Slashdot Mirror

There's a misconception that the earth is very old, and also that other creatures that existed at the same time as dinosaurs were 'prehistoric' (less developed, bigger, hairier, whatever). Why couldn't a shih-tzu appear the same now as it did 6000 years ago? The fossil record proves this out: the fossil record shows dinosaurs alongside the same creatures that we have today, with no or very little change. http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fo ssils.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chap ter8.asp - very interesting http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/po lly.asp

There's a misconception that the earth is very old, and also that other creatures that existed at the same time as dinosaurs were 'prehistoric' (less developed, bigger, hairier, whatever). Why couldn't a shih-tzu appear the same now as it did 6000 years ago? The fossil record proves this out: the fossil record shows dinosaurs alongside the same creatures that we have today, with no or very little change. http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fo ssils.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chap ter8.asp - very interesting http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/po lly.asp

There's a misconception that the earth is very old, and also that other creatures that existed at the same time as dinosaurs were 'prehistoric' (less developed, bigger, hairier, whatever). Why couldn't a shih-tzu appear the same now as it did 6000 years ago? The fossil record proves this out: the fossil record shows dinosaurs alongside the same creatures that we have today, with no or very little change. http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fo ssils.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chap ter8.asp - very interesting http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/po lly.asp

A cubit is not an exact measurement, and was used, especially for measurements larger than a few cubits, to convey the sense of size. A cubit was the length from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. It was never intended to be exact.

Every manuscript ever written was/is/will be written in the context of that culture and language. Pure math falls into similar context as well. You could write it as a series of dots representing numbers and even group the dots with symbols in a series, to explain the symbols (whether they are operators or more convenient symbols to represent a quantitiy of dots), and then show proofs using this system. Just about anyone could then read this language, given a bit of thought. But true understanding may be harder, especially for those tribal groups whose language only include the equivalents of one, two, and many. So even this attempt at writing a culture-neutral, universally understood manuscript has limitations.

Commenting on most of the rest of what I've read here:

Almost everyone posting needs to know a science book, not dictionary, definition of theory, fact, and scientific law. I will not provide these. That's what science books are for.

Most posts have no validity whatsoever because they are based on faulty premises, and very bad logic on top of that. Most have much misinformation.

Since there is so much "proof" abounding here I will throw some opinions into the fray. Read the second law of thermodynamics. How does evolution fit in (that's always been my question)?

For those who want to know about how science relates to religion, try Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator," and/or http://www.answersingenesis.org/. For those who want the to know about evolution, try http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/t he-origin-of-species/ for the research that started it all. For an ongoing debate about the subject, try http://www.talkorigins.org/. For a balanced view, try all the above, plus more. Each of these contain lengthy reads, and great opposition. Keep an open mind, flip back and forth between all of them, and you will probably still end up taking a side. The important thing is, that if done properly, the side will be yours.

Happy Thinking!

Finally, a few quotes attributed to "Mark Twain" to shed some absurd insight on all this (disclaimer: these are his own opinions, not to be construed as fact, theory, law, or anything otherwise, though some might be):

Education: that which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge.

I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable.

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.

In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination.

The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but that they know so many things that ain't so.

-JDS

What proof do we have that anything, including the earth, is 20,000 years old? Regarding wolves/dogs: read http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback /negative_25june2001.asp

>Was Moses there to see the Creation?
No, but the comment bunched Adam and Eve in with creation, they had kids, hence oral culture of recording history.

>Just because there are some things in the Bible that has some sort of connection to historical events
A lot of it IS a historical account! Sure it's written down by people and therefore it's from their point of view (like all historical accounts). But if their point of view was that God sent an angel, told them to do something, they did it and what was promised happened then isn't that exactly the evidence of God's work that you'd like to see?

>Yes, evolution is theory. And no-one is disputing that
What really is the point here is that people don't realise that and so don't ever question it. It's like people 'believe' in science without understanding what good science is or that what they're doing is un-scientific.

>Creationism is not even a theory
See Answers in Genesis for some theory (it is a Christian organisation btw)

Evolution is a fact in that we know it occurs and it has been seen occur[r]ing.

