Point 69: You may be able to explain how an "older fossil" would come up higher, but you can't explain why the "newer", "more complex" fossils are found in old strata. How would you explain "complex" creatures found in "older" strata? They can't go down, those layers are aready set! But a Flood that layed down most/all of the layers in one period would have no difficulty explaining this.
Point 70: The Flood laid down the layers we find and the fossils in them. The Flood formed the mountains and the valleys, it displaced much land. How is it that you evolutionists claim the Colorado River could "carve out" the Grand Canyon, yet deny that a WORLD WIDE FLOOD could carve rock pretty deep? The Flood carried boulders and trees with it, this mass could easily carve out any valley.
About the Boat surviving, keep in mind, the engineer of this Boat was God Himself. You can trust God to make a good Boat design, He won't let Noah and his family die, they're the only ones to continue the human race! Noah only followed directions precisely, but God made the design for that Boat, it's called an Ark.
How did the Flood make the different layers? Kent Hovind always uses this one: Take a jar with sand and water, shake it up, and you'll have layers forming in minutes. Think about it, the heavier sediments will settle lower than the lighter ones, natural settling action. The Flood doesn't "know" how to deposit anything, it just did it's thing, move, and the sediments would settle according to weight and density. The Flood probably was pretty muddy, considering all the mountains it formed and all the soil it displaced.As for the boiling water, I don't know if it was boiling, but a part of the water came from the "fountains of the deep", proposedly underground geysers, these could be hot, and volcanoes may have been seriously distrubed, releasing much HOT magna.
Point 71: I'll quote Walt Brown of the Center for Scientific Creation:
"In an unpublished experiment at Loma Linda University, a dead bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian were placed in an open water tank. Their buoyancy in the days following death depended on their density while living, the build-up and leakage of gases from their decaying bodies, the absorption or loss of water by their bodies, and other factors. That experiment showed that the natural order of settling following death was amphibian, reptile, mammal, and finally bird. This order of relative buoyancy correlates closely with 'the evolutionary order,' but, of course, evolution did not cause it." (underlined emphasis mine)
This experiment supports how the "more advanced" creatures would settle "higher" than "less advanced."
Also, remember, birds can fly, so they could fly untill they died and settle higher. Animals that can run could have ran to higher ground to escape death. Monkeys and bears could have climbed trees in effort to escape the doom coming upon them. The underwater creatures wouldn't be able to do this, they would be stuck lower. Creatures that could cling to tree parts would settle later. This shows how the "more advanced" creatures would be found higher. Take a small frog and a human, the human is bigger and heavier, but he can swim, climb to higher ground, and cling to floating debris. The frog can't do much but jump. Which one settles lower? The lighter frog or the heavier human who has more ability to move and grasp and swim? I mean, picture how the creatures would be fighting for life as the Flood is swirling around them, which ones have a better chance to stay above the surface longer?
Plants don't swim. Have you ever seen a leaf floating on water, or grass, get the picture?
Point 72: Refer to above point for how a human would settle higher than a frog.
Now for the replies to your quote points:
1. An elephant can swim, not all dinosaurs can. A dinosaur is typically heavier than an elephant, and may be slower if running up to higher ground.
2. Algae are usually located where- in the water or near it on rocks. Other plants are usually located where- in meadows and forests. Which would get buried faster, the one in/near a source of water or the one in a meadow at higher elevation?
3. Mollusks in several "layers"? Picture the swirling water and "fountains of the deep" bursting... Besides, those layers do not signify "million year spans" according to Creation, those layers were laid during the Flood in one basic period.
4. Brachiopods range from 5mm. to 8 cm., but if the quote says they were relatively the same size, something to consider is how well certain brachiopods can stick to rocks, which ones would get taken away in the current faster, and where certain brachiopods are generally located, ie. higher on rocks or lower.
5. Certain creatures had different abilities. Some were more fit(wieght and muscle wise) than others (fat and lazier), so where they were buried would vary. As for pterodons, remember, Noah took animals on the Ark, and birds too. When they were released, the dinosaurs most likely died out due to such a different environment and climate. But during the Flood, the pterodons probably settled lower for they were heavier than other birds, they had no feathers...
6. Coral reefs were already under water, so they could be preserved better since the Flood's water movement would be less severe under deep water. Fossils could be formed wherever, so if the fountains of the great deep blew up under the coral reefs, the creatures there would be covered up, while the coral reefs could have been stronger and maybe farther away and more able to remain intact. Just about anything's possible in a Flood like Noah's Flood.
7. Refer to point 71 about the frog and the human.
8. Everything would be sorted in the Flood, all artifacts and creatures on earth. They would be sorted according to weight and density and floatability, etc.
9. What about that hammer found in Cretaceous rock? Clarification, the world was NOT probably overflowing with ship builders at that time. They didn't even have rain before the Flood. God gave Noah instructions to build that Ark. The deep oceans most likely were a RESULT of the Flood, so I doubt there were many ship builders before the Flood.
10. The trees wouldn't be able to move around, they would get buried pretty quickly, along with all their other parts.
11. The climate during the Flood was changing rapidly. The rain would bring down pollen in the air, other pollen in plants would be buried with them faster, etc. It's just how things would get buried. Also, different pollens from different plants would be located in their own places, whether it's a forest or mountain or meadow, so the different pollens would be buried in their relative places, which may be at different elevations.
Why would I have to deny the trilobites' existence?
Point 73: Sure, some trees with stronger roots may remain in their positions, but that's not the point! The point is that there are trees, and whales, protruding through SEVERAL "LAYERS" which are supposed to signify "millions of years." Do you claim that a tree, or whale, was partially buried, lived a couple million years, got buried a little more, etc.? Or do you deny your own datings of the layers?
Point 74: The one right above ^^. Quickly forming layers in one Great Flood would allow for trees, and whales, to be found upright through several layers, evolution with each layer signifying some "millions of years" can't.
I will continue with the rest of this post and others a bit later, this next part is pretty long.
But just so you don't get too exited, referring to the Age Correlations thing never being refuted, and the tree ring part of it: tree rings do not exactly form rings equally, if there are two wet seasons in a year, the tree will form 2 rings, thus those points about tree rings showing old age are refuted in this short post.
To be continued.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed the underline code from dBCode (which doesn't exist) to HTML.
"If youâ€™re living like there is no God youâ€™d better be right!" - Unknown
Under points 70 and 71, I falsely ascribed chalk formation to diatoms when actually they are formed by a single celled algae called coccolithophores.
Thanks for the correction goes to the creator of this thread, Lithodid-Man. See Message 38 for more details.
Unfortunately for your argument, this means that such chalk deposits would have taken even longer to form as the coccolithophores only deposit chalk sediment at a rate of less than 1 millimeter per year.
Now for another look at evolution. Many evolutionists claim that the human body has vestigial organs which were â€œleftoversâ€ from our supposed previous forms, on the pathway from a single cell to our state now. This has some difficulties, and we will now examine some. It was once believed that humans had 180 vestigial organs. Now, with better knowledge and research techniques, there are only a few listed vestigial organs, with even those being debatable. See, the further we progress in knowledge, the more we figure out that those â€œvestigialâ€ organs actually have jobs and functions, some that you could not live without!
Vestigial structures indicate common ancestry as opposed to special creation since their presence under circumstances other than evolution would conclude an incompetent, or intentionally deceitful, designer. From Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial_structure :
quote: Vestigial structures are often homologous to structures that are functioning normally in other species. Therefore, vestigial structures can be considered evidence for evolution, the process by which beneficial heritable traits arise in population over an extended period of time. The existence of vestigial organs can be attributed to changes in the environment and behavior patterns of the organism in question. As the function of the structure is no longer beneficial for survival, the likelihood that future offspring will inherit the "normal" form of the structure decreases.
The vestigial versions of the structure can be compared to the original version of the structure in other species in order to determine the homology of a vestigial structure. Homologous structures indicate common ancestry with those organisms that have a functional version of the structure.
Sure, some scientists made mistakes in the past as Robert Wiedersheim did by listing 180 vestigial organs. However, unlike the way â€œcreation scienceâ€ usually operates, once the mistake is determined, it is corrected, as opposed to continuing to re-quote the same mistake forever. Vestigial organs are numerous throughout life, so in the interest of brevity, and to go beyond limiting such structures solely to humans, why not list the top 10 according to Live Science at http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/top10_vestigial_organs.html :
1. Human appendix â€“ to be covered in point 86
2. Male breast tissue and nipples â€“ Obviously as unnecessary as teats on a Boar Hog, but clearly a leftover from the fact they are developed in the embryo prior to sexual differentiation.
3. Fake sex in virgin whiptail lizards â€“ The lizard genus Cnemidophorus reproduces asexually as it only contains females that give birth to clones. Yet they still engage in sexual behavior, with some of the female lizards acting as males would in other genusâ€™s despite the fact such behavior is unnecessary for reproduction.
