[__ Science __ ] Noahs Flood explained and Evolution refuted.

[Barbarian]

Source?

https://www.amazon.com/Creationists-Scientific-Creationism-Intelligent-Expanded/dp/0674023390

So you admit that it's a new belief. Well done!

It's not a belief at all. We all know better. Why pretend otherwise?

The origins of the universe (history) and the present are wholly different matters.
Nobody I know of is putting blacksmithing into - or getting it from- Genesis 1-3.

You aren't concerned about pagans knowing about blacksmithing because you aren't scared of blacksmithing.

If one takes the Genesis account as it was REALLY meant to be - plain NOT confusing - then they will be lead closer to God. Obviously, bad beliefs lead one further.

Which is the great damage YE creationism does to faith in God.

But you believe you should re-int.? Again, allegoricizing the Genesis means ANYTHING - evolution, spaggety monsters, etc. can invade the account. So ANY substitute for the Genesis account can be "Christianized" - just add allegory!!

I notice that those who claim to "just take Genesis literally" have all sorts of odd re-interpretations, only one of which is YE creationism. But those who accept it as it is, are pretty united on what it says.

Therefore, the belief that i'm the reint'er is baseless + false.

We see your denial. But your revisions say otherwise.

With plain, real, literal Genesis- THERE IS NO WIGGLE ROOM FOR REINTERPRETATION.

But that didn't stop the SDA, and their followers who have reinterpreted it as a literal history.

 

[Barbarian]

Look closer. I didn't say "non functional" - i said Designed.

Why would God "design" a tail for humans that's tiny and non-functional to the point that the few people who lack one, never know it's missing? C'mon.

An eroded rock is not designed; it was eroded into its shape by water - but it can serve a purpose.

An eroded river valley was not desiged. It was eroded into its shape by water. And yet God's creation is such that nature produces things like rivers and new species according to His will.

But this is a simple process of water and a rock rubbing. Not allelic frequency change creating all sorts of different kinds (Hebrew: min) of animals. Allelic change has limits.

That's a testable belief. Show a testable limit to allelic change. And show us a species which is at that limit and can have no more change.

If you define "evolution" as "metamorphic rock" obviously "evolution" will be real.

It's defined as a change in allele frequencies in populations. And it's constantly observed.

I don't know of anyone who thinks that alleles frequencies don't change. Allelic change seems more like intelligent Creation by God - allele's ability to change frequencies could never originate by chance under current physics.

Darwin's great discovery is that it's not by change.

 

[Barbarian]

"You think Jesus' death on the Cross was literal but you add!!!!

I just accept it as it is. Your additions are unscriptural.

" <---- this is what your awful logic amounts to. If you reject Creation may as well reject resurrection.

I'm not saying that you are rejecting creation. You just want to add a bit to God' word. You accept creation, but only on your terms.

If you really think God starts His Word off with confusing allegory,

Christians see nothing confusing about the allegory. As Jesus says about parables:
Mark 4:11 And he said to them: To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but to them that are without, all things are done in parables: 12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand: lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

(but yet you think bring forth indicates abiogenesis) then how do you know if the rest is literal or not??

The Earth bringing forth life is abiogenesis. Thought you knew.

 

[Uncle J]

Look closer. I didn't say "non functional" - i said Designed.

Exactly. All you did was say "designed", apparently expecting me to just take your word for it.

Allelic change has limits.

Because you say so, right?

If you define "evolution" as "metamorphic rock" obviously "evolution" will be real.

Um.....yeah....sure.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Because you say so, right?

No one has proved it doesn't.
Now all you resort to is "said so". Convinient.
And besides, MICRO"evolution" is the alleles change over time. Yeah I know its name is flawed, because it is associated with the Athiest Myth.
MACRO evolution is what I pick a bone with.

Evolutionists like to refer to the sort of variation we see among individuals of a species as microevolution, implying that this is somehow related to the chance formation of fundamentally new animals by a process known as macroevolution.

 

[KV-44-v1]

If you think merely saying "atheistic assumptions and Darwin years" is "using logic", I'll just let that speak for itself.

It is.
Think about it: WHO was there to observe Millions Years??
WHO verified that something didn't interfere with the dates??
I put forth an experiment some pages ago - date (or have someone else date) a twig that you freshly snatched from a tree, for instance. Or take a tooth from a live animal. Or strand of hair/fur.
WHY do some dates contradict??