1. This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or cooption, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.

One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major cooption event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function)...

(see site for seven step path)

2. The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible...

3.Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.

• Why humans and chimps don't just share nearly all of our genes, but nearly all of our broken genes (and why human gene 2 looks like exactly like chimp genes 2p and 2q fused together, nonfunctioning broken bits of telomeres right at the fuse point).
• Transitional forms like reptiles to mammals, dinosaurs to birds, and, yes, apes to human.
• Atavisms, Biogeography, Convergence of independent phylogenies and the other 26+ evidences detailed in 29 Evidences for Macroevolution"-- each one individually usable for predictions about (or for falsifying) evolution.

There's some pretty good scientific evidence for the Biblical creation account. Check out Answers in Genesis and The IDEA Center.

Lots of general answers about ape-man claims: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anth ropology.asp

• Sahelanthropus tchadensis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1012touma i.asp
• Ardipithecus ramidus: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/ape_man. asp
• Australopithecus anamensis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/fo cus.asp
• Kenyanthropus platyops: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0416news. asp
• Australopithecus afarensis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/lu cy.asp

Don't be turned off by the fact that this material is from a creationist propaganda site, (most sites are propaganda sites at their hidden core) they cite University research where applicable, especially for Lucy.

www.ideacenter.org is also an awesome resource.

Lots of general answers about ape-man claims: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anth ropology.asp

• Sahelanthropus tchadensis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1012touma i.asp
• Ardipithecus ramidus: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/ape_man. asp
• Australopithecus anamensis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/fo cus.asp
• Kenyanthropus platyops: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0416news. asp
• Australopithecus afarensis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/lu cy.asp

Don't be turned off by the fact that this material is from a creationist propaganda site, (most sites are propaganda sites at their hidden core) they cite University research where applicable, especially for Lucy.

www.ideacenter.org is also an awesome resource.

Lots of general answers about ape-man claims: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anth ropology.asp

• Sahelanthropus tchadensis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1012touma i.asp
• Ardipithecus ramidus: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/ape_man. asp
• Australopithecus anamensis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/fo cus.asp
• Kenyanthropus platyops: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0416news. asp
• Australopithecus afarensis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/lu cy.asp

Don't be turned off by the fact that this material is from a creationist propaganda site, (most sites are propaganda sites at their hidden core) they cite University research where applicable, especially for Lucy.

www.ideacenter.org is also an awesome resource.

Lots of general answers about ape-man claims: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anth ropology.asp

• Sahelanthropus tchadensis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1012touma i.asp
• Ardipithecus ramidus: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/ape_man. asp
• Australopithecus anamensis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/fo cus.asp
• Kenyanthropus platyops: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0416news. asp
• Australopithecus afarensis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/lu cy.asp

Don't be turned off by the fact that this material is from a creationist propaganda site, (most sites are propaganda sites at their hidden core) they cite University research where applicable, especially for Lucy.

www.ideacenter.org is also an awesome resource.

Lots of general answers about ape-man claims: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anth ropology.asp

• Sahelanthropus tchadensis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1012touma i.asp
• Ardipithecus ramidus: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/ape_man. asp
• Australopithecus anamensis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/fo cus.asp
• Kenyanthropus platyops: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0416news. asp
• Australopithecus afarensis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/lu cy.asp

Don't be turned off by the fact that this material is from a creationist propaganda site, (most sites are propaganda sites at their hidden core) they cite University research where applicable, especially for Lucy.

www.ideacenter.org is also an awesome resource.

Lots of general answers about ape-man claims: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anth ropology.asp

• Sahelanthropus tchadensis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1012touma i.asp
• Ardipithecus ramidus: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/ape_man. asp
• Australopithecus anamensis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/fo cus.asp
• Kenyanthropus platyops: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0416news. asp
• Australopithecus afarensis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/lu cy.asp

Don't be turned off by the fact that this material is from a creationist propaganda site, (most sites are propaganda sites at their hidden core) they cite University research where applicable, especially for Lucy.

www.ideacenter.org is also an awesome resource.