4. Sexual organs in dandelions â€“ Dandelions have the sexual organs of most flowers, stamens and pistils, yet they also reproduce asexually.
5. Wisdom teeth in humans â€“ Wisdom teeth, a leftover from the good old days when our human ancestors were expected to loose teeth due to a diet of crunchy nuts and tubers, only grow normally in 5% of cases. Originally, the wisdom teeth existed to replace lost molars, but given our current diet and greater oral hygiene, are now a way to keep dentists employed in their removal.
6. Non-functional eyes in blindfish â€“ The species Astyanax mexicanus, known as the blindfish or blind tetra, is naturally found in completely dark caves where eyesight is useless. Yet the blindfish develops eyes in the embryonic stage, only to have them partially reabsorbed. Later the fish grows a flap of skin over the vestigial eye.
7. Human tailbone â€“ covered in point 86
8. Erector pilli and body hair â€“ Humans have a muscle which causes the hair to rise in response to stress (or really good music). This is a vestigial leftover from when our ancestors used such muscles to make their hair rise to appear larger to predators or other threats. Now that humans have too little body hair to appear larger, the muscles are vestigial.
9. Hind leg bones in whales â€“ The existence of embedded leg bones in whales that obviously donâ€™t need them, is vestigial.
10. Wings on flightless birds â€“ Ostriches, Cassowaries, and Kiwis donâ€™t fly, yet they still retain wings that however rudimentary, are still similar in structure to the wings of birds that do fly. It is also interesting to note that Penguins and Dodos have hollow bones when such hollowness is no longer needed for flight.
These are only a sample of such vestigial organs. In humans there are several further examples of vestigial structures that no longer exist in all individuals. If such structures are so necessary, why are some individuals able to function perfectly well without them? From Edward Willetâ€™s Useless Body Parts at http://www.edwardwillett.com/Columns/uselessbodyparts.htm :
quote: We have other useless muscles. The extrinsic ear muscles allow many animals to move their ears independently of their heads--all we can manage is a slight wiggle. The subclavius muscle, stretching under the shoulder from the first rib to the collarbone, would be useful if we walked on all fours but is so useless now that some people donâ€™t even have it.
Eleven percent of us also lack the palmaris muscle, a long, narrow muscle that runs from the elbow to the wrist that may have been important when we were tree climbers, and nine percent of us have lost the plantaris muscle, useful for gripping things with your feet. And more than 20 percent of us are missing the pyramidalis muscle, a tiny, triangular pouchlike muscle attached to the pubic bone that may be a relic from the days of our pouched marsupial ancestors. Other useless body parts include the vomeronasal organ, a tiny pit in the nose lined with nonfunctioning chemoreceptors that may once have been used to sense phermones; the third eyelid, retained as only a tiny fold in the inner corner of the eye, that may once have been a proper eyelid for protecting the eye and sweeping out debris; male nipples (present because milk-producing ducts form in an embryo before sex differentiation); the male uterus (a remnant of an undeveloped uterus that hangs off the male prostate gland); and the female vas deferens, or epoophoron, a cluster of useless dead-end tubules near the ovaries.
The above examples are by no means intended as a comprehensive list, there are at least hundreds of other vestigial structures known to exist among living things, including vestigial code in DNA.
Letâ€™s take a few examples. Like the coccyx, or tailbone. Many evolutionists have claimed that this tailbone is vestigial. But in reality, there are nine muscles attached to it! They help us move, sit, and excrete wastes. Without it, you would have no attachment point for these muscles, and that would not be good!
It is true that there are some muscles attached to the tailbone, which helps explain why this remnant tail still exists. Of course in the embryonic stage, humans do have tails that are reabsorbed, just like blindfish eyes. As other functions ascribed to the coccyx see http://www.talkreason.org/articles/section2.cfm :
quote: The coccyx is a developmental remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system (for more detail see the sections on the embryonic human tail and the atavistic human tail). Our internal tail is unnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications), with the only complaint, in a small fraction of patients, being that the removal of the coccyx sadly did not remove their pain (Grossovan and Dam 1995; Perkins et al. 2003; Postacchini Massobrio 1983; Ramsey et al. 2003; Shaposhnikov 1997; Wray 1991). Our small, rudimentary, fused caudal vertebrae might have some minor and inessential functions, but these vertebrae are useless for balance and grasping, their usual functions in other mammals.
Another vestigial organ that many evolutionists have listed is the appendix. So they go by that idea and remove your appendix if it is diseased, just like they did with the tonsils. But the appendix is actually a part of our immune system. It helps in the fighting of infections in the intestines.
If the human appendix is so vital for survival, why can people function without it? Any apparent advantage in retaining this structure is more than offset in cases of appendicitis, which often result in death if the appendix is not removed. Again fro the Live Science site:
quote: In 2000, in fact, there were nearly 300,000 appendectomies performed in the United States, and 371 deaths from appendicitis. Any secondary function that the appendix might perform certainly is not missed in those who had it removed before it might have ruptured.
At one point in history, evolutionists thought that the human embryo had vestigial organs. But each of these has been shown to have important functions in our body.
Each â€˜organâ€™ or more properly structure in a human embryo has an important function in the human body? Like the tail in the human embryo which does not normally protrude from the body? What of gill slits which in fish become gills but in humans become, among other things, parts that become the human ear. Yes embryonic structures do develop in embryos that diverge into different functions according to the evolution of the host. From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html :
quote: There are numerous other examples in which an organism's evolutionary history is represented temporarily in its development. Early in development, mammalian embryos temporarily have pharyngeal pouches, which are morphologically indistinguishable from aquatic vertebrate gill pouches (Gilbert 1997, pp. 380, 382). This evolutionary relic reflects the fact that mammalian ancestors were once aquatic gill-breathing vertebrates. The pharyngeal pouches of modern fish embryos eventually become perforated to form gills. Mammalian pharyngeal pouches of course do not develop into gills, but rather give rise to structures that evolved from gills, such as the eustachian tube, middle ear, tonsils, parathyroid, and thymus (Kardong 2002, pp. 52, 504, 581). The arches between the gills, called branchial arches, were present in jawless fish and some of these branchial arches later evolved into the bones of the jaw, and, eventually, into the bones of the inner ear as recounted above and in prediction 1.4, example 2.
Now letâ€™s examine the reasoning behind vestigial organs. If we indeed do have vestigial organs today, then that means they had to have been functioning in our supposed ancestors. But that means we are degrading, losing the functioning of our organs.
No, it means that some organs are unnecessary baggage from our ancestors, not that all organs are â€˜degrading.â€™ It just represents more evidence of evolution.
But evolution requires just the opposite, upgrading, from a single cell to a human. So are we upgrading, degrading, or neither?
Evolution only explains what is and how it got here. It does not make moralistic judgments concerning upgrading, degrading, or either. As far as evolution is concerned, all organisms that exist today are equally adapted to their environment and therefore equally evolved.
The idea of â€˜degradingâ€™ in criticism of science is usually reserved for fundamentalist religious cults where life, including human life, is supposed to be less â€˜perfectâ€™ as time goes on. Considering the message of self-hate common in such cults, in my opinion the term â€˜degradingâ€™ is appropriate in more ways than one.
Next, we will examine the dating methods. Many evolutionists use certain dating methods to tell the age of fossils, and come up with results just like their theory would propose, some ages around millions of years old or more. Letâ€™s examine how valid these dating methods really are.
The dates are not â€œresults just like their theory would propose.â€ To understand how dating methods have evolved, a history lesson is in order. It was obvious to anyone who seriously studied geology that the Earth was older than 6000 years old and that there was no evidence for a global flood before Darwinâ€™s Origin of Species was published in 1859. From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geohist.html
quote: 1774 Comte de Buffon: Epochs of Nature. Buffon assumed that the earth started molten, measured cooling rates of iron spheres, scaled up, and calculated the age at ~75,000 years. He himself was suspicious that this was much too young and, in manuscripts published after his death, suggested longer chronologies, including one estimate of nearly 3 billion years.
quote: 1788 James Hutton: Theory of the Earth; or, an investigation of the laws observable in the composition, dissolution and restoration of land upon the globe. Hutton is traditionally credited with being the father of modern geology. He was the first modern uniformitarian. Hutton argued that the Earth was of immense antiquity, cycling through changes via slow processes sans catastrophes. The last sentence of Hutton's 1788 work is famous and is widely quoted: The result, therefore, of our present enquiry is, that we find no vestige of a beginning - no prospect of an end.
quote: 1794 Robert Townson: Philosophy of Mineralogy. Townson was one of the many catastrophists of the late 18'th and early 19'th century. He pointed out that fieldwork had revealed that the features of the surface of the Earth could not be accounted for by a single Creation and catastrophic flood but rather successions of formation and dramatic change.
quote: 1857 Hugh Miller: The Testimony of the Rocks. Miller was a very popular creationist geologist. He believed that the Noachian flood was a local flood in the Mideast and did not credit the theory that the Earth was young. On page 324 he wrote: "No man acquainted with the general outlines of Palaeontology, or the true succession of the sedimentary formations, has been able to believe, during the last half century, that any proof of a general deluge can be derived from the *older* geologic systems, -- Palaeozoic, Secondary [Mesozoic], or Tertiary."
