Y.E.C. Model: Was there rapid evolution and speciation post flood?

Nothing needs to be ignored to have the flood at the KT time that I have heard about? As for your decay dates, they are garbage. No better than a belief in aun unproven same nature in the past.

Since you neither know how evolving used to happen, and have no way of knowing, why would we care how it strikes your fancy?

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.

---

That too.

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.

---

You mean believing.

Nope. The fundamental properties are set by beliefs!

Then you haven't heard much of the evidence involved.There are no ape -- to say nothing about human -- fossils found below the KT boundary. They don't show up until many millions of years later.The KT boundary geology also shows absolutely no evidence of a world wide flying carpet magic flood. Again an assertion without an ounce of evidence. One can assert that pigs fly and that unicorns are real, but sadly -- for you -- that doesn't make it real.If you have evidence that decay dates are garbage then let's see it. You've already been asked several times for this. Failure to substantiate your claims make them worthless. Except that there is actual evidence for consistent nature in SN1987A, Oklo natural generators and the uranium halos, to say nothing of the massive evidence for an old world with annual counting systems corroborating radiometric dating methods at every pass, consistently arriving at the same results -- a fact you have yet to address in any shape or form.Dodging from one thread to another does not relieve you of the onus to answer the issues that demonstrate you fantasy is just that: imagination.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

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.

Why would apes be below the former nature layer? Man and most animals could not leave remains then probably. Ha.This is easy.

Sorry that the truth insults you.

Another empty assertion based on fantasy and ignorance and wishful thinking, but sadly, not on reality.You're going to need more than that to have any kind of argument. As I said, see the thread Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?.Sadly I have to warn you that it is fairly evidence based and may be beyond your apparent understanding of how to make a valid argument: you have yet to provide one (1) →ONE← piece of evidence for any of your assertions. Sadly, for you (once more), this is a science forum topic and bible based opinions are totally irrelevant and to be ignored -- you need to provide actual evidence not opinions and desperate imaginings.Because IFF that "bible based opinion" had ANY validity you would have scientific evidence for it ... and would not need the opinion. Amusingly you have apparently abandoned the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread because you had no answer for the evidence there. You failed there and have moved on to other threads ... but that doesn't make the evidence go away.Fail #4? I'm beginning to lose count ... Please see the forum guidlines.You are on a science forum thread, and evidence is expected to support assertions -- objective empirical evidence (but you may not know what that entails ... ) Says the person who can't get beyond the first posts on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 without running away gibbering ...Once again, your opinion is worthless.Once again, what is your evidence.Fail #4 History (and scripture, what can be tied to historical dates anyway) validated the tree ring data ... but you haven't even looked at the updated version The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1) yet have you? Sad. See Accuracy and Precision in Dendrochronologies Compared to Historical Events. Please see the references ... And I'm glad that you agree with me that your runaway beliefs are not evidence, just as your rabid denial of the objective empirical evidence I have provided is just evidence of your inability to deal with reality.Fail #5 So entertaining. It's like you are in an axe fight and all you have is a rubber toy hatchet.You are so far from winning that you can't even see the horizon event.Next is to run away after declaring victory ...You have NO evidence. NONE.Fail #6EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Why not? Where do all the older fossils come from then. What makes them special compared to man and most mammals?"Probably?" -- that is the weakest assertion you have made to date, and that's quite an accomplishment for you.You also do not explain why the earliest known primate is 10 million years after the KT event.Or why the first ape is 30 million years later ...Or why the earliest known hominid is less than 6 million years ago ...Or why the earliest known humand is less than 4 million years ago ...Or why the earliest known Homo sapiens is only 300,000 years ago (less than the oldest age derived from annual counting of layers). Indeed, it is always easy to show that someone who is ignorant is failing when they don't have any evidence and aren't aware of the evidence against them.What is this ... fail #6?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

What is so funny about Creationists is that they can make statements like that and then feel insulted when it is pointed out that they are either butt ignorant or totally and utterly dishonest or most likely both. Yet we have literally millions of fossils of animals from below the KT boundary but not ONE example of ANY of the "kinds" listed in the Bible stories. And if the flood was meant to kill off man and animal where are the remains?The idea that the Biblical Flood ever happened is at best laughable.Reality says starman is simply spouting shit yet again.People like Faith and starman are an embarrassment to Christianity and the greatest force to drive people away from Jesus' message.

Your opinion of God's people or truth actually doesn't much matter to me...as insulting as you would like to be.

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.

Very simple. Your ages are wrong. Man and most creatures only started to appear as fossilized remains after the flood (or more precisely, the nature change a little time after the flood).Here is a timeline that is closer to reality than the usual geologic column timeline you are familiar with.A Journey of Discovery - Timeline

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.