WHY is the Dust on the Moon so thin if it's supposed to be millions years??

The moon should have been closer to the Earth in the past, and based on the current rate of recession, we can calculate how much the moon has moved over time. If the Earth was over 1.2 billion years old like athiests think, the moon would have been touching the Earth- a major dilemma!
Obviously, gradualism isn't sensible. Assumptions are the driver of old universe ideology - NOT God's Word.

----
In a rare show of candor, geologists in the prestigious American Geophysical Union (AGU) admit that unproveable assumptions often dictate how rock strata are dated. Their statements are Open Access in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, so everyone is free to see what they confess, which includes implications that assumptions of uniformity can lead to gross inaccuracies in dating rocks, especially if non-uniform processes are not taken into account.

None of what follows should be construed to suggest that the authors (Barefoot, Nittrouer, and Straub) doubt the Geological Column with its millions of years. Their concern is accuracy when interpolating deposition rates within formations. For those outside the consensus Deep Time paradigm, however, some principles of interpretation they describe could be expanded for questioning even more assumptions.

crev.info/2023/07/assumptions-distort-geological-dating/

 

[KV-44-v1]

designed

That's the best explanation of how the hand was made.
Otherwise you have to resort to silly chance, like from athiesm! Or some other Bible-contradicting religion.

 

[KV-44-v1]

https://www.amazon.com/Creationists-Scientific-Creationism-Intelligent-Expanded/dp/0674023390

Number's understanding of "religion" is, by his own admission, merely what his family taught him as 7th-day adventists. Mainstream, modern, orthodox theology as presented by well-respected figures such as Martin Buber (Jewish theologian), Paul Tillich (Christian theologian), Karl Barth (Christian theologian), or Thomas F. Torrance (Christian theologian) are not something he seriously considers (and would even seem beyond his intellectual capacity).

Nevertheless, he never bothers to genuinely and seriously state the extent of his own shortcomings.

Equally shallow appears to be Number's understanding of "science" as biology polemic, which is so far removed and different from physics and its technological fruits that one wonders how long it will be before Number's readers realize that this slimeball is nothing more than one of the slightly skilled, yet mostly ignorant little Ph.D. emperors hailing from UC Berkley who are all metaphorically walking around with no clothes. Respectable historians of science (e.g. H. Floris Cohen) rarely could and rarely would include all these topics as one subject called "Science". Yet Numbers somehow does.

"Numbers is in the rare position of being widely respected by both scientists and creationists." (from Salon dot com ) This statement assumes a uniformity in what science and creation beliefs are that is total fiction. From the perspective of the work and perspective of someone like H. Floris Cohen (e.g., The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry , University of Chicago Press 1994), Numbers as a historian of science is definitely far from 1st rate.





------------


It is simply a fact to point out that Numbers is an 'apostate' -- the word means someone who has fallen away from his professed faith. Numbers made it clear that used the Yellowstone petrified 'forests' as an excuse to abandon creationism and his professed faith in biblical Christianity. His bias should be noted when reading his book.

One irony is that many uniformitarian scientists now believe that the Yellowstone were not a succession of forests which were buried in situ, but were catastrophically uprooted and transported as a floating log mat, and later the logs sank root-end first into the lake bottom. See the Answers in Genesis site.

Numbers' book majors heavily on personalities, with subtle (and some not-so-subtle) character assassinations, while the high scientific qualifications of many creationists are downplayed. He invariably gives the last word to the evolutionist, which often leaves an impression contrary to the facts as can be seen upon checking the original sources. See also review by Prof. Edgar Andrews, _Origins_ (Journal of the Biblical Creation Society) 8(20):21-23, 1995.

Many atheists and their compromising evangelical lackeys have followed Numbers' ploy of attributing biblical creationism and flood geology to 'the visions of an Adventist prophetess [Ellen White]' via George McCready Price. A number of papers by Dr Terry Mortenson in the _Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal_ show that the early 19th century Scriptural Geologists presented such ideas well before Price. And the founder of Answers in Genesis (USA), Ken Ham, pointed out that he had never even heard of Price at the time he founded CSF/AiG, and that he adopted creationism because of the biblical teaching.

Even Henry Morris's naive off-the-cuff "endorsement" of this book can't change the incontrovertable FACTS of history: that YEC was the historic view of the Christian Church from LONG before Ellen White -- Basil the Great, Martin Luther and John Calvin all believed in 6 literal days, and even allegorisers like Origen and Augustine furiously denounced pagan ideas that claimed the earth was older than 6-10 thousand year.