Obviously, such ideas concerning an ancient Earth that predate Darwinâ€™s Origins falsifies your apparent assertion that evidence from geology is used to fit into the concept of Darwinian evolution. Geoscientists, being scientists, use evidence for their hypothesis. They rarely, if ever, conspire to falsify data, as YEC â€˜scientistsâ€™ often do since there are undesirable consequences to telling lies in real science.
Continuing from Darwin in 1859 to the discovery of radioactivity in 1905.
quote: 1862 Lord Kelvin: On the Secular Cooling of the Earth. Using thermodynamic principles and measurements of thermal conductivity of rocks, Kelvin calculated that the earth consolidated from a molten state 98 million years ago. In 1897, he revised his estimate to 20-40 million years. Dalrymple says that Kelvin's estimates were "highly authoritative" for three decades, but notes that they were challenged by people from several fields, including T. H. Huxley, John Perry (a physicist), and T. C. Chamberlain (a geologist).
quote: 1893 Charles D. Walcott: Geologic Time, as Indicated by the Sedimentary Rocks of North America. Walcott takes a detailed look at the Paleozoic sediments of the Cordilleran Sea (just east of the Sierra Nevadas), considering such things as the land area supplying sediments and the grain sizes of the sediments. He arrived at an estimate of 17.5 million years for the Paleozoic and, based on various other authors' estimates of relative ages of the other eras, 55 million years for the earth.
As can be seen several individuals that had actually studied the evidence long before the discovery of radioactivity knew the Earth was far older than any 6000 years and that there was no evidence for any global flood 4500 years ago.
One rock, found in Nigeria, was dated to be 30 million years old with the dating method - fission track dating. Then, this same rock, was dated to be 95 million years old with the dating method of Potassium-Argon dating. Yet with Uranium-Helium dating, this same rock was dated to be 750 million years old! 
Because the article referred to in this statement is not readily available, I must await the fulfillment of an interlibrary loan in order to examine the actual circumstances and full content of this assertion. Rest assured, because of the possibly unintentional misrepresentation of your source in the essay covered under point 83, I will be examining all of your citations.
Using carbon-14 dating, a freshly killed seal was dated to have died 1,300 years ago! 
Radiocarbon analysis of specimens obtained from mummified seals in southern Victoria Land has yielded ages ranging from 615 to 4,600 years. However, Antarctica sea water has significantly lower carbon-14 activity than that accepted as the world standard. Therefore, radiocarbon dating of marine organisms yields apparent ages that are older than true ages, but by an unknown and possibly variable amount. Therefore, the several radiocarbon ages determined for the mummified seal carcasses cannot be accepted as correct. For example, the apparent radiocarbon age of the Lake Bonney seal known to have been dead no more than a few weeks was determined to be 615 +/- 100 years. A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years.
(the full citation is: Wakefield, Dort, Jr., 1971. Mummified seals of southern Victoria Land. Antarctic Journal 6(5): 210-211.)
This is the well-known reservoir effect that occurs also with mollusks and other animals that live in the water. It happens when "old" carbon is introduced into the water. In the above case of the seal, old carbon dioxide is present within deep ocean bottom water that has been circulating through the ocean for thousands of years before upwelling along the Antarctic coast.
Also using carbon-14 dating, presently living mollusk shells were dated to be 2,300 years old! 
The cited article is about scientists discovering anomalous dates and trying to evaluate how such anomalous dates occur according to real science, not â€˜creation science.â€™ This problem has been examined and explained. From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html
quote: Since limestone is very old it contains very little carbon-14. Thus, in getting some of their carbon from limestone, these mollusks "inherit" some of the limestone's old age! That is, the limestone carbon skews the normal ratio between C-12 and C-14 found in living things. No problem! If one dates such mollusks, one must be extra careful in interpreting the data. Not every mollusk shell presents such problems, and the dating of other material might yield a cross-check. Further study might even allow correction tables. The discovery has strengthened the carbon-14 method, not weakened it! By the way, shouldn't the creationist be worried over the old, carbon-14 age of the limestone? Why is it that limestone has so little C-14 in it?
That last sentence of the quote is a very good question for YECs. Doesnâ€™t the lack of C14 in the limestone indicate it is older than any flood?
Using carbon-14 dating as well, the shells of living snails were dated to have died 27,000 years ago!!! 
The cited article is about scientists discovering anomalous dates and trying to evaluate how such anomalous dates occur according to real science, not â€˜creation science.â€™ As mentioned above, there are certain specific conditions where radiocarbon dating is not accurate such as in environments where mollusks (snails) show false dates of greater age than any 4500 year old flood or Garden of Eden. From : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-add.html
quote: Either we have a worldwide conspiracy among geologists, which no sane person believes, or else the numerous radiometric dates were consistent enough to allow that kind of close agreement. In fact, Dr. Dalrymple, an expert in radiometric dating with lots of hands-on experience, puts the percentage of bad dates at only 5-10 percent. Thus, we clear away the first illusion spun by creationism, namely that most of the dates are bad, that the radiometric picture is totally chaotic. In fact, it is not at all unusual for several different radiometric methods to agree within a few percentage points on a date. When you consider that each radiometric method is subject to different types of error, that the different "clocks" run at different speeds, such an agreement would be extremely rare on the basis of pure chance. In a number of instances, more than you might imagine, dates are further corroborated by methods that have nothing to do with radioactivity. Thus, the big, statistical picture painted by radiometric dating is excellent. Today, we have some 100,000 radiometric dates, the vast majority contributing sensibly to the overall picture.
What absurdity! See also, that the various dating methods give various ages to the same fossil or geologic layer. Using this, an evolutionist can use the method he desires that would give him the age he desires, when another test would show the specimen being dated to be millions of years older or younger!
Instances of radioisotope dating where apparent results conflict with other forms of evidence are studied by real scientists, as opposed to universally condemned by â€œcreation scientists.â€ Through a thorough study, such scientists come up with explanations of the few anomalous findings out of the over 100,000 dates measured so far. One or two dates that do not fit in merit examination according to real science, whereas under â€˜creation scienceâ€™ one thing that is anomalous is seen to destroy the entire basis of physics, geoscience, and bioscience. However such criticism of radiocarbon dating due to actually discovering a few examples where the dates given are wrong due to processes that are well understood does nothing to invalidate all radioisotope dating, including radiocarbon dating in the vast majority of cases where such dating is highly correlated by using several methods, several samples, and several laboratories. For one example, consider this recent post by Mr Jack concerning the K-T boundary at Message 29
quote: Carbon dating is not used; these methods are: quote: ________________________________________ There we find the following data for the Z-coal strata of the Hell Creek Formation presented in the order of; Material, Method, # of samples, Result in Millions of Years tektites, 40Ar/39Ar total fusion, 28, 64.8 ++ 0.1 tektites, 40Ar/39Ar age spectrum, 1, 66.0++0.5 tektites, 40Ar/39Ar age spectrum, 1, 64.7++0.1 tektites, 40Ar/39Ar total fusion, 17, 64.8++0.2 biotite & sanidine, K-Ar, 12, 64.6++1.0 biotite & sanidine, Rb-Sr isochron (26 D.P.), 1, 63.7++0.6 zircon, U-Pb concordia (16 data), 1, 63.9++0.8 ________________________________________ - from Radiometeric Dating Does Work! by G. Brent Dalrymple. Why do these different methods produce consistent results?
A question many here, including RAZD, Mr Jack, many others, and I would like to see answered, if itâ€™s not too much trouble.
Plus, carbon-14, as well as some other radioactive dating methods, rely on unprovable assumptions about the rate of decay, the environment condition and others - things we cannot know for certain if they were truly this way. This is why the dating methods are inconsistent and false.
