The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Er, just the same evidence as you - the biosphere around us. It is how we account for that evidence that is debated.

that is not evidence that the ark existed.

You didn't ask for that. You said: You guys claim you have evidence that the species on the Ark existed. You do not have any evidence of this

Evidence for the species is therefore the same as yours.

Evidence for the Ark was given further down my post.

Put it this way, if I said every life form on Earth developed from a boat 30,000 years ago in Africa, how would you say "No, we have evidence that they all developed from an Ark 6,000 years ago in the middle east"

Again, you don't listen. I specifically dealt with that in my reply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Where evolutionists struggle to decide what constitutes a species, creationists face the same problem with kinds.

That is nonsense. Evolutionary biologist have defined what a "species" is. More than once, which is where the difficulty comes from.

Creationists have yet to define a "kind" at all

It was the different versions I was referring to. As to defining a kind: see Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?, subsection What do creationists really teach? http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Geological: See for example http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ences-part-one
Catastropic origin of fossils: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...astrophism.asp
Genetic bottlenecks: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/events.asp

None of those answer my question

Heres a wacky idea, how about you and JC stop simply posting a nonsense article from AiG that doesn't actually answer the question I'm asking, and attempt to explain it to me yourselves

Your wacky idea is just obsfustation. You know those articles answered your objection - but you want us to waste our time covering all the same ground, only for you to come back with, that doesn't actually answer the question I'm asking. But let me humour you a bit: Geological evidence that exists of the same band of deposits covering vast areas of the planet support the Flood (world-wide flood)account. The catastrophic origin of fossils supports the Flood ( the catastrophy above all) account. Genetic bottlenecks support the Flood (bottlenecking all land mammals to the pairs that survived in the Ark) account.

It is after all supposed to be crystal clear.

If you mean we have indisputable scientific evidence for the Flood, no we don't - nor have we claimed to.

Or any reason to think they were. You see the problem here? You are just guessing. There is no science here. You can't tell what was on the ark, how what was on the ark actually survived, what wasn't on the ark, how they survived, or what modern animals descended from what original "kind" species.

You can't actually tell me anything scientific.

We are telling you many things scientific - but it is true we don't have indisputable evidence that lions and tigers came from an immediate common ancestor rather than a more distant one. Neither can you. You can speculate just like us. You obviously don't know the difference between historical and operational science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They are the fossils

Which ones?

Tell me ONE fossil animal that you know was the original "kind" that died during the flood. And explain how it is dated.

OK, any fossil from dog family would be of one kind, a fossil from the cat family would be of another kind. That's two. How are they dated? Depends on how one thinks the sedimentary layers were laid down - fast or slow. We go for fast, therefore the dating is recent. If we are lucky enough to have biological remains in the fossil, that would be definite proof of a fairly recent origin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Let me suggest that any species that can breed with another is genetically extremely close. You deny that?

No, I don't deny that. But AGAIN that doesn't answer my question. You have no genetic evidence that all life on Earth came from a handful of original "kind" species.

Genetic bottle-necking is surely supportive of such a theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Indeed, we must speculate based on similarities. Is this not what evolutionists do?

But you don't speculate based on similarities. You can't tell me what creationists "speculate" the original kinds where, or what animals descended from which.

Tell me what the name of the species on the Ark that Great Apes descended from 6,000 years ago. Tell me what Creationists believe is the evolution from that species to the modern one. When did the modern species first appear.

Tell me what the name of modern European horses ancestor that was on the Ark was 6,000 years ago. Tell me what animals come in between. I don't need all of them, give me just a few.

We could rake about in the fossils and say this was the ancestor of that, just like you do - but it indeed would not be science. Just as the evolutionary tree is not science, just speculation. So can we say the Arabian is closer to the original horse kind than is the Shetland pony? Is the Pigmy closer to Noah's form than the Nordic man?

What we can say is that the pig and the sheep do not come from the same kind, nor the ape and man. But again, that certainty is theological rather than scientific. And so your opinion on the matter. You do not have a reliable scientific record to prove the history of the pig, sheep ,ape or man - only fossils that you may speculate over.

You can't do this because the science is simply not there. You are just making this nonsense up as you.

Seems we are both in the same scientific boat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We would have great difficulty in scientifically challenging something so (relatively) close to our own position. We would of course reject it for Biblical reasons.

