms, and from creatures very unlike modern species to those more closely resembling modern species. There is not one instance of any fossils that have been deposited "out of order"."
--This is fully consistant with Deposition theory as is being discussed in 'Falsifying Creation'."9). No varves, ice cores, tree ring ensembles, coral cores, or other examples of periodically accumulated accretion should be found to extend back beyond the time of the Flood. They do. Ice cores, drilled from stable ice plains, show 40,000 years of annual layers. Varves, which are mineral deposits, show millions of years of annual layers."
--Varves - There are many problems with varves, mainly being that fossils exist in such amazing form. Varves are easilly deposited by the Flood.--Ice cores - Ice cores vary greatly by conditions and environment, location and elevation, etc. In some places you may find that there is a layer is created every season, in others, every year, in others, every month, etc.------------------

"wow... that sure was confusing... all i could discern was you mentioning that rats and rabbits are not found as fossils."
--No Actually I said, and I quote:

quote:

---

where do we find rodents and where do we find rabbits in the geo-column. I would expect them to be very close appearing in the fossil record.

---

--This means that I would expect rabbits and rodents closely appearing in the fossil record.--And..

quote:

---

Also you sertainly would not see them in the same place as dinosaurs, though would appear shortly after the K-T boundary.

---

--So I am saying that you 'would not see them in the same place as dinosaurs', thouggh would appear shortly after the K-T boundary. I can't find the point of confusion."well, that's funny... now that i think of it, not one modern animal is found in the fossil strata... do you think that could mean that the earth is millions of years old, and so far there has only been time to foddilize very old animals?"
--Bats are found fully formed for instance, also, almost all biological organisms will speciate, so you would not find many 'modern' animals in the fossil record, though you are incorrect that there are none there."no, probably not... it REALLY means that for some strange reason which is known only by creationists, no modern animals were fossilized during the flood, and all primitive animals formed a nice pattern (another mystery)"
--It isn't a mystery, I have already given the sorting mechenisms and they comply."[roll eyes] here we go again... the good old "evolution has had a better marketing campaign" story..."
--If you really wish to call it that, yes it does have a 'better marketing campaign'."btw- do you have any unbiased evidence to indicate a massive creationist conspiracy, or is this spoon fed to you through your reliable creationist sources?"
--Find any public school science or university text book."don't you think that the most scientifically intelligent people in the world would have started to notice by now that evolution is a total fraud? Or are they, for low wages, dedicating their entire lives to some world wide conspiracy?"
--It isn't a fraud, and it isn't a conspiracy, but the automatic rejection of a non-naturalistic explination for existance."well why don't you do the research, and come back with that answer, hmm?"
--If I had, you would come back to me with this again:

quote:

---

i will be perfectly honest- i can't participate in a lot of these discussions- i know very little concerning the particulars of science and geology