The dating methods, when properly used, are amazingly consistent with other dating methods, which is why it is difficult to just call all examples false without adequate thought or explanation. The physical laws concerning radioactive decay and ratios of stable isotopes (used to determine conditions in past environments) would all have to be manipulated in different ways to produce the same entirely consistent false result. Here is a list of dating methods that have been correlated down to an annual basis from my favorite thread on EvC, coincidently created by RAZD at Message 1
quote: For anybody unclear on the concept, this is how it stacks up -- the minimum age of the earth is: â€¢ 8,000 years by annual tree rings from Bristlecone pine in California. â€¢ 10,000 years by annual tree rings from Oaks in Europe (different environment and location) â€¢ 45,000 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Lake Suigetsu, Japan (different biology and location) â€¢ ... corroborated by Carbon 14 (C-14) radiometric dating (limit 50,000 years by half life) â€¢ 110,000 years by annual layers of ice in Greenland (different process altogether) â€¢ 422,776 years by annual layers of ice in Antarctica (different location altogether) â€¢ 567,700 years by annual layers of calcite in Devil's Hole (another different process and location altogether) â€¢ ... corroborated by Thorium-230 dates and Protactinium-231 radiometric dating (independent processes) â€¢ Even greater age implied by daily layers of coral (another different biology, process and location, again) â€¢ ... some additional information including some cool slideshow websites
Anyone interested in debunking the science behind radiometric dating must understand the content of this thread, either through actually reading it or by reading similar arguments from the literature of real science, which is overwhelmingly supported by evidence. The above are dating methods that are essentially accurate to a year by year basis.
As I noted before, the position explained in this thread has never been refuted. Not by AIG, ICR, Hovind (currently imprisoned for suspicion of tax evasion), or by any of their followers who endlessly regurgitate, intentionally or otherwise, the bearing of false witness (or in some cases theft) without thought or consideration for any eternal judgment based upon the 10 Commandments.
In addition to the methods of radiometric dating outlined above there is also considerable agreement with other non-annual dating methods such as paleomagnetism, plate tectonics, the fossil record, and of course other various methods of radiometric dating such as:
Samarium-147/Neodymium-143 â€“half life 106 billion years; Rubidium-87/Strontium-87 - half life 48.8 billion years; Rhenium-187/Osmium-187 â€“ half life 42 billion years; Lutetium-176/Hafnium-176 â€“ half life 38 billion years; Thorium-232/Lead-208 â€“ half life 14 billion years; Uranium-238/Lead-206 â€“ half life 4.5 billion years; Potassium-40/Argon-40 â€“ half life 1.26 billion years; Uranium-235/Lead-207 â€“ half life 0.7 billion years; Beryllium-10/Boron-10 â€“ half life 1.52 million years; Chlorine-36/Argon-36 â€“ half life 300,000 years; Carbon-14/Nitrogen-14 â€“ half life 5715 years; Uranium-234/Thorium-230 â€“ half life 248,000 years; Thorium-230/Radium-226 â€“ half life 75,400 years.
But there is also circular reasoning involved in dating geologic layers and fossils. When the scientists are asked to tell the age of a certain fossil, they check the date for the geologic layer in which the fossil was found, and give that age to the fossil. Then, if asked to tell the age of a certain geologic layer, they look at the dates of the index fossils, found within that geologic layer, and give that age to the geologic layer! This is circular reasoning!
quote: A major omission in MTC (added for clarity - Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe (MTC)) is any discussion of the great synthesis of worldwide geologic observations known as the Geologic Time Scale. Wise (1998) pointed out that the creationist time scale ignores the countless worldwide geological studies which show that, on all continents, the same general sequence of sedimentary rocks occurs, and that the major and minor divisions in this sequence are characterized by the specific assemblages of fossils they contain. This overall scheme was essentially completed before 1859 when Darwin published his On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. No assumptions of organic evolution were made in deriving the geologic column or in using fossils for correlation of strata from continent to continent. However, the eras and periods of the geologic time scale, with which we divide geologic time, reflect the dramatic changes which have occurred in the history of life on earth recorded in the rocks (Gould 1994). Because of these changes, the fossil assemblages found in each geologic system are distinct, permitting us to make worldwide stratigraphic correlations. Today such correlations are also made using non-paleontological criteria, such as radiometric dating, and sequences of magnetic reversals and of light stable isotope ratios, particularly carbon isotopes (Bowring and Erwin 1998).
Evidently you are unaware of other collaborating dating evidence such as the additional use of paleomagnetic data in determining the age of geologic formations. Light stable isotope ratios, which are used to determine past climates and ecological conditions are also a different and collaborating field from radiometric dating. See Stable Isotopes for Dummies at http://archaeology.about.com/b/a/257764.htm if unclear on the concept.
I just want to say I'm a bit busy right now, so it may take another week or two before I can find the time to reply, possibly earlier if something. You can keep on posting, but don't expect my replies to come soon. I will try to get on when this busy week is over, so hang in there. Just thought I'd let you know, since it has already been a while since I last replied. :)
"If youâ€™re living like there is no God youâ€™d better be right!" - Unknown
Guess this reply is going to be a bit of the subject of my essay. It's more like my reply to all your supposed "evidence" for an old earth... Might as well...
*Takes deep breath*
Radiometric dating: These methods often rely on presuppositions and guesses as to the previous state of the earth, the environment, the atmosphere, etc. These presuppositions cannot be proven to be so, in fact, a universal flood would significantly alter the results of many of these datings. Leaching is one problem to the validity of radiometric dating. Also, the scientists cannot always prove that no daughter products mixed with the parent products, but this would change the datings greatly. There are numerous other problems with getting "proper" results. I will quote on some conditions that are needed for K-AR to be correct, "For this system to work as a clock, the following 4 criteria must be fulfilled: 1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately.
2. There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of Ar40 from the mineral following crystallization.
3. The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of crystallization.
Another quote from the same site concerning the correlations you mentioned,"Now, several factors need to be considered when evaluating how often methods give expected ages on the geologic column. Some of these are taken from John Woodmoreappe's article on the subject, but only when I have reason to believe the statements are also generally believed. First, many igneous formations span many periods, and so have little constraint on what period they could belong to. The same applies to intrusions. In addition, some kinds of rocks are not considered as suitable for radiometric dating, so these are typically not considered. Furthermore, it is at least possible that anomalies are under-reported in the literature. Finally, the overwhelming majority of measurements on the fossil bearing geologic column are all done using one method, the K-Ar method. (And let me recall that both potassium and argon are water soluble, and argon is mobile in rock.) Thus the agreement found between many dates does not necessarily reflect an agreement between different methods, but rather the agreement of the K-Ar method with itself. For example, if 80 percent of the measurements were done using K-Ar dating, and the other 20 percent gave random results, we still might be able to say that most of the measurements on a given strata agree with one another reasonably well. So to me it seems quite conceivable that there is no correlation at all between the results of different methods on the geologic column, and that they have a purely random relationship to each other." www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html...
Overall, this site, The Radiometric Dating Game, is something you should look at. It explains many of the things I cannot, and is written by someone who probably knows more than me about the subject.
Paleomagnetism: Ah, I have just read about this in a book I was reading, I think it is in Science vs. Evolution by Malcolm Bowden, so this is like a paraphrasing. Basically, the point is that the poles have wandered away and have not always kept consistent. In fact, if I remember correctly, they have even switched places! This would severly undermine the whole idea of relying on this method for dating. I found this site, not Creationist, but some interesting observations about the wandering poles: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/313/5792/1369b
Water in aquifers: I do not know much about this subject, but tell me, is it possible that the water could leak out of the aquifers and maybe diluted water could come in? Or, could the surrounding rocks have any effect on it?
Question: How do you date water??? That's a first for me.
Varves: I'll quote AIG on this, but basically, the point is that in a flood or other catostrophic event, many layers would (and do) form quickly. Specifically about the Green River thing, those layers could not have formed anually because there were "well-preserved fish and birds found all through the sediments."
Here's the quote with more details, "A common argument against the Bible involves varves â€” rock formations with alternating layers of fine dark, and coarse light sediment. Annual changes are assumed to deposit bands with light layers in summer and dark layers in winter. It is reported that some rock formations contain hundreds of thousands of varves, thereby â€˜provingâ€™ the earth is much older than the Bible says.9 But the assumption that each couplet always takes a year to form is wrong. Recent catastrophes show that violent events like the Flood described in Genesis can deposit banded rock formations very quickly. The Mount St Helens eruption in Washington State produced eight metres (25 feet) of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon!10 And a rapidly pumped sand slurry was observed to deposit about a metre (3â€“4 feet) of fine layers on a beach over an area the size of a football field (cross-section shown on the right: normal silica sand grains are separated by darker layers of denser mineral grains like rutile).11
When sedimentation was studied in the laboratory, it was discovered that fine bands form automatically as the moving water transports the different sized particles sideways into position.12 Surprisingly, the thickness of each band was found to depend on the relative particle sizes rather than on the flow conditions.13 A layered rock (diatomite) was separated into its particles, and when redeposited in flowing fluid, identical layers formed.14
Much is often made of the Green River varves,9 in Wyoming, USA. But these bands cannot possibly be annual deposits because well-preserved fish and birds are found all through the sediments.
