Scientists see the change from Home erectus to modern man taking place over some two million years.
Lots of changes did happen. The changes were mostly in the former nature though, and were lightning fast in comparison to today. Most evolving of the kinds could have happened within a century. Possibly living creatures in the former state may have evolved while alive even!? In any case adapting and evolving were FAST.
quote:Creationists generally balk at the idea that evolution can produce new kinds in two million years--or at all--but now are proposing that such change can occur in a couple of thousand years.
No, in days! (back then, not now)
quote:Creationists Lubenow and Woodmorappe write that Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man--all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.
Who knows? I submit that man and most animals could not even leave fossilized remains in the former state, so that we do not know what they looked like then! All bones and fossils of man are post flood.
quote: If this was the case, the change from modern man, i.e., Adam and Eve, to these four species of fossil man took place since the Babel incident, which is usually placed after the global flood and in the range of 4,000 to 5,300 years ago.
Funny you should say that. Thie time of Babel was about the very time when I pinpoint that the nature changed probably!
quote: The change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times faster than scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man! This is in spite of the fact that most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all; now they have not only proposed such a change themselves, but see it several hundreds of times faster and in reverse!
No problem. I can out evolution the evolutionists!
quote: Unfortunately for creationists, the evidence shows they are wrong about this also. (Oh, incidentally, there was no flood during historic times either.)
I agree. History started after the flood. As for evidence...what are you talking about exactly?
Re: most of us are neither utterly ignorant or utterly dishonest
quote:Are you really that utterly ignorant or are you like all Creationists just a handicapped?
That sounds like an insult.
quote:How handicapped Creationists are and how pitiful.
quote:Change leaves evidence.
Not the sort you could detect or even recognize if it bit you on the chin.
quote:If there was a different nature those of us not in the Christian Cult of Ignorance could see the evidence.
Not here to debate then, but to air hatred for certain people. OK.
quote:Those of us who are neither stupid or dishonest can look at the evidence of the waste products from the Oklo reactor and see that radioactive decay was the same about two billion years ago as it was today.
No. You can idly fantasize about unproven magic dunking of the sites and magic resurfacing as needed in your imagination.
quote: We can look at the spectrum from stars and see that radioactive processes were the same many billions of years ago as they are today.
No. You don't even know how far away any are, what else is there you can't see, where it came from, or where it is going etc etc.
quote: And more ignorance, pitiful ignorance, woeful ignorance and utter dishonesty.
It may rock your boat but my guess at when the flood was stands. You need more than whining.
quote: The imaginary Biblical flood, regardless of which of the two mutually exclusive flood myths got included in the Bible stories, claims that there were men and women and cattle and sheep and pigs and ravens and doves and lions and tigers and bears and ohmys that existed from the beginning, regardless of which of the two creation myths that got included in the Bible stories yet there is not a single fossil of any of the imaginary kinds mentioned in any of the Bible stories below the K/T boundary.
Nor should there be since from dust we came, and in the former nature, to dust we returned real fast. Too fast to fossilize. This is news?
quote: So we have evidence that the radioactive decay is the same today as it was billions of years ago (and so the same as it was at the time of the K/T boundary) and evidence that none of the Biblical kinds got killed anywhere near the time of the K/T event and so once again that is simply more evidence that the Biblical flood never happened.
Nope. Yo don't. You have empty talk.
quote: It might be where the utterly ignorant or utterly dishonest leave off being able to determine actual time but it is not a problem for those of us who are not utterly ignorant or utterly dishonest.
In other words you believe what you want with no support. Whoopee do.
quote: Those of us who are not Creationists are capable of thinking.
quote:Curiously science has tested and tested and tested to see if there was a "different nature" and have found no trace of it.
False. The did not and could not.
quote: Uranium halos for example. See Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?
Not in any way. Explain how you think they are?
quote: My opinion at the moment is ... Completely irrelevant. Opinions for some strange reason seem to have absolutely no effect on reality.
Bible based opinions matter. Opinions from science with no support do not.
quote: And yet we DO have several annual counting systems that don't rely on radioactive decay that show the earth is well over 500,000 years old and ... amazingly they agree totally with the radiometric dates.
Name them? Why pretend?
quote: You have yet to even pretend to attempt to posit an explanation for this.
No I have no need to pretend to know about creaton and the far past, as science does. Phonies indeed.
quote: And yet, whether you like it or not, there is an amazing consilience of many different means of measurements all reaching the same conclusion.
The ONLY consilience is in your mind and belief set. When you molest evidences with them, they look a certain way to you.
quote: So we have:
zero evidence of any change in the nature of things
History and Scripture disagree with you. They scream out that it was not the same. YOU have no evidence either way. Don't project onto me your failures.
quote: actual evidence that there has been no change in the nature of things
Runaway beliefs are not evidence.
quote: no cause to posit a change in the nature of things
No cause not to. There is cause to assume the records of the past are different from the nature today though. In all ways I win.
Of course there were millions of fossilized creatures below the KT. But the point that whizzes over your head is that MOST creatures alive at that time, and man, probably could not leave fossilized remains at all. That makes the millions of fossils from the minority of creatures we do find as fossils a small fraction of the actual life on earth from that time.
You have no empirical evidence. You reject history and the record of Scripture. All you can do is claim ignorance and admit not knowing. As for the radio halos, do not offer some thread as support. Show us how these halos show what you claim they show.
Your ages remain wrong and fantasy until you first prove the same past nature that the claims depend and rest on.
As for man not leaving remains...show us that he would have? Oh...wait you are preaching your same state religion again...IF there was one we woulda coulda shoulda fossilized. Gong! As for timelines you use one you believe I will do the same. Yours are silly and faith based.