---

--I do understand this, and I have already admitted that I am basically in the same dillema. I would just refrain from asking a question that requires such knowledge when you cannot argue it."Let's not play these games..."
--No I am quite serious, please give a reference or emphesize in detail as to what is genetically so related. Codon sequence, nucleotide sequence, do you mean anatomy, celluar composition, or cytochrome C?"let's not play these games. i am not going to go digging thgough gallup's archive to find this one. if you insist, then i will, but come on. it seems to me that whenever you don't like a question, you play the reference card."
--No actually it is to avoid an ongoing rambling on something irrelevant to the topic or something that you were not looking for. Also, take a look at what is taught when you are educated, or should I mean indoctrinated."evolution requires the existence of a neat and very ancient geological strata, arranged from most primitive to most advanced. I think we see that."
--This does nto require Evolution to be observed, it is a fact that fossils are in the ground in a relative sequence, this is not requiring Evolution."evolution requires a very, very old earth. We see that."
--No, actually in your case, you see a 12 year old earth, relativelly speaking."Evolution requires the obsservation of macroevolution- we see that..."
--Example. Also, I would highly doubt that you and even I have the knowledge to argue this point, as it branches off into many very detailed biological concepts in the molecular and celluar field."creationism requires the existence of fossils of all species that existed during the flood.... we only see primitive ones..."
--More accuratelly proto-organisms, I must stress the concept of speciation on this one."creationism requires all natural methods of measuring age (tree-ring dating, carbon dating, geneology from ancient cultures, valves, coral etc. etc.) to point to a 10000 year old earth... nope"
--The only one that does is Radioisotopic dating, the rest are relative dates or require the validity of C14 or other radioisotope."creationism requires the existence of randomly deposited boulders across the planet... nope, sorry"
--Emphesize."creationism requires that all cultures that we know of began after the flood or before the flood... creationism also requires that we see around a 500 year gap in history as humanity rebuilds from the flood... "
--I have found that the pre-dating of the Flood cultures, the only reference I have seen, depends on the validity of radioisotops, particularelly C14. Seems that if you can demolish radioisotops, you demolish the whole theory of an old earth and evolution would crumble befor it."it also requires records from cultures indicating a massive flood... nothing yet..."
--I've given you hundreds, even Talk.Origins is aware of this."(the egyptians were around before the flood because we were able to match their recordings of lunar eclipses, asteroids, etc. with the actual events...)"
--Really, this is interesting, anywhere where I can get more detail?"i'll have to find out about that theory..."
--I have given it to these forums many times over. Do a search for it."but wouldn't it be simpler to say that geological findings suggestive of evolution are actually evidences of evolution?"
--Simplicity, is not at all a constituent of validity or truth."aww- that's real sweet- so i assume that all these "mistaken" or inaccurate methods of dating coincidentally come to the same conslusion when it comes to the age of fossils, the history of our planet in the last 10,000 years, the age of egyptian artifacts, etc. etc.?"
--I dont remember finding fossils in ice, nor do I remember finding egyptian artifacts in varves."or perhaps all these dates point to a date that is far more similar to the creationist model, but we just don't know about it?"
--Maybe you should say 'but I just don't know about it'."and what other problems can you find with the dating methods such as looking at egyptian/chinese geneology (and their recordings of natural phenomenas)"
--I have seen this posed before, I would like more information about it."coral cores"
--How is this evidence of an old earth?"tree-rings, and all the other methods that corroborate eachother?""
--The oldest 'living' tree does not pre-date the flood. Also, tree-ring overlapping requires that radioisotopes give age."if they were all so incorrect as to suggest ridiculous dates, wouldn't tree rings suggest one wild date and carbon dating would suggest another? or wouldn't we see at least a hint from these dating methods that the planet is 10000 years old?"
--Because of the way that dendrochronology and C-14 are callibrated, its basically forced into accuracy and compliance. Mabye some of that 'thinking out of the box' would be a good start here as you have asserted so in another thread."it seems to me that the best you can do is cast doubt on these dating methods, without giving a reason why they don't support the creationist model or why they corroborate one another..."
--See above.------------------

"I suppose it depends on how you want to define "Christian", but I would say that only a small percentage of Christians are brought up as Biblical fundamentalists. Far fewer than half."
--Thats because of the statment I just made, if they have the interest, they are going to get sucked into what they are teaching them."Creation science isn't science, TC, no matter how much you want to be."
--If you wan't to make a relevant statement, I have given you the way that creation science is, if your going to argue with me, you must argue with that model."Why is it bad to be biased in favor of the evidence?"
--This is not what I have said, I said that to most people a naturalistic explination is more attractive than a supernatural explination, and I have made the assertion that there is much les of the supernatural than one would think. This is because everything can be explained in naturalistic terms accept say, the origins, or the resurrection, or something of that likeness."Really? Attention from whom? The public or scientists?"
--Both."Poor, maligned Creationists.They say they want to do science but can't seem to stop referring to their Christian Bibles."
--This is science. By your logic, if there even was evidence of a young earth, it would not be plausable because of your pre-conceived idea that it is not possible because we cannot give god a foot-hold.------------------

"primitive species are found lower in the strata, and more modern and "advanced" are found further up. "
--Sounds like the flood to me!------------------

"I appreciate the insult to my intelligence."
--I wasn't the one that put myself into the position of asserting this:

quote:

---

wow... that sure was confusing... all i could discern was you mentioning that rats and rabbits are not found as fossils."