It is unthinkable that these dead animals could have rested on the bottom of the lake for decades, being slowly covered by sediment. Their presence indicates catastrophic burial. It is often claimed that the fish and birds remained in prime condition at the bottom of the lake because the water was highly alkaline and this preserved their carcasses.15 Yet highly alkaline water causes organic material to disintegrate, and that is why alkaline powder is used in dishwashers! [Ed. note: some sceptics have claimed that alkali merely â€˜cuts greaseâ€™, evidently ignorant of the elementary chemistry involved, i.e. base-catalyzed hydrolysis of polymers, which would do the opposite of preserving the fish.] Another problem for the varve explanation is that the number of bands is not consistent across the formation as it should be if they were annual deposits.16"
Sorry, have to go. To be recontinued later.
Edited by AdminAsgara, : shortened URL to fix page width
"If youâ€™re living like there is no God youâ€™d better be right!" - Unknown
Angular unconformities: I'll quote once more,"The angular unconformity could result form the sediment being laid down at an angle and simply sloped at this point, or it could have been pushed up after being laid down and eroded by changing currents or tidal changes. This could have occurred during the Flood, but before the overlaying sediment was laid down." http://creationwiki.org/Grand_Canyon_was_carved_by_retreating_Flood_waters
Sedimentation rates: Excuse me, but I think you are attacking a strawman here. We Creationists believe the Flood laid down most/all of the layers of sediments in one general period, thus we do not believe that the different layers represent different ages, thus we do not believe in certain layers being older than others by millions of years. According to your theory it may be confusion to find "precambrian" rocks on the surface and a whole "progression" of sediments in another place, but to Creationists, this is normal since we believe the layers were laid down in one period, and they do not represent millions of ages. I wouldn't even call the layers what you call them and make a distinction between them, to me it is just a bunch of layers that the Flood laid down in one period.
Volcanism: Just because a volcano erupts, doesn't mean someone has to write history books about it and make them public and pass them on from generation to generation. Who knows, maybe someone did write down a record, maybe it's still to be uncovered. Maybe no one did write down anything, maybe they were dying to quickly to have time to write down a record. Either way, this is hardly any good proof for an old age, because it's relying on people to always write down all the events that happened, which may or may not be this way.
Ore deposit formations: The end of your quoted piece itself said that ore formations can be brief as opposed to the "old view" that it takes many millions of years to do it.
Banded iron formations: An explanation may be an ice age after the Flood which would reduce the amount of oxygen reaching the ground, as can be seen here,(this site claims millions of years, something I do not, but the info about the ice sheet is interesting, esp. since many Creationists believe there was an ice age after the Flood)"Until fairly recently, it was assumed that the rare later banded iron deposits represent unusual conditions where oxygen was depleted locally and iron-rich waters could form then come into contact with oxygenated water. An alternate explanation of these later rare deposits is undergoing much research as part of the Snowball Earth hypothesis â€” wherein it is believed that an early equatorial supercontinent (Rodinia) was totally covered in an ice age (implying the whole planet was frozen at the surface to a depth of several kilometers) which corresponds to evidence that the earth's free oxygen may have been nearly or totally depleted during a severe ice age circa 750 to 580 million years ago (mya) (See Cryogenian period, from 800 million years ago (mya, boundary defined chronometrically) to approximately 635 mya) prior to the Ediacaran wherein the earliest multicellular lifeforms appear. Alternatively, some geochemists suggest that BIFs could form by direct oxydation of iron by autotrophic (non-photosynthetic) microbes." http://www.answers.com/topic/banded-iron-formation
Tree ring data: As I have mentioned before, tree ring data can be misleading if there were two wet periods in a year and other factors, ie. the rings do not form exactly as scientists say they do. As for trees indicating a Flood, the petrified trees found upright in sediments are a good indicator, as are the thick coal beds which formed from forests of trees being ripped out and buried together.
Ice core data: Ice caps before the Flood?-Doubt it, there was no rain before the Flood and the high elevation peaks and low elevation valleys formed DURING the Flood. The ice caps most likely formed AFTER the Flood, possibly in an ice age or ages as many believe. Besides, how can you prove that the ice caps aren't pretty young? Ice dating???
Ocean cores: Why can't sediments be organized in layers according to density and size of the contents? The Flood organized the sediments we see on land, why not in the ocean? As for thicknesses, might I remind you that we believe the Flood FORMED the deep oceans, thus varying thicknesses are inevitable, considering "fountains of the deep" exploding, geysers, volcanoes, whirlpools, huge boulders, etc.
Inconsistent worldwide geologic formations: Once again, to you the varying layers of different "ages" may be a problem, but to me, I don't consider them millions of ages apart, so I can accept the formations of the Flood without a problem. Who is to decide how the Flood is to lay and not lay down the sediments?
World wide iridium: The iridium layer could have been formed by meteorites or volcanoes. I would think the Flood would stimulate a lot of volcano eruptions, and the lava with iridium could have been laid down during the Flood. Besides, I don't know how strong or dense iridium is, but it could have remained relatively undistirbed during the Flood after it was laid down, just like the rest of the organized sediments and formations.
Fossil record sorting: See reply to response point 72.
Formations of mountains and valleys: The earthquakes and tectonic plate movements could have occured during the Flood, in one period. The Flood and related eruptions would most certainly carve out valleys and build mountains.
Batholith formations: The assumptions that it would take 90 million years to cool are based on radiometric dating and evolutionist presuppositions. I do not believe anything would have taken more than a few thousand years to happen.
Detailed layering: After the violent Flood starting events, I would expect everything to settle neatly and organized. It may have been very calm after the "fountains of the deep" exploded and the Flood covered the earth. I mean, look at a lake, pretty peaceful, right? When the violent events passed, the water was still going down for a while, it was most likely calm during that time, after the deep oceans were filled.
Fossil forests: This is most likely what we would find with a Flood, the Flood would tear out forests of trees and lay them down in one general location- where the forests were. As for the difference between the local and global, what difference does it make? The effects would be the same of both, I wouldn't expect much of a difference, I mean, they're still floods!
Heat of formation: Once again, an ice age or ages would quickly cool it off.
Chalk formations: I'll quote AIG, but the point is that this chalk could form quite quickly and not as much material as claimed is required, "Coccolithophores on the other hand reproduce faster than foraminifera and are amongst the fastest growing planktonic algÃ¦,13 sometimes multiplying at the rate of 2.25 divisions per day. Roth suggests that if we assume an average coccolith has a volume of 22 x 10â€“12 cubic centimetres, an average weight of 60 x 10-12 grams per coccolith,14 20 coccoliths produced per coccolithophore, 13 x 106 coccolithophores per litre of ocean water,15 a dividing rate of two times per day and a density of 2 grams per cubic centimetre for the sediments produced, one gets a potential production rate of 54cm (over 21 inches) of calcium carbonate per year from the top 100 metres (305 feet) of the ocean. At this rate it is possible to produce an average 100 metre (305 feet) thickness of coccoliths as calcareous ooze on the ocean floor in less than 200 years. Again, other factors could be brought into the calculations to either lengthen or shorten the time, including dissolving of the carbonate, light reduction due to the heavy concentration of these microorganisms, and reproducing coccoliths below the top 100 metres of ocean surface, but the net result again is to essentially affirm the rate just calculated.
Woodmorappe16 approached the matter in a different way. Assuming that all limestones in the Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary divisions of the geological column are all chalks, he found that these accounted for 17.5 million cubic kilometres of rock. (Of course, not all these limestones are chalks, but he used this figure to make the â€˜problemâ€™ more difficult, so as to get the most conservative calculation results.) Then using Rothâ€™s calculation of a 100 metre thickness of coccoliths produced every 200 years, Woodmorappe found that one would only need 21.1 million square kilometres or 4.1% of the earth â€™s surface to be coccolith-producing seas to supply the 17.5 million cubic kilometres of coccoliths in 1,600-1,700 years, that is, in the pre-Flood era. He also made further calculations by starting again from the basic parameters required, and found that he could reduce that figure to only 12.5 million square kilometres of ocean area or 2.5% of the earthâ€™s surface to produce the necessary exaggerated estimate of 17.5 million cubic kilometres of coccoliths." http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/chalk.asp
As for the differences, why is this a problem? The Flood was world wide, there were many different regions and conditions all over the place, the volcano activities were taking place in some places while not in others, the different waters were mixing, the temperatures may have been different from place to place, etc. I mean, it's not like everything was one temperature, one condition, one proportion of various substances in the water, etc. The conditions could have varied greatly from place to place.
To be continued...
"If youâ€™re living like there is no God youâ€™d better be right!" - Unknown
In addition to all this, evolutionists often claim that evolution or its processes has been observed in one or another example. Let us examine what was really observed in these examples. One popular example of natural selection is the pepper moth. With the photo of a white one sitting on a tree and a black one sitting on a tree. The claim is that the white pepper moths and black ones survived by natural selection as the tree color changed from white to black, due to pollution and smog. But this is not an example of natural selection working for macroevolution! This is an example of natural selection in two types of moths, not showing how natural selection would work to make macroevolution any more plausible. What we have here is the change of amounts of different colored moths, from white to black, in order to camouflage and not be seen by predators.
