QUESTIONS

here are some questions. I'd like to see if creationists can tackle them.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.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?3). Why do multiple, independent methods all agree on an estimated age of the earth at 4.5 billion years?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?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?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.7). Why don't we observe a uniform, worldwide blanket of randomly sorted boulders, cobbles, sand, and silt overlain by a layer of clay. This blanket would overlie any pre-existing geologic record. Since the Flood allegedly took place a mere 5000 years ago, this evidence should still remain with very little erosion.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".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.those are just a few. please don't tell me that i'm going to broad. just answer one or two of them. or address each one in a separate post.

quote:

---

7. Join the solving the Biblical flood thread. That's way to indepth here. Anyway, why would it be uniform? Did the water cover earth identically everywhere following the exact same patterns.

---

it wouldn't be uniformic.... but we would find randomly deposited boulders all over the planet.we don't

i think i will keep pushing this post up until someone gives an answer. so here we go...

by the way, i am not trying to prove anything. i am asking questions, and wondering if there are answers.is it really that controversial to ask a few questions in a forum... all a creationist has to do is write a small reply for each question...it's almost annoying that peoplea re so nit-picky about putting all these questions in one forum.answer a single question, or two, if you like... just answer them...

WHEW! i'm glad that someone out there is actually supportive.well, anyway, i hope to see some answers, although it make take a very long time.and crono- are you a creationist, cause if you are, those answers, no offense, were pretty unconvincing. just wondering.

Maybe someone would like to answer my questions....

quote:

---

1)You would think so, but the world wide flood upset everything. Granted it didn't move everything around, but it did do enough to blow the little bones of a rat or rabbit around. In this process, the little bones were scattered and tossed, leaving them strewn about and practically unperceivable to the untrained eye. The bones of a dinosaur are considerably larger than a rat or rabbit making those bones much easier to find.

---

WOW! this argument is really weak...a) if these smalll bones were "blown around", why do we find the fossils of things like tiny dinosaurs and small and primitive birds? weren't they "blown around"b) a flood of that magnitude would have blown everything around. Dinosaur bones are actually not that much larger or heavier than other animals. They are just larger overall... and a global flood would have blown everything around.c) These animals would not have been just bones right away... if you knew about fossilization, you would know that the bodies are buried under silt, and then put under enormous pressure. At the same time, the flesh rots away.d) WE find no evidence of fossils being blown around! If they had been, we would find random bones everywhere.you've opened up a pandora's box...

quote:

---

3)That's the best estimate that evolutionists can come up with. If it's any longer it disproves a large portion of evolution. If its any shorter, it disproves a different large portion of evolution. Even now, it disproves some of evolution. The truth is, there is no time that is perfect that doesn't disprove some portion of evolution. It all depends what you believe. Every evolutionist believes something a little different than another. Kinda like politics, people can be republican but one is pro-life and one is pro-choice. There has never been any evidence that any kind of plant or animal has ever been able to create itself or produce any other kind of plant or animal. We have seen thousands of changes within the created kinds but that is not evolution.

---

well, firstly, the 4.5 billion old planet does not disprove evolution in the slightest.secondly, you have blatantly side-stepped the question. you have told me that the evolution dates are wrong (without any evidence, i might add), but give no evidence to suggest creationist dates are right.thirdly, we have seen changes in species, very substantial ones at that. for example, look deep in the fossil strata and you'll find evidence of this. dinosaurs evolved. mammals evolved...but of course, that perfect strata was layed down in the flood. how silly of me...

quote:

---

5)That's because today's society is saturated with evolution and "evolution science." People who have gone to public schools for their entire life have been hit with evolution since kindergarten. The fact that they believe evolution over everything else is bunk because that's all that people are taught. The "Theory of Evolution" is not a theory but a religion. People blindly believe that we came from dirt. A government funded religion because (as I said earlier) people don't want to take responsibility for their actions and people will believe anything before they believe that there's a God. Also, you have to take into account the ratio of people that attend public schools and private schools. Your whole argument is invalidated somewhat due to the fact that public schools far outnumber private schools. So of course since creation has been taken out of school due to the separation of church and state (which is bunk) now evolution is taught without restraint or even giving people choice by showing both sides (creation/evolution). The children of today are being indoctrinated by evolution to the point at which they don't know what else to believe because people don't teach anything else.

---

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.

TC- could you tell me why the most experienced scientists laugh at creationism?

TCdo me the honor of answering my questions...you are talking to us about how creationism is just a different intepretation of the same evidence, and yet you refuse to answer the questions...if creationism is true, you should have no troubles responding to the queries at hand.prove to us that you can answer those tough questions, simply, clearly, and briskly...

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"here are some questions. I'd like to see if creationists can tackle them."
--If I must...

---

oh, i'm quite sorry for inconveniencing you with these stupid questions...

quote:

---

"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).

---

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

quote:

---

"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.

---

[roll eyes] here we go again... the good old "evolution has had a better marketing campaign" story...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?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?

quote:

---

"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.

---

well why don't you do the research, and come back with that answer, hmm?

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?"
--Reference?

---

Let's not play these games...

quote:

---

"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.

---

Dnag! you got me! I'm totally lying! (ay caramba!)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.

quote:

---

"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.

---

let me start;evolution requires the existence of a neat and very ancient geological strata, arranged from most primitive to most advanced. I think we see that.evolution requires a very, very old earth. We see that.Evolution requires the obsservation of macroevolution- we see that...Evolution requires the finding of half men half ape fossils/remains- we find that...etc etc etcnow let's see about creationism:it requires dating evidence of a 10,000 year old eartg- stolen by world wide evolutionist society- only known to creationistsrequires the finding that stars are 10000 or less light years away if we are seeing them- god made light to appear that way (millions or even billions of light years away) but din't ask me why...creationism requires the existence of fossils of all species that existed during the flood.... we only see primitive ones...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... nopecreationism requires the existence of randomly deposited boulders across the planet... nope, sorrycreationism 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... it also requires records from cultures indicating a massive flood... nothing yet... (the egyptians were around before the flood because we were able to match their recordings of lunar eclipses, asteroids, etc. with the actual events...)

quote:

---

"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'.

---

i'll have to find out about that theory... but wouldn't it be simpler to say that geological findings suggestive of evolution are actually evidences of evolution?

quote:

---

"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.

---

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.?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?and what other problems can you find with the dating methods such as looking at egyptian/chinese geneology (and their recordings of natural phenomenas), coral cores, tree-rings, and all the other methods that corroborate eachother?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?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...and fyi, you missed a few questions...thanks for answering them... finally someone is paying attention to them!

just pushing this to the top...i don't think these questions have been answered as of yet...

is anyone actually going to answer these questions, or are they just too stupud... c'mon creationists- prove to us evilutionists that your theory has some foundation of fact, and then we can start talking.let's go!

am i talking to myself, or am i just trying to prove something?hello people? hello creationists? i have posed some questions at the beginning of this thread. someone can answer them soon...one finds themselves constantly giving mouth-to-mouth to unanswered questions.