Well you shouldn't. If the Earth is in fact only 10,000 years old, and all life on Earth developed from a handful of animals 6,000 years ago it should in fact be very simple to demonstrate that modern animals didn't come from a set of animals 15,000 years ago.

So of you go, do it. It should be easy, you do after all have all this over whelming evidence.

OK, Mr. Science, show me how you would be able to distinguish between ancestors from 15,000 years ago and ones 6000 (or 4300) years ago. I'm always glad to learn new science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As you should know if you were following the debate, such dating is also rejected scientifically by creationists.

What, all independent dating methods? All of them.

Well obviously you have your own way of dating fossils and rocks, that don't use any of these flawed methods.

I want you to explain them to me. I don't want a link to AiG, I want you to explain it to me now how Creationist date their fossils all to about 10,000 - 6,000 years ago. You do date all your fossils to that age right? You do have fossils right?

Yes, same fossils as you. As to the dating of rocks, the assumptions determine the outcome - rapid decay rates under the conditions at the Flood would give results that uniformitarian assumptions would hold to be vastly more ancient. Rocks of known date of formation in the recent past also show that radioiostope dating is not the self-interpretating evidence you suggest. So, as I said above, a scientific dating of fossils is not that simple.

You will also be aware that there is a big discrepancy between many types of dating of the age of the earth. It seems one picks what best suits one's argument. Hardly science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Quite so. They use science to do it. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp

That article is simply an attack on radiometric dating. It does not explain how Creationists date their fossils.

If you reject all radiometric dating methods (there are a few and strangely for such a flawed system the give the same result more often than not), please explain how creationists date their fossils without using radiometric dating. I want you to explain it please, not a link to AiG nonsense.

They don't need to date the fossils - if they did, no doubt they would pursue further means to do so. What they do show is that radiometric dating does not disprove their theory that the fossils are no more than several thousands of years of age. That's all they need to prove.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, catastropes would have occurred before the Flood and do so after.

Please explain how you know this. Give me the date of these catastrophes and the methods used to date them

Let me start with the latest big example: the earthquake and tsunami of Boxing Day 2005. I used Sky and the BBC mostly in dating it. Krakatoa in 1883 - press and government reports. There are many others, all depending on reporting by witnesses as to the date. We do not have reports from before the Flood, but may reasonably assume similar catastropies occurred then - unless we have reason to suggest a less dynamic operation of physics on the Earth (we don't).

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As I said above, virtually all of the fossils can't be the individuals who were on the Ark. The kinds represented were.

What does that mean? There were thousand of dinosaur species. Which ones were on the Ark? And what happened to the others?

We don't know which ones were on the Ark. Only that the ones that weren't (+ all peers of the individuals on board) perished.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
One scientifc dating method for the fossils is given above, but since it is their recent origin that is in question, evidence for a recent creation will serve as a rough guide for the fossils also. Such evidence: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

Your previous article from AiG didn't contain dating methods an neither does one.

You seem to be confusing how one would date fossils and how one would date the age of the Earth. The article covered the latter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As I said above, just like yourselves, we rely on similarities and breeding compatibility. How do you seek to trace the ancestors of the tiger, for example?

Ok, and what has this study of "similarities and breeding" told you.

Pick any modern animal and trace back through the fossil record their ancestors back to the ark. If there are bits missing that doesn't really matter, but considering the huge amount of fossils that span that 4,000 years it should be very simple for you to do.

No it shouldn't. It would all be speculation as to what fossil predated another. The 'tree' is constructed to suit your theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I didn't say there was such a record, only that a physical description of the kinds which entered the Ark is an unreasonable request. All we can point to are the fossils, and they will no doubt include speciation examples also.

Fine, point to the fossils. Which are the fossils of the original "kinds" that were on the ark. Which are the fossils of their ancestors.

There is no way of telling if one predated another by way of speciation.

Care to explain how 450,000 species fitted on the ark?

They didn't. (Sigh)...the species of today came from kinds that were on the Ark.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The number of species today is vastly more than the number of kinds 2304 years ago.

Explain to me how you know this. And when I say "you" I mean you, not yet another link to AiG nonsense.

Apologies first for giving the BC date as the age - I've edited my post to give the correct approximate age (4300). I know that this is so because it has been proved that many species interbreed - a critical property of a kind. The interbreeders come from one kind. Even some that cannot now interbreed may also be from the same kind. That drastically reduces the number of species needed for the Ark.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You think that the number of species is a constant? That as one drops out another takes its place? That new adaptions necessitate the extinction of their originators?