The example shows natural selection, as claimed by you and supporters of evolution. Since there is no disagreement, whatâ€™s the point?
No new information was added to the genetic code, as evolution would require in evolving a single cell to a human over time. Also, the pepper moths stayed pepper moths, they didnâ€™t evolve into, say, butterflies, or any other creatures of different kinds, but that is what would really be natural selection for evolution in action. Another example often used is wingless beetles. Because on an island, these beetles wouldnâ€™t be blown off by the strong winds. So in this case, the mutationâ€™s effect was beneficial. But, the mutation itself was still a defect, it was a loss, a loss of code for wings. This was a negative mutation, it removed information, it didnâ€™t add any new information to the genetic code, as evolution would require. So this example does not show evolution or help it.
I take it this is about gain or loss of information. If the information necessary to make the majority of moths darker or lighter is still present, yet one or the other is favored by the environment, how is information lost? When the environment changes back to non-polluting, the majority of moths return to a lighter shade. Where is that loss of information if the moths go from light to dark then return to light? If the moths went from light to dark, and then were unable to return to light, that would show this loss of information, not the ability to become light or dark as circumstances permit. Assuming a loss of information in any reversible change is easily refuted by the application of simple logic. From: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_of_new_information
quote: Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this ID claim is that it can be refuted from first principles, without needing any specialized knowledge or evidence! Suppose there are two nucleotide sequences A and B. If some particular mutation X can transform sequence A into sequence B, there is another particular mutation Y which can transform sequence B into sequence A. If mutation X is one which subtracts information from a sequence, it follows that sequence A must contain more information than sequence B -- and mutation Y must, therefore, be one which adds information to a sequence.
Yet another example often brought up is viruses that have adapted from harming one animal type to harming humans. But even this is not evolution. Why? Because no new information was added to the genetic code, and because the virus stayed a virus. Yes, it may have mutated to do harm in another creature or humans, but no new code was added; and the virus didnâ€™t evolve into, say, a bacteria or any other organism; the virus stayed a virus. This is why viruses donâ€™t show evolution. Same with AIDS or HIV, not evolution; for the same reasons as with the virus. Also, with antibiotic resistance, we observe something similar. Loss of information may have caused the antibiotic resistance in a certain organism, but this was a loss of information, not a gain, as evolution would require. Never has it been observed in nature that new information was added to the genetic code of an organism, only loss. So evolution has not been observed in any of these or other examples.
What constitutes â€œloss of information,â€ do you know?
quote: It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
â€¢ increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991) â€¢ increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003) â€¢ novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996) â€¢ novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.
There are many more examples of increased genetic information being noted through actually observing nature. The concept of genetic information always being lost has also been argued here several times without success, most recently starting here Message 89 and here Message 69. In both cases you will notice the creationist side has had to concede that loss of information is not true in all cases. Therefore your statement â€œNever has it been observed in nature that new information was added to the genetic code of an organism, only lossâ€ is not supported even by your fellow travellers.
quote: To make a case for or against a trend in the evolution of complexity in biological evolution, complexity needs to be both rigorously defined and measurable. A recent information-theoretic (but intuitively evident) definition identifies genomic complexity with the amount of information a sequence stores about its environment. We investigate the evolution of genomic complexity in populations of digital organisms and monitor in detail the evolutionary transitions that increase complexity. We show that, because natural selection forces genomes to behave as a natural "Maxwell Demon," within a fixed environment, genomic complexity is forced to increase.
From the top two examples alone, one can see the concept of loss of information as invalidating evolution is shown to be false by observing nature and by simulating nature in the lab. I think this argument is similar to the â€œno transitional fossilâ€ argument since any example of transitional fossils or increase of genetic information will simply be handwaved away by redefining â€˜transitional fossilâ€™ or â€˜information.â€™ However, creating a false definition of either concept does nothing to invalidate the real definition of the concept, it only invalidates the false definition.
Therefore the concluding assertions presented in this paragraph of the essay are either false or meaningless.
Now we will examine a few more difficulties with evolution. Life has many interdependent cycles. Each cycle relies heavily on its own parts working together, and on other cycles functioning with it. There is a perfect harmony in nature, and many intelligently made cycles exist.
It appears to me that a lot of species are disappearing in nature, in fact have disappeared in the past, how is that perfect harmony? Nature seems more a struggle to survive than some example of perfect harmony.
Take for example the water cycle: evaporation, condensation, and precipitation. It works out very well and even recycles, to an extent, our water. How could random, chance, unguided processes do this?
The water on the Earth is not recycled to an extent, it is, with the very minor exception of additional inputs/outputs to/from space, recycled completely. What is meant by random or chance by evaporation, condensation, and precipitation? How this works is well understood by using physics. All physical systems (as opposed to biological systems) are in overall balance, what goes in one end must come out the other, what is so magical about that?
Or take ecology. There is a relationship between animals and their environments, and the climates. All of this is connected, and if you remove or change one, it may affect the whole cycle, and it may end in the extinction of certain animals. Or take the food chain. A very close relationship exists here. Remove one species of animals, and the effect can be devastating! Everything is so dependent upon something else. How could evolution do this?
Easily, by using an immense amount of time to simultaneously evolve. Independent parts of a system can simultaneously change and adapt as is seen everyday. I must admit that I am puzzled by your argument that evolution is false because two different things canâ€™t happen at the same time, such as one organ coevolving with the other. Two, and more, different things happen simultaneously everyday.
Yet another problem. If the time dates of evolutionists are true, the world would be overflowing with humans now. But thatâ€™s not the case.
The term â€œoverflowing with humansâ€ is at best subjective considering that there are 6.67 billion people on the planet and that overpopulation is considered a problem. This is because births and living to reproduce far outnumbers deaths. In history this was not always the case, are you arguing the opposite is true, that number of births that live to reproduce has always significantly exceeded number of deaths in human history prior to the Industrial Revolution? All the population curves in history I have seen look like this:
Notice that the world population did not significantly increase until YEC medievalism gave way to science, and consequently the Industrial Revolution, as the prevailing paradigm for creating food, medicine, technology, and therefore an increased standard of living.
It is true however that under a â€œcreation scienceâ€ only program, Iâ€™m sure the population could be significantly reduced through creationist biology to kill in the hospital and, along with creationist geology, reduce the collective standard of living. It would be just like having population growth control Aztec style, by killing in order to appease a false YEC god, without the gore or the guts.
There may be several species that would be in favor of your desire to destroy real science and thereby reduce the human population. However, such a stand may be underappreciated by those members of the human species who would be condemned to an early death.
Also, according to the studies of biochemists Allen Wilson and Vincent Sarich, the first people had to have come originally from only two people, and had to appear less that 200,000 years ago.  Creation fits this description perfectly; whereas evolution cannot speak.
Do you have any idea how Wilson and Sarich came to this conclusion?
quote: In 1967 Vincent M. Sarich measured the evolutionary distance between humans and chimpanzees by studying their blood proteins. The accumulated differences reflect mutations since species divergence. His findings refined the genetic distance, dating it to between five and seven million years ago, compared to a previously estimated 15 million. That work used blood proteins. Since the 1980's we are able to sequence DNA. Wilson and Cann studied mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).
And after Sarich died, but using his methods for further refinement:
quote: Wilson and Cann calculated how much humans had diverged from one another relative to how much they had diverged from chimpanzees, and determined the ratio was less than 1:25. Assuming five million years since human/chimp divergence results in an estimate of 200,000 years to our common maternal ancestor. They also measured how much the mtDNA has evolved in the aboriginal populations of New Guinea and Australia. The result, about one third that of the species, infers coalescence 150,000 to 180,000 years ago given presently understood settlement dates of those areas.
So by using assumptions from evolutionary theory to come to the conclusion modern humans had a common ancestor some 200,000 years ago means â€œCreation fits this description perfectly; whereas evolution cannot speak.â€ Do you notice any irony here?
In case you donâ€™t see the irony, did you notice that you are quoting as support for your essay research that totally invalidates the story of Noahâ€™s Ark?
Look at nature. Look at the animals, the plants. Look at the symmetry of a flower. Look at yourself, marvel at how you can balance yourself and walk upright. Look at your hand, think of all the actions you can perform, think how precisely you can control it to put a thread through the eye of a needle. Think about your brain, the many tasks you can do, and what you can control with your brain. Was all of this a product of mere chance? Of unguided, random processes?