There is a very real danger in doubting the literality of the divine account of Creation as set forward in Genesis. Read this article which touches on the infallibility of God's Word as related to Creation: http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-169a.htm God clearly indicates the literality of the Creation account and its associated timescale (the part most often doubted) with the emphasis on "evening...and morning...was the x day" and if you are unable to fully accept that He created every original creature in that 6 day period, you should question the reliability of the rest of the Bible. In fact, the whole basis for the Bible crumbles even if you reject the 6 day time period and substitute millions of years, as many have done. Suddenly, you have death before sin, and God pronouncing everything good, which would then include that death. So then, how does sin change anything? What is there to be saved from if death and the brutal struggle for existence exists even without sin?

I have purchased but not yet read the book "Refuting Compromise", which speaks directly to this issue. Check it out at www.answersingenesis.org. (They have a lot of other great stuff too, including a blurb about this sticker)

I know this has been a fairly theological post, but I feel it is very important. Creationism stands on much stronger footing that evolutionism, and anyone who doubts that should be a true objective scientist and read the materials at www.answersingenesis.org or www.ideacenter.org.

Keep asking those important questions. :-)

There is a very real danger in doubting the literality of the divine account of Creation as set forward in Genesis. Read this article which touches on the infallibility of God's Word as related to Creation: http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-169a.htm God clearly indicates the literality of the Creation account and its associated timescale (the part most often doubted) with the emphasis on "evening...and morning...was the x day" and if you are unable to fully accept that He created every original creature in that 6 day period, you should question the reliability of the rest of the Bible. In fact, the whole basis for the Bible crumbles even if you reject the 6 day time period and substitute millions of years, as many have done. Suddenly, you have death before sin, and God pronouncing everything good, which would then include that death. So then, how does sin change anything? What is there to be saved from if death and the brutal struggle for existence exists even without sin?

I have purchased but not yet read the book "Refuting Compromise", which speaks directly to this issue. Check it out at www.answersingenesis.org. (They have a lot of other great stuff too, including a blurb about this sticker)

I know this has been a fairly theological post, but I feel it is very important. Creationism stands on much stronger footing that evolutionism, and anyone who doubts that should be a true objective scientist and read the materials at www.answersingenesis.org or www.ideacenter.org.

Keep asking those important questions. :-)

I used to be on the fence about evolution and creation, being scientifically-minded but also raised Christian. This site helped clarify a lot of the "gaps" I thought were in the creationist theory by providing scientific explanation to why ID is a credible theory in today's scientific and intellectual circles.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

Enjoy!

I've never heard a Creationist accept any part of Natural Selection.

Your response is a typical one that still never ceases to amaze me. If you're going to reject another viewpoint, you should at least give it the courtesy of understanding it...even just a little. How can you reject what you don't even know? I have never encountered the version of creationism you refer to. I'm sure you've heard of Answers in Genesis, so here's what they say on the topic: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/mu ddywaters.asp

Just so you know that my viewpoint is not atypical, but in fact held by most creationists who've taken the time to understand their beliefs (sadly, some haven't).

The researchers say, "Such rapid size change is unprecedented in birds and animals".

They might not know, but significant changes have been observed over very short periods in fish (I hope these count as "animals") -- http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/sp eciation.asp

(Yours truly &:-) (be nice to me and maybe I'll make an account)

> Earning a Ph.D. in the sciences generally indicates that
> some one is a scientist, which is why I said "reputable scientist".
You're wrong and too proud to admit it. Read this, hopefully that settles it for you: Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?.

> You ignored ... just to make your arithmetic work out.
The arithmetic works out.