---

--Besides it was not put forth as an insult, but as a clarification, but of course, you see there was nothing to be clarified to the degree that 'it sertainly was confusing' and you could descern a single statment that still was discerned incorrectly."you need to brush up on your speeling and grammar."
--You really do not wan't me to run your posts through a spell-check, your insults and sarcasm are drastically lowering your credibility."I’m incorrect? Wow! Where are these fossilized humans then? "
--Possibly Erectus, Homo Sapiens, and Homo Sapiens Sapiens."so you’re telling me that if you showed this theory to an unbiased archaeologist/geologist/scientist, they would have no problem? I doubt it"
--Mabye you should get one in here then, also, if you can't argue the position, don't assert the question as if you can. I will see this as a withdraw unless you can comment with more relevance."so you’re saying that the most scientifically informed people in the world have been convinced by a better marketing campaign? Who’s running that marketing campaign, and why? Scientists are in pursuit of the truth."
--The people running the campaign, Teachers, and University professors, scientists are in persuit for the truth, with a pre-conceived assumption based on their life-long teaching that Evolution is the only explination."so tell me- why do all these universities and public schools teach evolution. Could it be because there is more evidence?"
--No, because they wish to dismiss God as a creator."ya hit the head of the nail- we dismiss your theories because they cannot be proved"
--Throw evolution out the window then, it has not been 'proven', as neither has the theory of a Heliocentric solar system to any degree of such proof, being truth to a highest degree."and we have a natural explanation for the origins of life."
--..It needs alot of work, I believe that we need more than a hunch on how it could have happend..."It is your vocal protestant minority that keeps waving this half-assed evidence ein the air that insists that science makes a U-turn and investigate your unsupported theories, and it becomes really sickening."
--We do do science, it is science that it all comes from, its the conclusions made from observations, and experimentations that wich we draw a line for God, the Scientific world want's to give no foot-hold for God in any scientific conclusion. You seriously must calm yourself, I am pushing myself to cooperate with your intimate ignorance and biased mind-set with a massive exaduration of arrogance on your part. You have made a line for yourself in which you should be compaired and not diffrentiated uppon your age, which is a drastic fallacy which lowers your credibility to a level of zero, and it is not at all in the least bit appealing."I am a twelve year-old boy who has only a basic understanding of plate tectonics, geology, and science for that matter."
--See above..."You are an adult that specializes in geology, is reading a biology text book, and a love for disproving science."
--If you consider a 15 year old an adult, and I have yet to tackle any thing to invalidate science, I will send you off to college where you can find out about this alien concept of science if you can do a search through my numerous 860+ posts and find me where I have done so."Surely you can present something of interest- quote a website- that would suit me."
--It is not all about quoting websites, quicksink, surelly you would have found this to be true."let me be honest- I have not the slightest clue what you’re talaking about- but perhaps some other more experienced person in this forum could help me out."
--Then lets stear clear from many of these basic biological or geological questions quicksink."Also, I cannot seen to find the original question."
--you are the one that asserted the question:

quote:

---

"4). Can you provide a good reason, using Creation Science, as to why a bird would be more closely related (genetically) to a snake than a bat?"