Note that even if Numbers were right about Price, he and all those whon gleefully parrot him are wrong to think that discrediting Price is enough to refute creationism -- this is a classic case of the genetic fallacy.

One useful thing in his book is that he exposes the 'strained efforts' of re-interpreting Scripture to fit evolution, and the deceit of some theistic evolutionary college professors 'tretching the truth to the breaking point' (p. 182) when trying to hide what they really believed from conservative parents and donors.

 

[KV-44-v1]

It's not a belief at all. We all know better. Why pretend otherwise?

No need to pretend.
The common lay Christian believed Genesis till the 1800's came along.

You aren't concerned about pagans knowing about blacksmithing because you aren't scared of blacksmithing.

Why would I be scared of blacksmithing? And I'm not scared- but sceptical.
Which has the greater implications -Blacksmithing - or the belief that man and monkeys have a "common animal ancestor" or that one evolved from another?

Which is the great damage YE creationism does to faith in God.

You have done nothing to back that belief.
I was talking about compromising with Athiesm.
Adof Hilter was EVOLUTIONST. Same with marx and other communists. Freud. Engels. Haeckel, who faked embryos.
YEC does 0 damage - because it came from the Bible.
OEE does lots - it came from questioning Genesis.

Do you really think BioEvo does one thing to support Christianity?

I notice that those who claim to "just take Genesis literally" have all sorts of odd re-interpretations, only one of which is YE creationism.

Odd reinterprtations? Name 4. Yours are what's odd. Such as "creation revision". You somehow assume that evolution and creation are the same. Well either creation or evolution. Pick one.


How is YEC odd? Explain. It's not. Dinosaur soft tissue.

But those who accept it as it is, are pretty united on what it says.

Sounds like YEC.

We see your denial. But your revisions say otherwise.

"Revision this revision that." You never backed this belief.
You never cited to WHICH Book,Chapter,Verse i supposedly "revised".

But that didn't stop the SDA, and their followers who have reinterpreted it as a literal history.

The common Lay Christian accepted literal wayy before SDA.
Just because a random group isn't compromised in one area does not mean they weren't in others.
Nobody needed a SDA to preach to the choir.

With plain, real, literal Genesis- THERE IS NO WIGGLE ROOM FOR REINTERPRETATION. You are backed into a corner. You admitted earlier that Macro Evolution didn't come from the Bible.
It is not a "creationist supersitition". They don't believe in it. Athiests do. Athiestic Christians do too.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Why would God "design" a tail for humans that's tiny and non-functional to the point that the few people who lack one, never know it's missing?

"The coccyx is like one leg of a tripod that evenly distributes your weight to keep you stable when sitting down. It works with the pointed sections of your pelvis (the ischial spines) to support your body weight when you're sitting. Your tailbone is an anchor for muscles, including your: Gluteus maximus"

Excerpt from mycleveland clinic.
Obviously, God created the whole human body for purposes. There are no true vestigial organs.

I see more double minded ness from Athiestic Christians. You know that God is all wise - yet you assert coccyx is nonfunctional. If God were wise, we'd expect a function of it, and sure enough it Does!!

God's Wisdom and Omnipotence undermined by bioevo, affirmed by YEC which is solely from the Bible. What's new.

God is smart enough (He's omniscient) to put a balance part in. He is powerful enough (He's omnipotent) to make it instantly without fiddling with alleles or ancestors. He's also loving enough to NOT use a death-filled pain-filled method of "evolution".

Where is the "yec damage"? We see only support. Because YEC IS FROM THE BIBLE!! YEC IS FROM THE BIBLE!! No other belief set has the trustworthy Genesis account.

If Genesis were allegory it cannot be believed, BY DEFINITION. Thinking that "allegories" can be believed is an oxymoron.

 

[KV-44-v1]

An eroded river valley was not desiged. It was eroded into its shape by water. And yet God's creation is such that nature produces things like rivers and new species according to His will.

YEC (really, Bible-based Christians)accept small change + speciation + natural selection, which are all observeable - however MACROevolution, the athiest's tall tale, is unBiblical are what YEC disbelive.
Alleles in population change over time?

That's a testable belief. Show a testable limit to allelic change.