No?

You did seem to suggest that species did not increase with time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It doesn't. It doesn't exist. Only micro-evolution - adaption within kind.

That isn't micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is evolution within species.

Macro-evolution is evolution from species to species.

Not by the creationist definition - and I think you said it was we who coined the term? Inventing your own definitions now, or consructing strawmen?

Explain to me how macro-evolution takes place so quickly. If you like you can explain how different species of Zebra can have different size chromosomes within the space of 4,000 years.

Actually that is a good one.

I want you to explain how your version of macro-evolution increases the size of species chromosomes without using mutation, which you say cannot do add genetic information.

I'll leave that to the scientists like JC to explain, as it is a bit too technical for me. But I will check up for myself.

Yes but you have to explain where the species AFTER the flood came from. Which you can't do.

Rapid speciation of the kinds on the Ark.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As I said above, it doesn't exist. Rapid speciation does.

So me evidence of one mammal species where this has taken place.

I think JC has covered that, but I will check later, as I must sign off to get ready for work tonight.

Wicknight wrote: »

Show me a mammal species that has macro-evolved into another mammal species.

Read my answers on page 193.......and when you have fully 'internalised' them, come back to me!!!!:D:)

SubjectSean wrote: »

Now you have it. There just isn't one that we didn't make up. Where they all agree, there is God. The logical One.

PS: You aren't supposed to think Judaism is man made, remember?

Interesting point, of course!

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH wrote: »

Well, if you think about the way that evolution is a process that fits organisms against their environment, it makes sense. Environmental niches are stable over very long timescales - millions of years in some cases. However, when they change, they often change abruptly. It should be no surprise that under those circumstances evolutionary adaptation is rapid.

This is something that interests me, but probably not for this thread. Take two examples from Ireland recently - grey vs red squirrels and the zebra mussel invasion - both seem to indicate that evolution lags well behind environmental change in that there are plenty of examples where an introduced species has outperformed all indigenous ones - which you would imagine that evolution should have fine tuned to the environment. As I said probably not for this tread though.

No reason not to put it on the thread, considering what else is already here...one of the factors appears to be greater tolerance by grey squirrels of ecological disturbance and fragmentation, both of which are environmental factors operating in the UK and Ireland. There's also the invading species lack of natural predators and diseases.

However, more importantly, perhaps, is the problem of what you might call "partial fitness". There are usually several ways of adapting to a given niche, and it's possible for a species to evolve in a direction that leads to, say, a maximum of 75% of the possible fitness-for-niche, at the expense of quite narrow adaptation. Along comes another species, maybe only 50% fit, but more broadly fit. Because of the broader fitness of the invader, their numbers will probably wind up larger than the native species overall - with the result that, while they are not able individually to out-compete the native, their greater numbers result in sufficient resource usage to cause a decline in the sustainable native population.

Say you have red squirrels, which eat only pine cones, at 75% efficiency. Say there are enough pine cones ("100") to support 75 red squirrels.

Add grey squirrels, which eat pine cones 50% of the time, at 50% efficiency, and the rest of the time eat oak acorns at 75% efficiency. Assume there's enough acorns (again "100") to support 75 grey squirrels without them eating any pine cones.

Now let the greys compete for the pine cones as well. Although they are less efficient than the reds, 75 greys with an alternative food source will still make a dent in the pine cones. The result will be a decrease in the number of reds, possibly as follows:

Reds will out-compete the greys for pine cones 3:2, so the 100 pine cones will divide up 60:40. That's only enough pine cones to support 60 reds, so we're already seeing a population reduction for the reds - down from 75.

The 40 pine cones will support an additional 40 greys, so the population is now 60 reds, 105 greys. In turn, this greater population of greys will put further pressure on the reds.

I have a horrible suspicion that the actual mathematical modelling involves differentiation & integration, but the outline should be fairly clear - an asymptotic decline in red squirrel numbers. Once the red population is reduced below breeding viability, it disappears.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote: »

Human brain evolution isn't understood yet. We know from the human genome project that the brain mostly evolved over a period of three million years. However we don't know how it evolved because, as Lahn said, from all the evolutionary pathways we have studied the evolution of the brain should be a complete failure. As far as I know it's a major open problem.