---

"I am not an evilutionist drone, despite your strong belief of the contrary."
--Believe me..it is evident throughout all your posts that you sertainly are."I do know quite a bit more than the avberage child of my age."
--And I know much much more than the average 15 year old, though I rarelly assert questions that I am not ready to argue or do not have the scientific background to do so, and when It does happen, I do in no way act ignorant, sarcastic, or arrogant."How many creationists do you know that could explain the theory of relativity?"
--I know many.. They go to my (High)school."but one could interpret it, and all other evidences, as evidence for evolution."
--Back to what I said which is being commented on:

quote:

---

Name something that had to be discovered under the influence of Evolution.. Evolution doesn't advance science, neither does Creation, science is advanced by knowledge through experimentation, and observation.

---

--This again is not an advancement that Evolution had to have brought about, no matter your interperetation."So where is this other mechanism that ordered the strata?"
--I must have quoted myself atleast 12 times in my time of these forums.

quote:

---

There are many factors, intelligence, agility/menuverability(could it climb treas or have the ability to menuver in the midst of chaos well), shape/structure (fur, density (muscle sinks and fat floats I believe from because of density), lungs and air, etc), environment, habitat (did it live on the bottom of the ocean, middle, top of the ocean, live on ground, could it fly, and if it could fly how long can it stay in the air and when it is on the ground what is its relevance to menuverability (pterosaurs are thought to 'waddle' simmilar to the way bats menuver on ground as is shown by pelvis structure), also how can this animal adapt to quick changing environments, ie ice age or rapid climate changes could have caused virtually all non-insulated animals to die quickly and be subject to quick burrial on the next sediment deposits with little rustling around of the bodies. Hydrologic sorting plays a very small part in the reason they are burried the way they are.
--Note these arent all the factors, just the obvious ones to get discussion started.

---

--Environmental conditions would also contribute."I see a lot more science that the average 40 year old."
--Grammer, or were you going to finish?"you’re right- let’s leave it to people like stephen hawking and carl sagan"
--Hm... and I thought they were both cosmologists and astrophysicists, well I guess that smarts."as well as all those highly experienced biologists and geologists who know their field like the back of their hand, but have been convinced by the finer marketing campaign of the evilutionists."
--Now surelly you have something to back up your claim, as you are so confident. What is it that has convinced them, or is it too advanced for us and we just take the scientists word for it."let’s not try t fill this issue with scientific technicals. We see primitive species deeper in the strata, and more adapted and modern looking ones at the top "
--Thats right, no argument with that."Unless I am grossly mistaken, most creationists claim that speciation has never been observed and thus cannot have happened (this is false- search lake victoria- speciation- sand bar)."
--Well then I must say that they then are 'grossly' ill-informed."Speciation is evidence of evolution, is it not."
--Speciation is a process of evolution, per se, nothing that is going to get you a dog from a horse an any time-period though, its basically a 'devolving' process."You seem to be swimming against mainstream creation-science when you say that speciation could have ordered these fossils, however that’s possible."
--Speciation, ordering the fossils? Speciation did not order the fossils, speciation is a process of diversification and veriety, it isn't a fossil orderation."Maybe you could elaborate for the sake of the elementary student."
--Emphesis is above."Firstly, how would that be evidence of creationism?"
--your the one trying to argue it, I am not arguing against it. This is basically just as much 'evidence' as the existance of llamas is evidence of creation, its a bit irrelevant."Secondly, you have not mentioned one dating method that goes against the old earth."
--How can I! You have such a long time-scale!"Thirdly, ancient geneology, tree-ring dating, coral core dating"
--Mabye you should emphesise or give reference in details, as I can assert that 1000 year old cow droppings proves a young earth but it isn't really going to mean anything untill I can explain why it is."(dates back 40000 years, etcs, all verify beliefs regarding the age of the egyptians, chinese, and other ancient cultures. Radiometric dating, when used side-by-side with the above dating methods, works surprisingly well, considering the earth is only 10000 years old."
--See above."the flood would have deposited sediment layers and large boulders across the face of the planet ar am I just stupid?"
--They are, allover the planet.. Any Geological concept whether young earth or old earth requires this, especially with an ice age, but we wouldn't be aware of that now would we?"c14 dating works well with all other natural and unnatural methods of dating. But you address that issue later.
And are you implying that if the theory of evolution crumbled, creation would be correct? Wow"
--Hm... Nope, I've read over my response bout 3 times and still havent found where I made that assertion."how would these records survive the flood?"
--Because they were post-flood, your not going to get records of a flood written before the flood happens..."I love this typical delaying tactic- pretend to be interested in something that completely demolishes your argument- but since you asked"
--You should try it some-time, or mabye I'm using Joz's 'lure them in and open up with the big guns' tactic, it shows that I am not narrow-minded."I love this typical delaying tactic- pretend to be interested in something that completely demolishes your argument- but since you asked
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/answered.htm
an excellent site that addresses this and many other issues. Do a search on google as well.
http://www.moses-egypt.net/STAR-MAP_s2-FAQ.asp
there’s another that does not touch the issue of creationism versus evolution"
--The first one was unable to load, it seems the link is wrong, though the second I can comment on. It does not have any dispute and is evident by its own words that it does not conflict with the date of the flood in any of these quotes where it mentions a date:

quote:

---

and even for a fair dating to one of the oldest Chinese records of an eclipse (1050 BC). Stephenson’s "Historical Eclipses" is one of the best recent publications in this field, but still it must be borne in mind that the Senmut star map is 500-800 years further back in times.

---

--Looks like I have no problem with the Chinese records as of yet either.

quote:

---

Furthermore, one of the oldest known Egyptian presentations of a planetary position, places Jupiter close to the decan (celestial sector of 10-degrees) of Sirius. This dates back some 4200 years, and is recorded on a fragment of a starclock-diagram depicted inside a coffin-lid - (a traditional method of recording).

---

quote:

---

A thousand years before the time of Senmut, the astronomer-priests were developing such skills by constant observation of the firmament, which necessitated the keeping of accurate records, especially with regard to calculating celestial positions and cyclic phenomena.

---

quote:

---

The observation that the Senmut-map presents a concrete celestial conjunction 1534 BC seems to be supported by the subsequent maps in the following centuries demonstrating that these conditions are reflected here, too.

---

quote:

---

Concerning the above mentioned tms n hntt on the Senmut star map - cf. the treatise’s paragraph 3 - the following note may be added: The early existence of several variants of this expression is well known, e.g. tms n hnt and tms n hnty etc., several of which go back to the star clock diagrams belonging to the early coffin groups (c. 2200 BC). However, the precise combination in our case, tms n hntt , seems to be found on the Senmut star map for the first time.

---

quote:

---

Given that there is no safe way of extrapolating so far back in time, it would of course be risky to give the exact hour of an eclipse 3500 years ago, as has been done in the paper under discussion. (It was merely intended to serve as an additional illustration of how precise the information of the Senmut map would be). As stated above, it is of no significance for the basic dating of this star map. In any case, the general positions in the sky for the Sun, Moon, and all the planets are correct and unambiguous.