Observations in the field. You won't see dogs giving birth or changing into non-dogs. Or any animal change or give birth to something that's testably NOT that animal.

And show us a species which is at that limit and can have no more change.

A species cannot give rise to a different family, order, or kingdom. It's always had that limit. Genesis.

It's defined as a change in allele frequencies in populations. And it's constantly observed.

It's actually "micro"evolution, which isn't really evolution of the athiests, but natural normal change which is believed by both worldviews. (athiests and Christians)

"By contrast, “microevolution” is intended to describe the small-scale changes in populations, such as those exhibited by Darwin’s finches—the finch populations change beak sizes regularly in response to environmental pressures. However, they remain finches. No new traits or major changes take place.

Since the term evolution is so strongly associated with the particles-to-people myth, we tend to use the word speciation to explain adaptation and variation within the created kinds, such as that exhibited by the finches.Because the small-scale changes generally lead to a loss of genetic information rather than a gain of new information needed to create new traits like arms and eyes, microevolution can never lead to macroevolution. Evolutionists tend to use these ideas interchangeably. For this reason, we avoid those terms, preferring to speak of speciation within created kinds (which we can observe and verify) and molecules-to-man evolution (which is unobservable and unverifiable)."




Darwin's great discovery is that it's not by change.

I just accept it as it is. Your additions are unscriptural.

I was exposing your logic of turning literal into allegory.
Tell me, how does one prove an allegory?? If you could it would not be allegory but literal. Mabye you dont know what is an allegory?

You accept creation, but only on your terms.

How is it my terms? I just read the Bible and get my (logically backed up) beliefs from there. Not ONE verse backs up Macro Evolution. So it's yours.

Christians see nothing confusing about the allegory.

Oh? I'd go around surveying Christians. "if Genesis is allegory what is it representing? back your statement with Scripture if you can."

And I certainly see much confusing. Ie the question above.
If it's literal, there is no doubt. If it's allegory, IT CAN MEAN ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING. Even other religions creation storys, (which involves the gods creating ex materia instead of ex nihilo) which pale in comparison to Genesis.

The Earth bringing forth life is abiogenesis. Thought you knew.

Only time I'm aware of God causing abiogenesis is humans right from dust.
But if God created plants using abiogenesis too, that doesn't mean abiogenesis is naturally possible.

When was the last time a plant emerged from non-plant matter (besides being created in the factual Genesis account)? Can you tell?

 

[KV-44-v1]

"There is no empirical (reproducible and testable) proof for NATURALISTIC (non-Supernatural) abiogenesis or [any] macroevolution. So, the person supporting evolution will typically turn the argument around to micro""evolution"", where some evidence exists. Please be aware that if someone attempts to justify the theory of evolution by showing how micro""evolution"" works, they are changing the topic on you and not proving anything."

 

[Barbarian]

YEC (really, Bible-based Christians)accept small change + speciation + natural selection, which are all observeable - however MACROevolution, the athiest's tall tale, is unBiblical are what YEC disbelive.
Alleles in population change over time?

Macroevolution is speciation. By definition. Changes within a species are microevolution.

Macroevolution​

Definition
noun, plural: macroevolutions
Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups.

Macroevolution

Definition noun, plural: macroevolutions Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups. Supplement Macroevolution involves variation of allele

www.biologyonline.com

If you have to change the meanings of words to make a point, that's a pretty good clue you've got it wrong.

Show a testable limit to allelic change.

You won't see dogs giving birth or changing into non-dogs.

Sorry, you'll need to show us a population of dogs that can have no further change in alleles. What do you have? You're now stuck declaring that a man can walk 100 yards, but he can't walk 100 miles, because you've never seen it happen. It's very obvious. So instead of excuses, show us any population that can't have any more change in allele frequencies. What do you have?

Since the term evolution is so strongly associated with the particles-to-people myth

Creationists often try that deception, but as you learned, no one with any sense is buying it. You toss up an imaginary theory because you have no way of bringing down the real one. Darwin's theory has four points. Show us which of them has been falsified.

The Earth bringing forth life is abiogenesis. Thought you knew.

Only time I'm aware of God causing abiogenesis is humans right from dust.

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Read your Bible. There's a lot of things contrary to YE creationism there. I just accept it as it is. Your additions are unscriptural.

If it's literal, there is no doubt. If it's allegory, IT CAN MEAN ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING.

You're underestimating God. He uses allegories and parables many times. If you'd just set your pride aside and listen to Him on His terms, you'd do much better.