Interesting...reminds me of that quote - "if our brain was simple enough for us to understand, we would be too simple to understand it".

Son Goku wrote: »

Can somebody tell me how the presence of a lot of water changes decay rates?

It doesn't - but I'll let JC have a crack if he likes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SubjectSean wrote: »

Now you have it. There just isn't one that we didn't make up. Where they all agree, there is God. The logical One.

PS: You aren't supposed to think Judaism is man made, remember?

Judaism is also (divinely inspired) a faith!!!

Scofflaw wrote: »

No reason not to put it on the thread, considering what else is already here...one of the factors appears to be greater tolerance by grey squirrels of ecological disturbance and fragmentation, both of which are environmental factors operating in the UK and Ireland. There's also the invading species lack of natural predators and diseases.

However, more importantly, perhaps, is the problem of what you might call "partial fitness". There are usually several ways of adapting to a given niche, and it's possible for a species to evolve in a direction that leads to, say, a maximum of 75% of the possible fitness-for-niche, at the expense of quite narrow adaptation. Along comes another species, maybe only 50% fit, but more broadly fit. Because of the broader fitness of the invader, their numbers will probably wind up larger than the native species overall - with the result that, while they are not able individually to out-compete the native, their greater numbers result in sufficient resource usage to cause a decline in the sustainable native population.

Say you have red squirrels, which eat only pine cones, at 75% efficiency. Say there are enough pine cones ("100") to support 75 red squirrels.

Add grey squirrels, which eat pine cones 50% of the time, at 50% efficiency, and the rest of the time eat oak acorns at 75% efficiency. Assume there's enough acorns (again "100") to support 75 grey squirrels without them eating any pine cones.

Now let the greys compete for the pine cones as well. Although they are less efficient than the reds, 75 greys with an alternative food source will still make a dent in the pine cones. The result will be a decrease in the number of reds, possibly as follows:

Reds will out-compete the greys for pine cones 3:2, so the 100 pine cones will divide up 60:40. That's only enough pine cones to support 60 reds, so we're already seeing a population reduction for the reds - down from 75.

The 40 pine cones will support an additional 40 greys, so the population is now 60 reds, 105 greys. In turn, this greater population of greys will put further pressure on the reds.

I have a horrible suspicion that the actual mathematical modelling involves differentiation & integration, but the outline should be fairly clear - an asymptotic decline in red squirrel numbers. Once the red population is reduced below breeding viability, it disappears.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The above is a reasonable account of what is going on with red/grey Squirrel population dynamics.

This explanation is in full conformance with the amazing genetic diversity produced at Creation.......

However, it totally undermines the Evolutionist faith in the magical powers of 'selection' to perfectly 'fit' an organism over 'millions of years' to it's environment.....as was already pointed out by pH.......
.............the Red Squirrel should be 'king' of the native tree plantations in Ireland........by being perfectly adapted ......but the Reds are being spectacularly 'over-run' by the Greys .......who are barely here a 'wet week'!!!!:D

J C wrote: »

A reasonable explanation of what is going on with red/grey Squirrel population dynamics.
This explanation is in full conformance with the amazing genetic diversity produced at Creation.......but totally undermines the Evolutionist faith in the magical powers of selection to perfectly 'fit' an organism to it's environment.....as was already pointed out by pH!!:D

Your complete inability to understand science is a source of never-ending amazement to me, as is your charming ignorance of almost every aspect of it! The concept of evolutionary "blind alleys" is well known.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote: »

Once again you manage to demonstrate that you don't understand Darwin Evolution at all.

........me and several thousand leading EVOLUTIONISTS!!!!:eek::):D

........see the quote from Professor Gould immediately below!!!!:eek::):D

Wicknight said:

You don't have any evidence that these species existed. I know this because you can't even tell me what these species were!!

Logic isn't your strongest point, as we've determined time and again. You and I both have evidence that we come from ancient ancestors. That we can't produce a family tree more than a few generations does not mean they did not exist - they did, but we cannot specify exactly who they were. So with the biosphere as a whole. You and I may dig up bones in our neighbourhood graveyard and speculate which were our ancestors. If we have grave records we may have good reason to think so. If we have DNA, even better. But without this, as is the case mostly with fossils, it is pure speculation to ascribe descent to any particular one.