> How many variations did you try before you got it to work out?
The beauty of what you're fighting is that it all converges. Other studies are saying the same thing (these papers were quoted here)


In fact, a number of recent studies on living populations have indeed come up with results which indicate a much higher rate of mutation in human mtDNA. ...
The review in Science's 'Research News' goes still further about Eve's date, saying that 'using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.' The article says about one of the teams of scientists (the Parsons team5) that 'evolutionary studies led them to expect about one mutation in 600 generations ... they were "stunned" to find 10 base-pair changes, which gave them a rate of one mutation every 40 generations.'4 ...
Loewe, L and Scherer, S. 'Mitochondrial Eve: the plot thickens.' Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12(11):422-423, November 1997.
Gibbons, A. 'Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock'. Science 279(5347):28-29, January 2, 1998.


> The Family tree article doesn't say that there
> was only one family tree at 1415BC.
Talk is cheap. As I said multiple times in those posts:
Give me a reason how the study _disproves_ a single ancestor.

> As far as what Newton believed in. Alchemy, Astrology,
> and Creationism were all appropriate for his time,
> but just as Alchemy and Astrology have been relagated
> to quaint history, so has creationism.
I warned about slandering the dead. According to this article, Newton bought books on astrology, but was "soon convinced of the vanity & emptiness of the pretended science of Judicial astrology". As for alchemy, that was the chemistry of the day.

> You can read reputable to mean a scientist
> working to increase knowledge in his field of study
> and submitting his work for review by other scientists
> in the same field of study.
Generally, people don't get Ph.D. unless they publish.

> The 521 scientists named Steve that have signed the
> statement supporting the age of the earth and evolution
> statistically represent 52,100 scientists.
Science isn't a democracy. The theory-of-the-day has to account for the evidence, or change.

> As far as some of your other "facts", dendrochronology using
> crossdating for bristle-cone pines has documented a continuous
> history for 8,200 years.
Crossdating hopscotch again. I _had_ asked for a single tree and pointed to problems of crossdating.

> There even other older living things, for example, an
> 11,000 year old creosote bush in the Mojave Desert,
Evidence? As it turns out, all of the rest of your mentions were bushes, with age estimates based on _current_ rate of growth and _current_ weather conditions (assuming both persisted for thousands of years)...

Except for this one...
> a 13,000 year old eucalyptus in Australia,
Aha - could be there treerings in the one trunk then? Er, no...
" grow 40 metres apart, may be part of the same original tree. If so, they are estimated to be 13,000 years old! If not, the individuals themselves may be 3,000 years old, making them Australia's oldest trees "

I've asked time and again for more than 5500 rings in one trunk. Actually, the Bible s

> Earning a Ph.D. in the sciences generally indicates that
> some one is a scientist, which is why I said "reputable scientist".
You're wrong and too proud to admit it. Read this, hopefully that settles it for you: Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?.

> You ignored ... just to make your arithmetic work out.
The arithmetic works out.

> How many variations did you try before you got it to work out?
The beauty of what you're fighting is that it all converges. Other studies are saying the same thing (these papers were quoted here)


In fact, a number of recent studies on living populations have indeed come up with results which indicate a much higher rate of mutation in human mtDNA. ...
The review in Science's 'Research News' goes still further about Eve's date, saying that 'using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.' The article says about one of the teams of scientists (the Parsons team5) that 'evolutionary studies led them to expect about one mutation in 600 generations ... they were "stunned" to find 10 base-pair changes, which gave them a rate of one mutation every 40 generations.'4 ...
Loewe, L and Scherer, S. 'Mitochondrial Eve: the plot thickens.' Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12(11):422-423, November 1997.
Gibbons, A. 'Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock'. Science 279(5347):28-29, January 2, 1998.


> The Family tree article doesn't say that there
> was only one family tree at 1415BC.
Talk is cheap. As I said multiple times in those posts:
Give me a reason how the study _disproves_ a single ancestor.

> As far as what Newton believed in. Alchemy, Astrology,
> and Creationism were all appropriate for his time,
> but just as Alchemy and Astrology have been relagated
> to quaint history, so has creationism.
I warned about slandering the dead. According to this article, Newton bought books on astrology, but was "soon convinced of the vanity & emptiness of the pretended science of Judicial astrology". As for alchemy, that was the chemistry of the day.