Natural selection is not a random process. Genetic mutation alone is proof against some continuously monitored intelligent design by a benign deity unless the deity has a sick sense of humor. Please tell our audience what the characteristics of a continuously intrusive intelligent designer would be that did this:
Thanks goes to Neil deGrasse Tyson for this argument in the video Incompetent Design which, among other arguments that work against this paragraph of the essay, can be seen here:
Compression: Oh, and the birds would be standing on the turtles, and the dolphins would be standing on the kangaroos? I highly doubt it. You have to consider the wide range of land variations and the many different habitats, such as trees, underground, underwater, caves, etc. The surface area and different habitats were plenty enough for animals to NOT be standing on each other.
Too much organic material: Ah, now this is where you have to understand the pre-Flood conditions to get it. Before the Flood, most things were A LOT bigger than they are now. The trees would have been much larger too, and there's your solution. You might ask why, I'll tell you: Before the Flood, there was possibly a canopy of water over the earth, which would have prevented UV rays and what-not. Also, there was no rain, there were no seasons; it was all one basic season, most likely spring, all year long, thus everything could grow all year long. Even humans were bigger back then, they have found that some humans had a stride of 6ft!
Types of fossils inconsistent: Don't tell me you don't know of any fossil sites that are away from the sea... I mean, they find fossils while digging for roads!
Relative erosions: The Flood waters could erode rock however they wanted to, the pressure could be different in various places, the water could carry rocks and there would be different erosions in different places, it's all possible. Also there was most likely an ice age/ages after the Flood, and when it was all melting, huge boulders could easily erode however they pleased, depending on their size, downhill slope, etc.
Surface features buried throughout:
I think this is a question for you to answer, not me. How would YOU explain rain drops in sedimentation if it all formed slowly over "millions" of years of erosion, weathering, bacteria infestations, etc.? With a Flood, it's very possible, the layers were forming during the year, so if it rained heavily in the beggining (first rain the world saw!) during the flood on some ground, and then a huge wave came and covered the spot with sediments, this would be possible. Same with the water ripples and other formations, the Flood can easily explain them all in a like manner as above. In soil trees- this is very possible if a tree had strong roots or if it wasn't exposed to the severest waters of the Flood (maybe sheltered by some hill), but YOU would have difficulty explaining this - did the tree get partially buried, then "millions of years" later a bit more and so on???!!! As with dino bones and water ripples above- doesn't this only prove they were buried during the Flood?
"As can be seen virtually the entire content and essentially all evidence from the geosciences directly refute a global flood."
Actually, as can NOW be seen, the Flood explains just about everything without difficulty, you just need to put on a pair of Flood glasses and use a little imagination outside the box, think hard about what a Flood could really do... But let us stay focused on my essay for the better part, otherwise, this debate would be more like me debating all the old earth "proof".
Dating methods correlation: I wouldn't doubt it if they rely on many assumptions, and the evolutionists are the ones making them... Also, what is the proportion of correlations versus "false, abnormal, improperly obtained" reports -as so called by evolutionists.
Point 75: In that list you mentioned "flash floods." Is it possible for you to accept then a "world wide flash type flood" to do it? I mean, most the items in your list were catastrophes, the Flood was a GREAT catastrophy! See the link? The only difference is due to our preconcieved ideas, mine from the All Accurate Word Of God, yours from - I don't know...(Help me out on this one :) ) The Bible is scientifically accurate, historically accurate, geographically accurate, prophetically accurate, etc. So we can rely on It for guidance on the events that we did not witness- ie. the Creation and the Flood. But of course, this would be a whole other debate topic, and I'm not even caught up with this one! For this reply, you can at least help me out with that one place above where I needed your input.
Point 76: No, that idea is not contradictory, because I was considering your side of the argument that a Flood didn't happen, so how else would animals die together like that? We kind of touch this subject in the above point.
See? If the Flood happened (which it did), the animals would most likely die in a "glop", but, if you reject the Flood, then you cannot explain this phenomena by regular nature conditions when animals usually die alone. Of course, this doesn't apply to all animals, the immobile animals can't do this, and in a catastrophy we would get this phenomena, and the FLOOD was ONE GREAT Catastrophy! See the connection? You say that a catastrophy like a volcano eruption would do it, true, but I say a catastrophy like the FLOOD (volcano eruptions most likely included) would do most of it- the pile burials.
Point 77: Flintstones? Boy, I haven't seen those since I was like six, no, I'm not coming from them with my evidence; however, the portrayal of the cavemen and cavewomen who could talk normally and do regular things and walk upright is very accurate, unlike your stories of monkey-humans slouching over, burning their hair off and learning to go from grunts to speech - a kid's cartoon did better (more accurate) on this subject than a whole community of 'scientists' desperate to hold up their theory... And I don't think dinosaurs fit the description of "domesticated" in my dictionary, esp. when you read the descriptions of dinosaurs in the Bible.
Point 78: The number 2 method, replacement, seems close to what I would say: The fossils leave their imprint...hole, later filled in...
I am not rejecting the other methods, on the other hand, they too prove a Flood, because in order to bury so many creatures as are currently discovered in the sediments, you would have to have a Great Catastrophy, that's where the Flood comes in... Buffalo in the Great Plains didn't get fossilized...
Point 79: Wait a minute, how can premineralization occur if all the skin and organs and tissues of a creature would be decayed and eaten - without a Flood? This is the point I am trying to make.
The bones wouldn't all have to be eaten, they could be crushed, weathered away, etc. But I found this article about bone eating worms, don't know if these are in the sediments, but they exist. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5549064/
The Flood explains petroleum and coal quite easily- the forests of trees being buried during the Flood...
As for the betting, I think people don't have all the facts, they are fed up with evolution lies and they don't know of any other look at it, that's probably the main reason, wrong education.
Point 80: Might I remind you that the oceans formed during the Flood. As for the lack of watermarks, this isn't a problem, the problem is for you, the abundance of watermarks on many fossils, many, many fossils. If there wasn't a Flood, how could all those creatures have watermarks on them?
Point 81: Of course, the tree bark in mud would have to be under pressure to make coal, but its main ingredients are just that-bark. I read in there that pressure is needed, the Flood had plenty of this! Coal did form during the Flood, all those steps you listed could be performed by the Flood.
To be continued, may take a while untill next reply.
"If youâ€™re living like there is no God youâ€™d better be right!" - Unknown
Point 83: What the mitochondrial DNA told them was that humans originated from one place, less than 200,000 years ago - this is in perfect harmony with the Noah's Ark story. How they say humans started out by evolution is just guesses, but those two facts can be used to support the Noah's Ark story, that the human population came from 8 people in ONE place, less than 200,000 years ago, and that they replaced all existing humans, repopulated the earth.
Point 84: Humans did not work 24/7, 7 days a week, OK? In their free time, Noah and his children would tell the story to their kids and grandkids, who would in turn tell their kids, and so on so forth. When the confusion of languages occured and the people spread out, they would continue to tell the story to their kids, and not long after, many tribes and races would have a story of a Flood. Of course the details would different from tribe to tribe, I mean, have you ever heard how a rumor spreads?- One persons says something to his friend, that person changes a few words and tells his friend, and before long, the message is so skewed that you can't even recognize it when the last person tells you.
The polytheism thing is not the same here. Here we are discussing the occurance or non-occurance of a Worldwide Flood, and the fact that many tribes and races have the story of a Flood is VERY good proof for it, because it either happened and people passed down the story, or it didn't happen and they wouldn't have reason to pass down the story. So we come to one conclusion- it did happen. Otherwise, you tell me why many different tribes and races of people would hold in their memories and records a story of a Flood?
"If youâ€™re living like there is no God youâ€™d better be right!" - Unknown
Point 85: First off, most of the vestigial organs are not actually vestigial, second of all, even if we lose the functionability of an organ or bone over time due to change in diet and so on, it is not proof that we were created defectively, and third of all, vestigial organs would be the opposite of evolution, as will be discussed a few replies down, the 'reasoning behind vestigial organs' part.
Now for your 10:
1. Human appendix, to be replied to in point 86
2. Male breasts - tell me, if they are a leftover from our embryonic stages before sexual differentiation, how is that evolution? That's not evolution, it is just how God made the embryo develop and differentiate later.
3. Fake sex in whiptail lizards - again, how is this proof of evolution? What if it is proof of variations within a kind and a defect after the Curse?
4. Sexual organs in dandelions - yet again, how is this proof of evolution? What if it is proof of variations within a kind and a defect after the Curse?
5. Wisdom teeth - (love that part about the dentists staying employed, I might go even further to say that they put floride into our toothpaste and water, to get rid of this waste, and so that we would have more cavities so they could have more business, but that's just speculation. :) ) The fact that we don't eat as many hard foods and lost much use of our wisdom teeth is not proof for evolution, it's proof that man lost the need for them since his prefabricated, blended, pre-shelled, whipped up foods in the latest centuries.