You said you can't because the two dates are too close. Which is a ridiculous thing to say. If you can't tell if modern animals came from the Biblical Ark then why do you claim that modern animals came from the Biblical Ark!

Some of you have suggested the age can be determined by radiometric means, and by which layers they are in. If one could be sure that C14 can deliver on that, then I have no problem doing so. If the layers can be accurately dated, likewise. But can they? Deposition rates vary, and rapid ones may cover contemporary emtombments over a relatively great depth. If we can over come having to make assumptions about how long it took for the layers to be created, then dating would be possible. Even the ice-core dating seems not to be as simple as it is projected: To demonstrate that the astronomical theory biases all data sets and that annual layer counts can be adjusted to come close to expectations, all one has to do is read how the count of ‘annual’ layers below 2,300 metres was changed in the GISP2 core. Based on the deep-sea core chronology applied to the Vostok Antarctica ice core, Meese noted that their timescale for GISP2 was off by 25,000 years at 2,800 metres depth:

‘They predicted the age of the ice at 2800 m to be about 110,000 years, 25,000 years older than had been originally counted on the basis of visual stratigraphy [Meese et al., 1994].’13

The senior author then went back to the laboratory to ‘recheck’ the visible stratigraphy or dust layers. She discovered that by using a 1-mm wide laser beam in the LLS method instead of an 8-mm wide beam, 25,000 more annual layers of dust were ‘discovered’ between 2,300 and 2,800 metres! One must be especially careful when evolutionary/uniformitarian scientists claim ‘agreement’ between two or more ‘independent’ dating methods and/or data sets. See full article for more on ice-core dating, Ice cores vs the Flood http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/icecore.asp

You either have evidence that all species on Earth evolved from a handful on a wooden boat 4,000 years ago, or you don't Wolfsbane

And I think it is pretty clear you don't. Repeatably saying "Its the same evidence you have" is just stupid.

You point to the fossils and say, "We came from them". I point to the fossils and say, "We came from some of their peers". I point to genetic bottle-necking as supportive of that. I point to dating methods that suggest a young earth. I point to global sedimentation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It was the different versions I was referring to. As to defining a kind: see Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?, subsection What do creationists really teach? http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp

That article doesn't define what a "kind" is.

Definitions from that article:
1. Thus the biblical kinds would have originally been distinct biological species, i.e. a population of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, but that cannot so breed with a different biological species.
2. the kind is larger than one of today’s ‘species’. This is because each of the original kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.
3. Creationists have pointed out that as long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are the same kind
4. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind

The author goes on to make what I consider to be a telling observation: Some atheistic skeptics have demanded that creationists should list every single ‘kind’. Of course, to even begin to do so, it would be necessary to perform hybridization experiments on all sexually reproducing organisms, so this is unreasonable. And no evolutionist has ever listed all biological species anyway, as opposed to a list of organisms classified into arbitrary man-made groupings classified as species. And the skeptic’s demand for a list of every single kind overlooks the fact that a denotative definition (i.e. exhaustive list) is not the only kind of definition. The hybridization criterion is a more reasonable operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds.

Stop quoting AiG, particular when your links don't answer my question

I don't know if it is your bigotry or lack of logic that blinds you to the presence of the answers. One should be able to recognise our opponent's arguments, even if we disagree with them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Geological evidence that exists of the same band of deposits covering vast areas of the planet support the Flood (world-wide flood) account.

I didn't ask you if you had evidence. I asked you for the evidence. I already know you claim to have evidence. I want to know what it is. In your own words please.

For example, oil deposits occur across vast areas of the Earth. Their formation requires very rapid and oxygen-deficient conditions. Flood catastrophy would provide that, and since oil is world-wide, it suggests a world-wide flood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
but it is true we don't have indisputable evidence that lions and tigers came from an immediate common ancestor rather than a more distant one.

I'm not looking for indisputable evidence, any scientific evidence at all will do.

Your evidence that they came from one common with man is just an interpretation of what you see in the fossil record. Just like me. The fossils say nothing directly (other than rubbishing uniformitarian evolution). So I can say with as much surety as you for your tale that they are consistent with the Creation/Flood account.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
OK, any fossil from dog family would be of one kind, a fossil from the cat family would be of another kind. That's two.

I didn't ask you that. And even if I did, "any of them" isn't an answer. I asked you for a specific fossil.

Give me a fossil of the same species that was on the ark. Any of the species. And then explain how that fossil was dated.