> You can read reputable to mean a scientist
> working to increase knowledge in his field of study
> and submitting his work for review by other scientists
> in the same field of study.
Generally, people don't get Ph.D. unless they publish.

> The 521 scientists named Steve that have signed the
> statement supporting the age of the earth and evolution
> statistically represent 52,100 scientists.
Science isn't a democracy. The theory-of-the-day has to account for the evidence, or change.

> As far as some of your other "facts", dendrochronology using
> crossdating for bristle-cone pines has documented a continuous
> history for 8,200 years.
Crossdating hopscotch again. I _had_ asked for a single tree and pointed to problems of crossdating.

> There even other older living things, for example, an
> 11,000 year old creosote bush in the Mojave Desert,
Evidence? As it turns out, all of the rest of your mentions were bushes, with age estimates based on _current_ rate of growth and _current_ weather conditions (assuming both persisted for thousands of years)...

Except for this one...
> a 13,000 year old eucalyptus in Australia,
Aha - could be there treerings in the one trunk then? Er, no...
" grow 40 metres apart, may be part of the same original tree. If so, they are estimated to be 13,000 years old! If not, the individuals themselves may be 3,000 years old, making them Australia's oldest trees "

I've asked time and again for more than 5500 rings in one trunk. Actually, the Bible s

My earliest post:
3 Papers + more info

A later one was:
Family trees share roots in 1415BC

Pick _anything_ that _I_ (and not answersingenesis.org) said wrong - show me how.

Re:
> Isaac Newton also believed in ...
Now that we've settled on what Newton believed about _creation_, there is quite some slander about him.

Re:
> The last reputable scientist that defended wholesale creation ... was in the 1800's.
Doens't earning a Ph.D. in the sciences make one a scientist? Creation scientists and other biographies of interest

Re Newton:
No less a scientist than Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), one of the greatest thinkers and most-respected scientists of all time (a serious Bible student and scientific creationist, by the way!), accepted Ussher's chronology and a 6,000-year-old Earth implicitly.
link

Re:
> You start out with a "Gish Gallop"
Get specific please. What exactly have I said wrong?

Re:
> any anything newer than the 16h century
Long list here

I pointed to several pieces of evidence in my posts. Attempt to debunk what you want.

Regarding your contempt for "creation scientists":

"I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily".

"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance"

-- Isaac Newton

In the creationist model the ice over Greenland and Antarctica builds rapidly for about 500 years during a rapid ice age (Oard, 1990). Then the amount of snowfall tapers off during the next 200 years of deglaciation.

Besides subannual oscillation, other non-precipitation variables such as snow dunes, can add subannual layers.

Adding to the problems of making accurate measurements is the fact that cold or warm weather patterns can run in cycles, anywhere from a week to even a season. These cold or warm spells are typical today at any one place in the mid and high latitudes. These spells would also cause oscillations over periods of a month or longer (Shuman et al., 1995). So, there are any number of possible explanations for oscillations in the variables at smaller scales than the annual cycle. These are what the uniformitarian scientists are measuring as supposed annual cycles the deeper they go in the ice core.

The uniformitarian scientists do not believe these subannual cycles exist because of their assumed great compression of the ice sheet based on their old-Earth time scale.

> The "biblical" flood is actually just a retelling of a story from the epic of Gilgamesh;

No. Its the other way around..

> as such, it likely refers to the flooding of the Persian gulf.

Both the book of Genesis in the Bible and the epic of Gilgamesh, as well as other cultures like these Indian ones and Native American -- all these claim a global flood for which there is evidence.

I guess the reason why some people are eager to pass off the Biblical account as a bad copy of the recently discovered Gilgamesh epic (despite clear evidence to the opposite) is the influence of Christianity in their own lives. People generally don't like being told uncomfortable things by the Bible.

See my posting history for posts with more evidence.

> The "biblical" flood is actually just a retelling of a story from the epic of Gilgamesh;

No. Its the other way around..

> as such, it likely refers to the flooding of the Persian gulf.

Both the book of Genesis in the Bible and the epic of Gilgamesh, as well as other cultures like these Indian ones and Native American -- all these claim a global flood for which there is evidence.