6. Blind fish - This does not have to be proof for evolution. For the group of fish could have gotten stuck in a cave and a mutation could have made them lose their eyes, which would actually be an advantage in their environment. See AIG for more details on this one: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4361news8-9-2000.asp
7. Human tailbone- to be replied to in point 86.
8. Erector pilli and body hair- no, it is not useless, when your hair stands up, it traps more heat to keep you warmer, so in the winter, when you shiver and you get the goosebumps, your body just made it possible for you to stay warmer, see this site for more details, the link to the original statement is broken though: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct99/939840449.An.r.html
9. Whale legs- Don't tell me your talking about the pelvic bones that are used as an anchor for muscles that help in whale reproduction...
Have to go, to be continued...
"If youâ€™re living like there is no God youâ€™d better be right!" - Unknown
Sorry for the long wait, and apologies for the next long wait in the future. Classes have started, I've become busier, time is limited, you get the idea...
Continuing point 85:
# 10 of the "vestigial" organs: Wings on flightless birds: Did you know that the penguin uses its wings to swim? Maybe the bones are hollow to allow it to swim faster through the water, up to 15 mph. As for land flightless birds with wings, can't they use the wings to protect their young and keep them warm? I'm sure there are other possible uses for their wings...
Just because a human can live without a certain organ, doesn't mean it is vestigial. You can live without both your arms and legs and eyes and ears, yet you do not call them vestigial.
As for that list of human organs and muscles: How is the author sooooo sure that those parts were leftovers from our "ancestors." Couldn't God have made us have feet to grip things so that it would be easier to live? Of course this sounds cavemanish, but hey, four limbs are better than two! I've always thought of other uses for my feet, I mean, I sometimes even put my socks in my sock drawer (like four feet off the ground) with my feet! I like the gripping power between my toes! Just because not every one uses these things in modern society doesn't mean it is vestigial!
Have to go, may be a while until next reply. Peace. May God bless you!
Edited by Someone who cares, : Clarity.
"If youâ€™re living like there is no God youâ€™d better be right!" - Unknown
Ok, I've finally found the time and mood to come back here. I noticed you haven't been posting for a while either, is it to let me catch up, or because you're busy too, or because the topics have ended? Jumping right in:
Point 86: I have a site right here that explains the coccyx in GREAT detail, and it says it DOES help in the excretion of wastes, and it supports our inner organs, and that it even helps expand the passage way in women when giving birth. If you can give me a more SCIENTIFIC explanation than this concerning how the coccyx is NOT used for the excretion of wastes, I will gladly examine it, but scientifically, this site wins over that small post by a mile. Please read it, because it also contains the information you need about the "tail" in the embryo: http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/tailbone.html
Point 87: Using the same logic, I will answer your question when you answer mine: If a human can live without both his arms and legs and ears and eyes, why does he still have them? Or do you offer to be the first to purposely have those parts removed to make a point??? Just because we can function without something, doesn't mean it is vestigial, it just shows that the body is not as dependant on some organs as others like the heart or brain. This is called a difference in dependency, not vestigial organs from the past. Sure, maybe the people could survive without their appendix, but have there been any studies done concerning how the peoples' immunity was affected? I believe such a study should occur with patients that had their appendix removed, it would be more accurate than just stating "people lived fine without it."
Point 88: You must be misunderstanding. The parts of the embryo that mold into the body or form into other structures with time are not vestigial. You said it yourself, the "gill slits" turn into the inner ear, thus it is not vestigial, it is an UNDERDEVELOPED organ that resembled a "gill slit." This is my point. The parts of the embryo that were claimed to be vestigies from our past are actually underdeveloped parts of our bodies.
Point 89: You missed the point again. Let us reason: If we indeed have vestigial organs now, what does it say? It says that some time long ago they weren't vestigial, correct? You do not claim that the monkey's tail or the fish's gill slits are vestigial. So, that means we, the humans, are degrading, we are losing the functionability of our organs that "used" to be working. This means we are not evolving to become better and better, but are actually degrading, becoming worse and worse as the laws of entropy state. Thus, the OPPOSITE of evolution is happening. (This is if and only if they truly are vestigial, but I have shown above why the tail and gill slits and appendix are not, so that's a double argument you have to get past.)
Point 90: Ok, you say that evolution is just what we see "happened". Now tell me, what do you say you see in evolution? Do you see a constant progression from a single cell to a human? Or do you see a human becoming a monkey, becoming a fish, and so on? Evolution, as you say it, is how we PROGRESSED and are still PROGRESSING! Evolution is what you say explains how we "got from" a single cell; in other words, according to the comparison of the complexity and mobility and functionability, etc. of the two, we "progressed!" BUT, the logic behind vestigial organs claims the opposite as stated above!
"If youâ€™re living like there is no God youâ€™d better be right!" - Unknown
Point 91: Let me rephrase one of your sentences to make it more accurate, "It was obvious to those who did not want to accept their Creator's account of events, that they had to propose a different theory and force it upon the people, so they studied geology and made false claims that the Earth was older than 6000 years old and that there was no evidence for a global flood (either this was before they dug out the vertical petrified trees and whales, or they were removing the facts that supported the TRUTH from their reports) before Darwinâ€™s Origin of Species was published in 1859."
I am serious about that ^^, I mean, how do they look at the petrified vertically standing trees and whales and claim they don't see any evidence for a Flood???!!?
The dates are NOT always just like they propose, that's why they have to put a filter on them and only publish those dates which would further the popularity of their theory; I mean, Lyell was a lawyer! His expertise was doing this kind of dirty business! Choosing the proper words and stating the proper "facts", he easily fooled many people! They didn't have to "falsify the data", all they had to do was "leave out some pieces."
Point 92: Great, meanwhile, I am ordering many interlibrary loan books(one at a time!) to load myself up with rebutals to evolutionist claims I may face in the future. I like this one from Science vs. Evolution by Bowden, Malcolm, summarizing: The speed of light is decreasing, thus the "...light years away" values for stars are wrong, thus this can't be used as an argument to support evolution. (If you want more detail, we can discuss this later.) I remember some evolutionist used the claim that the stars are millions of light years away from the earth to support the old age theory against Hovind, and if Hovind had that fact above, he could have laid down a proper rebutal. So I'm going to load myself up with as much as I can, while I can. Isn't it great though to have such a system as the interlibrary loans? I mean, almost all the books I want about evolution I have to order from another university, so having that system helps me out a bunch. You can't really get many books against evolution in the public library or your college library, but with interloan, it's great! I was so excited when I figured out the amount of books I could order that I wanted. Of course, for you, this probably isn't good news. :) At least it's fair, we both have such a resource available. :)
Point 93: So, how can we rest assured that all the other C-14 datings aren't skewed? Hmmm... What if all those strata had also been in water that had "old" carbon during the Flood or something to the sort? Well... It's possible, correct? Or is your C-14 always correct when it gives the age you want? (That would start to sound like filtering the dates to get the ones you want for your theory.) Either way, it's true, C-14 relies on many unprovable assumptions, thus it can't be trusted.
Point 94: Again, much of the above and also, if the procedure has to be fulfilled extra carefully and with cross checks, how can we trust it? What if scientists didn't use extreme caution and cross checks, but got the results they wanted? Would they reexamine them? What if they were actually flawed???
As for the amount of C-14 in limestone, no, it doesn't mean anything to me, because I know the c-14 dating methods rely on many unprovable assumptions and thus are flawed. Plus, many other factors affect the amount of C-14, such as cosmic radiation, so we cannot be sure of much. (You asked that question as if I accepted C-14 as a valid method of dating the strata!)
Point 95: Same as above posts. We cannot be sure if there are such obvious "mistakes."
Point 96: I am not an expert on all the radiometric datings and their differences, but to me, many of those elements in your chart look very similar except for a few numbers or words, maybe that's why? Those methods could be very closely related, maybe even not worth separating them into separate categories??? Again, I am no expert, but it looked like you stated the same method twice several times.
Aside from that, yes, there may be some similarities in results, but there are also differences, probability playes a role here, this is what you would expect from flawed methods! I mean, if the dating methods were not flawed, I would expect to see consistency in ALL methods on ALL specimens! Not just a handful where the difference is "ONLY" a few million years! The earth isn't even that old to begin with according to the TRUTH! Please, this cannot be what you would put your faith on...Unprovable assumptions, many factors to alter the result, the devastating effects of the Flood on such dates, done by FALLIBLE men, etc... Why not just rest in the TRUTH of GOD'S PERFECT WORD?
Point 97: I have refuted much of those claims in the list previously, don't know for sure which number that was though.
Point 98: Sure, maybe the timescale was established before Darwin by others who didn't like the idea of God watching over them and expecting them to follow His rules, but that's just escaping the point, the circular reasoning remains, whether before or after Darwin!
THIS IS A MUST, concerning radioisotope dating, you MUST read this article, at least the top part: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a391888dc0a3b.htm Pay special attention to what the article says about what Podosek and his friends said, and what happened at the Lucas Heights Scientific Society in 1989! MUST READ IT!