But if God created plants using abiogenesis too, that doesn't mean abiogenesis is naturally possible.

He says it is. He uses nature for most things in this world. Why not just accept it on His terms and be done with your new doctrines?

 

[Barbarian]

Why would God "design" a tail for humans that's tiny and non-functional to the point that the few people who lack one, never know it's missing?

"The coccyx is like one leg of a tripod that evenly distributes your weight to keep you stable when sitting down. It works with the pointed sections of your pelvis (the ischial spines) to support your body weight when you're sitting. Your tailbone is an anchor for muscles, including your: Gluteus maximus"

So isn't it odd that coccygeal agenesis is symptomless in almost every person that has it? That's why most people without one, never know it unless an X-ray reveals the fact. Sacral ageneis (the absence of a sacrum) is another issue. This tail is vestigial in humans, no longer functioning as a tail. As Darwin pointed out, such rudimentary organs may evolve a different function. It no longer serves as an organ of balance or communication, but if it is present, it is part of the lower sacrum.

Excerpt from mycleveland clinic.
Obviously, God created the whole human body for purposes. There are no true vestigial organs.

Your source doesn't understand biology very well. As Darwin pointed out, "vestigial" does not mean "useless." The Appendix in humans, for example, no longer serves as a fermentation chamber as it does in some other animals. But it has Peyer's patches which produce lymphocytes, and it is also a place where your normal gut flora can hide out, when you have an intestinal infection. You've been fooled by someone who knows little more than you do.

I see more double minded ness from Athiestic Christians.

I don't think you're atheistic. I just think you've let them brainwash you.

You know that God is all wise - yet you assert coccyx is nonfunctional.

As I said, the lack of a coccyx is rarely even detected when that happens. Only if part or all of the sacrum is missing, do we see medical issues. But as you learned, it merely occupies space; if it's missing the sacrum functions as muscle connections to the pelvis.

Where is the "yec damage"?

I became a Christian in my sophomore year of college. The people who had led me to the Lord immediately began my discipleship. They taught me to evangelize and they taught me what they felt a Christian should believe. But most importantly they were a loving family of believers which was a welcome oasis for someone like me whose home life had been less than familial. Thus, when I was told that Christians must believe in a young-earth and a global flood, I went along willingly. I believed.
...
Over the next several years, I struggled to understand how the geologic data I worked with everyday could be fit into a biblical perspective. I published more than twenty items in the Creation Research Society Quarterly toward that goal. I would listen to the discussions that the Institution of Creation Research (ICR) had with people like Harold Slusher, Duane Gish, Steve Austin, and Tom Barnes, and with some of their graduates whom I had hired. Nothing worked to explain what I saw. ... The data I was seeing at work was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian. Doubts about what I was writing and teaching began to grow. No one could give me a model which allowed me to unite into one cloth what I believed on Sunday and what I was forced to believe by the data Monday through Friday.
...
By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to a nearly ten year withdrawal from publication. ... I was still a young-earth creationist but I did not know how to solve the problems. ... Eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationism. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology had turned out to be true. I took a poll of all eight of the graduates from ICR's school who had gone into the oil industry and were working for various companies. I asked them one question, "From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?" That is a very simple question. One man, who worked for a major oil company, grew very silent on the phone, sighed, and softly said, "No!" A very close friend that I had hired, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. No one else could either.
Being through with creationism, I was almost through with Christianity. I was thoroughly indoctrinated to believe that if the earth were not young and the flood not global, then the Bible was false. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.

Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism

In memory of Glenn Morton (1950-2020), Peaceful Science is republishing his personal account and testimony of leaving Young-Earth Creationism.

peacefulscience.org

YE will have much to answer for at Judgement.

If Genesis were allegory it cannot be believed, BY DEFINITION.

Not believing God on His own terms is exactly what's keeping you from a loving relationship with Him.

 

[Barbarian]

No need to pretend.
The common lay Christian believed Genesis till the 1800's came along.

We always believed Genesis. The difference is, we believe it on His terms, not ours.

You are concerned that pagans also knew some kind of evolution was necessary, but you aren't concerned that they knew about blacksmithing.

Why would I be scared of blacksmithing?

Because blacksmithing doesn't contradict your new doctrines. But the observed fact of evolution does.

Which has the greater implications -Blacksmithing - or the belief that man and monkeys have a "common animal ancestor" or that one evolved from another?