I guess the reason why some people are eager to pass off the Biblical account as a bad copy of the recently discovered Gilgamesh epic (despite clear evidence to the opposite) is the influence of Christianity in their own lives. People generally don't like being told uncomfortable things by the Bible.

See my posting history for posts with more evidence.

While acknowledging the small brain size (380 cc, less than that of a chimp) and obvious differences with typical modern humans, he apparently stated that the remains were those of a member of the "Australomelanesid race, which had dwelled across almost all of the Indonesian islands."
...
An article in Britain's Observer quotes Dr. Jacob as suggesting the abnormality known as microcephaly (in which a human is born with a lower brain size) was responsible for Flores man's small brain/skull size.
...
Dr. Soejono was quoted as saying, "...we were able to find soft tissue so that we could carry out a DNA test. We couldn't do that if it was already a fossil." Interestingly, a media release posted by Australia's Southern Cross University, on 8 November 2004, suggests that the Flores (or Liang Bua, as the site is also known) people may have inhabited the island up to about "500 years ago."

So a catastrophic climate change took 5200 years ago?

Bible believers have been talking about an ice age taking place a few hundred years after a world-wide deluge took place 5000 years ago...

'After the Flood you would have both', says Mike. 'The water that the Bible indicates came from under the ground during the Flood would have been very warm or hot. This water mixing with the pre-Flood ocean would result in a significantly warmer ocean, right after the Flood, than today. Warmer water means more evaporation. So you have more moisture in the air available for storms, generating snow and ice at middle and upper latitudes, close to the developing ice sheets. And the ash and gases in the air is what gives the cooling of the summers.' All this, he points out, would have been like a 'loaded gun' at the end of the Flood. 'There would have been no way to delay it, an ice age just had to start.' ...
Mike Oard's calculations show that a likely estimate for when the Ice Age reached its maximum would have been around 500 years after the Flood, with about another 200 years to melt. He warns that this is only a 'ballpark' figure, which could vary by hundreds of years--'but that's still a short time for evolutionists.'
[Link ]

Global ice age information

Link to discussion of other evidence...

So a catastrophic climate change took 5200 years ago?

Bible believers have been talking about an ice age taking place a few hundred years after a world-wide deluge took place 5000 years ago...

'After the Flood you would have both', says Mike. 'The water that the Bible indicates came from under the ground during the Flood would have been very warm or hot. This water mixing with the pre-Flood ocean would result in a significantly warmer ocean, right after the Flood, than today. Warmer water means more evaporation. So you have more moisture in the air available for storms, generating snow and ice at middle and upper latitudes, close to the developing ice sheets. And the ash and gases in the air is what gives the cooling of the summers.' All this, he points out, would have been like a 'loaded gun' at the end of the Flood. 'There would have been no way to delay it, an ice age just had to start.' ...
Mike Oard's calculations show that a likely estimate for when the Ice Age reached its maximum would have been around 500 years after the Flood, with about another 200 years to melt. He warns that this is only a 'ballpark' figure, which could vary by hundreds of years--'but that's still a short time for evolutionists.'
[Link ]

Global ice age information

Link to discussion of other evidence...

Okay, thats just plain weird. It did it again. Trying HTML this time, instead of text: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/ho wold.asp

Somehow, it doesn't surprise me that you didn't notice a big bold

"URLs <URL:http://example.com/> will auto-link a URL"

right next to the Submit button, or that you didn't actually use HTML while you were "trying HTML this time." It doesn't really surprise considering the fact that you are just trying to post a link to the most hilarious piece of pseudoscience I have ever read.

Here, let me help you:

The earth: how old does it look?