You still aren't listening. OK, say we take the Microraptor. Was one of these species on the Ark? We don't know. All the Bible tells us is that all the kinds were on it. If it was on it, that species later died out. But the kind that produced the Microraptor may well have continued to speciate.

Dating of fossils we covered above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Genetic bottle-necking is surely supportive of such a theory.

No its not. It would be if a similar genetic bottle neck was found in all species. The fact that it isn't demonstrates that all life on Earth did not suffer a bottle neck 4,000 years ago.

OK; I haven't looked into the details on all species - I'll get back to you.

Your weak excuse that Creationists don't want to lower themselves to the scientific standards of biologists (seriously??) who actually do group and classify fossils in an attempt to scientifically support evolution, is pathetic.

but such grouping doesn't prove anything - it just tells a story in support of the theory. That's Ok, for if a story could not be told it would undermine the theory - but it only a story, not proof. Creationists tell their own stories in support of their theory, and they can classify fossils with the best - but it is entirely subjective.

You don't have any science here.

and neither do you - just stories.

You have no definition of what characteristics classify one species as one kind and another as a different kind.

The classification of species, families, etc is a human filing system - not necessary evidence of their relatedness. So anyone can place this fossil in that camp or the other, depending on what characteristic one considers most significant. All it gets is a file. It doesn't prove anything.

Of course they need to date the fossils, they claim they a large number of them all from the exact same event that happened at the same moment in time!!

So basically what you are saying is Creationists have never dated a single fossil. Well I will certainly agree with you there

Creationists know the earth is c6000 years old, and the Flod - the major cause of fossils, c 4300 ago. They challenge claims of radiometric dating on the basis that the methods make presuppositions e.g, constant rates - that have been shown not to hold, and of proven massive errors. They examine the evidence - geology, biology, etc. - to see if it fits with the Biblical record. They make their interpretations based on their assumptions, just like evolutionists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We do not have reports from before the Flood, but may reasonably assume similar catastropies occurred then - unless we have reason to suggest a less dynamic operation of physics on the Earth (we don't).

I'm asking you about the ones you claim to know happened, and how you dated them.

Are you now admitting that you actually have no idea what specific catastrophes happened before the flood, if any, or when they happened?

Certainly. I'm even happy to admit that there may have been none, and consequently no fossils from then exist. That's what I said.

So you admit you have no idea what species were on the Ark and what species weren't on the Ark.

I've said so repeatedly - glad you are catching on!

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You seem to be confusing how one would date fossils and how one would date the age of the Earth. The article covered the latter.

I'm not confusing anything. You claimed that that article contained dating methods. It doesn't.

This is why I'm sick of you linking to AiG, because these articles do not answer the questions you are being asked (which you no doubt realise) and it just wastes time.

Proof again of your blindness -
From the article:
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
8. Biological material decays too fast.
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
10. Too much helium in minerals.
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
13. Agriculture is too recent.
14. History is too short.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
There is no way of telling if one predated another by way of speciation.

There are hundreds of ways of telling Wolfsbane. The fact that you don't know any doesn't mean they don't exist. Evolutionary biologists have been doing this for the last 100 years. It is a science, one that they can test their findings.

I'm all ears - no, not a mutant, just keen to hear what these proofs are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They didn't. (Sigh)...the species of today came from kinds that were on the Ark.

How do you know this?

The same way you know they didn't.

You have admitted you don't have a clue how old any of these fossils are, or which ones came after which.

Not so - I only said I couldn't tell the small time frame differences. I can tell they are not decades of thousands, much less millions of years old. As I said, most were from c4300 years ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Not by the creationist definition

Which is?

Evolution form one kind to another. Goo to you; ape to man; etc.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Logic isn't your strongest point, as we've determined time and again. You and I both have evidence that we come from ancient ancestors. That we can't produce a family tree more than a few generations does not mean they did not exist - they did, but we cannot specify exactly who they were. So with the biosphere as a whole. You and I may dig up bones in our neighbourhood graveyard and speculate which were our ancestors. If we have grave records we may have good reason to think so. If we have DNA, even better. But without this, as is the case mostly with fossils, it is pure speculation to ascribe descent to any particular one.

A neat little analogy which fails to encapsulate evolution. It is impossible to tell which family people are from by their bones (except in the case of a hereditary deformity), because people are all the same species. The analogy doesn't hold water when you're trying to determine the ancestry of species, because there we're actually dealing with macroscopic physiological changes.