---

--Nothing in this paper challenges the date of the flood, but actually, as I said earlier, was an interesting read and was informative, not to mention appealing to the dating of the Flood."I have, and I do not understand how this could support the flood model"
--See my quote on this in this post. If you have any comments or think that there is anything that exists in the record you can challenge it. It is a perfect supportation of the Flood model."absolutel. But when you have two theories side-by-side, the one that explains the facts the most consistently using the least amount of unnatural phenomena and speculation wins the battle for the hearts of the scientist."
--(Creationism it is!)"Well, the Bible states that God stopped THE SUN FROM ORBITING THE EARTH (So the sun stood still in the midst of the heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day -Joshua 10:13b) Assuming that the Bible really meant that the earth stopped orbiting around the sun, we can assume that it would take god to completely defy the laws of nature. So clever, were these creationists, that they discovered the missing day in space. This is of course an urban legend. Oh well- god still did it."
--I am aware of the myth of NASA discovering a missing day. Also, where did you ever come to the conclusion that the bible says that God stopped the Earth from orbiting around the sun, this is contrary to what it says. Some creationists do go for the maraculous event that God sopped the earth from orbiting or stopped the earth from spinning. Though I take a different approach. It may have been a wobble in the axis of the Earths tilt, caused by an astroid impact, or a fly-by of a large body."tree-ring dating, c14 dating, and ancient geneology dating all come to the same conclusion- the Egyptians are older than the flood."
--You need to re-work your assertion, provide more evidence, as your cosmological impications are wrong."Coral cores, varves, and etc all prove that the earth is far older than the creationist model."
--No actually it doesn't, tell me why it is, and I would like a detailed explination on the Coral cores implication as well."But there is a reason for this, I;m sure. In fact, I bet all these methods really indicate that the planet is as old as the creationist model suggests it is"
--I sure have found so."OK- I’ll say I and Stephen Hawking, the late Carl Sagan, all archaeologists, geologists, scientists, teachers, etc. Now, correct us all, will you. I’m dying to know where these dating methods are"
--I hope you are ready to explain what I asked for you 2 questions back. After you have done so, I will give you a more appropriate response."I gave you the precious links, and possibly you could do some research of your own, if you are indeed so interested in this."
--I gave you my response on your cosmological inference, your postulate was wrong, its probably a good Idea to read the link before it is given also. Furthermore, I have about 11 references in my favorites on this, not a one describes the reason for their dates, neither have I gotten it out of any other person."coral cores date back 40000 years, for some reason."
--I found some 40billion year old shrubs in my back yard, I guess that invalidates the big bang idea. (please, detail, or reference)"you haven’t addressed any of the other dating methods."
--Neither has yourself given any detail, accept in assertion seemingly based on what somebody told you most likely."And please elaborate on the tree-ring c14 issue"
--If I might quote:AiG - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp

quote:

---

Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.

---

"
but that didn’t even seem to address the issue. The best you can present is doubt over the dating methods."
--If I did not place doubt on them, you shouldn't place doubt on my cow feces or my 40 billion year old shrubs, because thats just as much information as you have given me."But no evidence that the methods point to the creationist models, like they should.
Your arguments are just chsing evolution, but not strengthening creationism."
--Ehem, neither has yourself.------------------

"Ok TC explain to me by what mechanism does a sudden innundation of H2O sort dead organisms by degree of sophistication rather than by size/shape/density....Thats assuming it wouldn`t just churn everything up into a homogenous layer...."
--See my response to quicksink, it is in there on the sorting mechenism, they were deposited in many many heterogeneous layers, contrary to a single homegeneous statum.------------------

"Take a look here, http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=29&p=12 , message 181 (last half) dealing with problems of flood sorting fossils. I got bored pointing out all the problems with TCs "model" (not that he presented one). You, along with myself & others will be back & forth for aeons with this example & that, & get exactly nowhere."
--This is a good idea probably to get back to that one, I never got the chance to do respond, my current knowledge is much higher than previously in geological (some biological) and atmospheric dynamics. Though I do believe that examples that would attempt to contredict the model is a good process, though it obviously would be an endless one from a debate like this. As to find it theoretical it must be found falsifiable without falsification."So take a leaf out of my book & join me in pushing for TCs "flood model of fossil deposition". No more single examples, no more "these are cleverer, these will live longer, these can fly". A model that can be universally applied please."
--See above."TC, please present. Message 181 went unanswered & is relevant to the discussion here."
--Yes it very well may be, i'll get to it. I previously attempted a response but did not finish, I will start over with my knew knowledge on the subject.(Sorry, post 88 is missing because of a double post of the same thing)
------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-11-2002]