First, the idea that men and monkeys evolved from each other is another creationist superstition. They are both too evolved in their own ways for one to have produced the other. And of course, advanced toolmaking is one of the key elements in human evolution. Other animals make rudimentary tools, but humans have developed the skill into something qualitatively different.

...the great damage YE creationism does to faith in God.

You have done nothing to back that belief.

See above, the testimony of a former YE creationist, who nearly lost his faith because of YEC, listing others who did lose their faith because they confused man's YE doctrines with God's word.

 

[Barbarian]

With plain, real, literal Genesis- THERE IS NO WIGGLE ROOM FOR REINTERPRETATION. You are backed into a corner. You admitted earlier that Macro Evolution didn't come from the Bible.

Neither did protons or lymphocytes, or radio or... There are many, many things that are true that are not in the Bible. Did you really think that's some kind of rebuttal? I get that you really want to believe your new interpretation of Genesis. But the facts just don't fit.

Why not just set your pride aside, and accept it God's way?

 

[Uncle J]

No one has proved it doesn't.
Now all you resort to is "said so". Convinient.
And besides, MICRO"evolution" is the alleles change over time. Yeah I know its name is flawed, because it is associated with the Athiest Myth.
MACRO evolution is what I pick a bone with.

Evolutionists like to refer to the sort of variation we see among individuals of a species as microevolution, implying that this is somehow related to the chance formation of fundamentally new animals by a process known as macroevolution.

You're not really making much sense. But hey, if you want to concede science to atheism, that's your choice.

 

[Uncle J]

Think about it: WHO was there to observe Millions Years??

If you actually think something has to be directly seen for it to be true, I have to wonder how you feel about all those people sitting in prison, convicted of crimes for which there were no eye witnesses?

How could jurors convict them if none of them were there?

WHO verified that something didn't interfere with the dates??

If you have evidence that they were "interfered with", present it.

WHY do some dates contradict??

You'll have to be specific, because I'm pretty sure you don't know the first thing about dating techniques.

WHY is the Dust on the Moon so thin if it's supposed to be millions years??

The moon should have been closer to the Earth in the past, and based on the current rate of recession, we can calculate how much the moon has moved over time. If the Earth was over 1.2 billion years old like athiests think, the moon would have been touching the Earth- a major dilemma!
Obviously, gradualism isn't sensible. Assumptions are the driver of old universe ideology - NOT God's Word.

Not only are you just rehashing very old and ridiculous talking points, they're ones that even creationist organizations say you shouldn't be using.

Arguments to Avoid Topic

There are several popular arguments that creationists should not use simply because they are outdated or contain misinformation.

answersingenesis.org

In a rare show of candor, geologists in the prestigious American Geophysical Union (AGU) admit that unproveable assumptions often dictate how rock strata are dated. Their statements are Open Access in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, so everyone is free to see what they confess, which includes implications that assumptions of uniformity can lead to gross inaccuracies in dating rocks, especially if non-uniform processes are not taken into account.

None of what follows should be construed to suggest that the authors (Barefoot, Nittrouer, and Straub) doubt the Geological Column with its millions of years. Their concern is accuracy when interpolating deposition rates within formations. For those outside the consensus Deep Time paradigm, however, some principles of interpretation they describe could be expanded for questioning even more assumptions.

crev.info/2023/07/assumptions-distort-geological-dating/

Look, if you want to argue that Christians must believe that everything is less than 10,000 years old and only atheists think otherwise, be my guest. All you're doing is driving more people away from Christianity.

That's the best explanation of how the hand was made.
Otherwise you have to resort to silly chance, like from athiesm! Or some other Bible-contradicting religion.

Again, same thing. If you want to cede science to atheism.....shrug.

 

[Barbarian]

So you mean that eventually, one kind (min) can give rise to another kind (min).

Give us a testable definition of "kind", according to your beliefs. Testable. What do you have?

Question:
Do you think that man and apes share an ancestor?

The evidence from genetics shows that all living things on Earth had a common ancestor. And we know that works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

Or that one evolved from the other?

No ape today is the ancestor of all apes. But some are more closely related than others. Humans, bonobos and chimpanzees, for example, are more closely related to each other than any of us are to any other apes.

Would you like to learn how we know?

 

[Barbarian]

I'm guessing we never will get a testable definition of "kind." For reasons that are obvious.