The part of the truth your analogy captures is that we cannot be sure that fossil X is a lineal descendant of fossil Y - which is more like not being sure whether the skeleton in the grave is a great-uncle or your grandfather.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Some of you have suggested the age can be determined by radiometric means, and by which layers they are in. If one could be sure that C14 can deliver on that, then I have no problem doing so. If the layers can be accurately dated, likewise. But can they? Deposition rates vary, and rapid ones may cover contemporary emtombments over a relatively great depth.

Fortunately rapid deposition leaves different traces from slow deposition.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If we can over come having to make assumptions about how long it took for the layers to be created, then dating would be possible. Even the ice-core dating seems not to be as simple as it is projected: To demonstrate that the astronomical theory biases all data sets and that annual layer counts can be adjusted to come close to expectations, all one has to do is read how the count of ‘annual’ layers below 2,300 metres was changed in the GISP2 core. Based on the deep-sea core chronology applied to the Vostok Antarctica ice core, Meese noted that their timescale for GISP2 was off by 25,000 years at 2,800 metres depth:

‘They predicted the age of the ice at 2800 m to be about 110,000 years, 25,000 years older than had been originally counted on the basis of visual stratigraphy [Meese et al., 1994].’13

The senior author then went back to the laboratory to ‘recheck’ the visible stratigraphy or dust layers. She discovered that by using a 1-mm wide laser beam in the LLS method instead of an 8-mm wide beam, 25,000 more annual layers of dust were ‘discovered’ between 2,300 and 2,800 metres! One must be especially careful when evolutionary/uniformitarian scientists claim ‘agreement’ between two or more ‘independent’ dating methods and/or data sets. See full article for more on ice-core dating, Ice cores vs the Flood http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/icecore.asp

Ruddy scientists, eh? Going back and checking the evidence like that, and discovering they were inaccurate first time round...doesn't happen with Creationism, does it?

Seriously, the example shows what's right with science - the verification against multiple independent sources that led to the discovery of the inaccuracy, the going back and using different methods, and the publishing of the whole process.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You point to the fossils and say, "We came from them". I point to the fossils and say, "We came from some of their peers". I point to genetic bottle-necking as supportive of that. I point to dating methods that suggest a young earth.

What dating methods that suggest a young earth? The only "dating method" that produces a young earth is Biblical chronology.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I point to global sedimentation.

Do you? I'm fascinated...why? What does that statement even mean? You think that the existence of sediments around the world means there must have been a Flood?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Definitions from that article:
1. Thus the biblical kinds would have originally been distinct biological species, i.e. a population of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, but that cannot so breed with a different biological species.
2. the kind is larger than one of today’s ‘species’. This is because each of the original kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.
3. Creationists have pointed out that as long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are the same kind
4. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind

Species, then. You need to straighten things out with JC. You also need to demonstrate that at some point biological diversity collapsed to very little, and then began expanding at a huge rate - within the timespan of recorded history.

You would also need to explain how the Bible fails to mention any of these interesting features.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The author goes on to make what I consider to be a telling observation: Some atheistic skeptics have demanded that creationists should list every single ‘kind’. Of course, to even begin to do so, it would be necessary to perform hybridization experiments on all sexually reproducing organisms, so this is unreasonable.

Not at all. Genetic proximity will give you a good idea of whether cross-breeds will be viable, or even worth trying for. No-one is asking you to try to cross-breed eagles and whelks.

wolfsbane wrote: »

And no evolutionist has ever listed all biological species anyway, as opposed to a list of organisms classified into arbitrary man-made groupings classified as species.

FFS, what utter rot. There is no such thing as a species except within man-made classifications. Honestly, why parade your ignorance like that?

wolfsbane wrote: »

And the skeptic’s demand for a list of every single kind overlooks the fact that a denotative definition (i.e. exhaustive list) is not the only kind of definition. The hybridization criterion is a more reasonable operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds.

So it is possible? Make up your minds!

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't know if it is your bigotry or lack of logic that blinds you to the presence of the answers. One should be able to recognise our opponent's arguments, even if we disagree with them.

I certainly recognise some of them as complete twaddle, I'm afraid.

wolfsbane wrote: »

For example, oil deposits occur across vast areas of the Earth. Their formation requires very rapid and oxygen-deficient conditions. Flood catastrophy would provide that, and since oil is world-wide, it suggests a world-wide flood.

What ****e. Really, wolfsbane, you know, and I know, that you effectively don't know anything about oil formation. Oil formation does not require "rapid conditions", assuming that to mean "rapid deposition and burial". They do require anoxic conditions, which are not found in flood waters. Oil source rocks are found in six stratigraphic levels - they are not found everywhere in the world by any means - to call them "worldwide" is rubbish, since they are found patchily, with very strong clustering. A worldwide flood with similar conditions throughout the world (mountains down, remember?) would produce no such picture. If they were produced by the death and burial of pre-flood organisms, it's utterly impossible that there should be stacked reservoirs separated by hundreds of metres of rock, since that would indicate multiple death-and-burial episodes in the same place, with significant periods of time between them - a scenario irreconcilable with the Flood - yet stacked reservoirs are common in the major oil provinces.

Finally, the suggestion that because oil is worldwide it indicates a global flood is absolutely fatuous, in and of itself. It's a syllogistic error of mammoth proportions.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your evidence that they came from one common with man is just an interpretation of what you see in the fossil record. Just like me. The fossils say nothing directly (other than rubbishing uniformitarian evolution). So I can say with as much surety as you for your tale that they are consistent with the Creation/Flood account.

Except that you have to explain how the floodwaters never mixed up the wrong types of fossils, and managed to grade everything quite nicely into what appears to be an evolutionary sequence. If you choose to give an answer to that, you will need to do more than just use the word 'hydrodynamics' - you'd need to show how no known form of settling of mixed debris gives the results actually found.

wolfsbane wrote: »

but such grouping doesn't prove anything - it just tells a story in support of the theory. That's Ok, for if a story could not be told it would undermine the theory - but it only a story, not proof. Creationists tell their own stories in support of their theory, and they can classify fossils with the best - but it is entirely subjective.

One story is produced only by those with a prior commitment to Biblical literalism. Nobody except Creationists ever come to the interpretation Creationists do - whereas scientists of every faith, creed, and culture have been able to see the evolutionary explanation.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The classification of species, families, etc is a human filing system - not necessary evidence of their relatedness. So anyone can place this fossil in that camp or the other, depending on what characteristic one considers most significant. All it gets is a file. It doesn't prove anything.

Phew! At last, something nearly true in a wilderness of half-baked rubbish! Nevertheless, the outlines of major groups are clear. Eagles and whelks are not closely related - your objection is valid only for closely related organisms, and not valid at all for genetic classifications.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creationists know the earth is c6000 years old, and the Flod - the major cause of fossils, c 4300 ago. They challenge claims of radiometric dating on the basis that the methods make presuppositions e.g, constant rates - that have been shown not to hold, and of proven massive errors. They examine the evidence - geology, biology, etc. - to see if it fits with the Biblical record. They make their interpretations based on their assumptions, just like evolutionists.

The assumption geologists start with is that the present is a guide to the past - that the angle of rest for sand grains was the same 400 million years ago as it is now. We also exclude the supernatural.

I appreciate that it's possible to assume exactly the opposite - that the supernatural was involved, and that everything operated differently in the past - radioactive decay was faster, light travelled at a different speed, debris settled in water in completely different ways, there was a huge vapour canopy over the earth, there were huge water bodies under the earth, continents moved as fast as aircraft, animals had completely different genomes, humans lived hundreds of years, speciation took a couple of years, and so on until dribbling sets in - but it's all horsecock.

The problem with that approach is that it doesn't lead anywhere, because it puts the idea that the earth was made out of the droppings of a giant rat on exactly the same footing as the Biblical account - because essentially you're saying that you don't know how things happened, because it didn't happen like it does now, and anyway, some of it was done supernaturally in any case.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Proof again of your blindness -
From the article:
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.

Ocean floor is recycled at subduction trenches.

wolfsbane wrote: »

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.

As is the sodium, producing calc-alkali granites.

wolfsbane wrote: »

6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.

Very recently.

wolfsbane wrote: »

7. Many strata are too tightly bent.

Millions of years at heat and pressure will produce almost any deformation style imaginable, up to and including rocks that look like toothpaste....

Honestly, why are we going through all this again? These are the arguments of particularly dim schoolboys.

annoyed,
Scofflaw