A short summary: It's an article from the Creation Magazine published on the Answers in Genesis website: "Answers in Genesis is a Christian apologetics ministry that equips the church to uphold the authority of the Bible from the very first verse. The thousands of articles and media programs on this site answer questions about creation/evolution, dinosaurs, and much more." This website in general, and this article in particular, is a perfect example of pseudoscience. You may want to read "Creation vs. evolution debate" article and "Creation vs. evolution debate" discussion on Wikipedia to get some insight and see how ridiculous your beliefs are when you are trying to masquerade your faith as science (which, nota bene, is a hearsay). I am a Christian, a Roman Catholic, and I find it insulting that you and other scum bags are trying to make my Faith irrelevant by trying to "prove" it scientifically, and effectively making my faith absurd by failing to prove it. Old Earth and old Universe (by which I mean many billions of years) as well as Darwinian evolution has already been accepted by Vatican and Pope John Paul II, just like heliocentrism once defended by Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler, and later accepted by Vatican, so now do us Christians a favor and please kindly accept evolution just like Pope and stop making all of us Christians look like utter fools and morons fighting with science. Thank you!

Amazing how almost no geologists agree with you on this point. Amazing how the only people who believe that the Earth is a few thousand years old do so not because of facts and reason, but because of their faith.

Read AiG's statement of faith. Gee, sorta takes them out of the running when it comes to actual science, doesn't it?

The second law of thermodynamics does not preclude evolution. The law states that CLOSED systems invariably proceed toward states of higher entropy.

The Earth's biosphere is NOT a closed system. There is this massive energy source called the SUN (perhaps you've heard of it?) which puts lots of energy into the biosphere. Which means that local entropy reduction inside your own body, for instance, every second of every day, is more than balanced by a HUGE entropy increase in the sun.

The most likely intermediate forms developed feather-like structures *before* flight, and gliding before powered flight. Consider ostriches: they have feathers, but not light bones. As for wings, bats have wings without feathers. And flying squirrels are living examples of how gliding structures can exist and be used for flight without either full blown wings or feathers. Light bones are a benefit to creatures *with flight.*

Carbon dating cannot be used for rocks. It is for organic material continuously incorporating carbon from the atmosphere. In fact, if you follow what is apparently a link to the issue you bring up, you see that it is argon dating that causes anomalous results.

Using logical reasoning, and after considering other mechanisms (lab contamination), he concludes the most likely explanation is that excess Ar-40 was present in the rock when it was first solidified.

However, he neglects to consider one other aspect: because of the long half-life of K-40, the dating procedure cannot be expected to be accurate for samples younger than about 2 million years before present. In fact, the lab he sent the sample had a standard warning to that effect. Plus, there were lots of questionable processing steps before he sent the samples to the lab.

Meaning the most likely logical chain is:

1) K-Ar dating is unreliable for samples analysis of Austin's work?

When do you think the flood happened? While dinosaurs still existed? Do you believe man existed at that time? The point about the Eskimos and aboriginies is that you are presumably claiming a *recent* date for Noah to start the entire human population. How did the Native Americans get to meet Columbus? How did they get to America if they were recently descended from a population begun in the Middle East? Mainstream biologists have genetic and archaeological evidence showing multiple migrations occuring TENS of thousands of years ago, correlating with ice-age migrations of large mammals. Did those wooly mammoths get off the ark? Did opossums and kangaroos? If so, why aren't there any kangaroos or koalas or playtpuses or opossums on the mainland of Asia?

What "map" are you talking about? Do you have a link? Is it any more than a few ambiguous marks?

How do you draw the line between "new" and "old" organisms? There is no reason for wild tuberculin to be resistant to new antibiotics. Yet, when conditions change, the organism evolves. No one believes a single mutation can change a dinosaur into a bird. However, multiple mutations eventually add up to significant differences. Do you believe that modern dogs, domesticated pigeons, and agricultural crops are the same species as the wild varieties? Do you think the amazing results that breeding of domestic plants and animals can produce in just a few years have anything to do with possibly large changes that could happen in many millions of years?

Actually, the Bible I have in front of ME says it is an Elephant.

Man's interpretation. The word is "behemoth", which like many words in Job, does not appear anywhere else in the Bible, so we only have this description to go on. And you still haven't answered my question regarding the comparison to cedar trees, but I'll throw some more in for you - some believe that it may be referring to the elephant's nose (ie. trunk), but it says in v24 that his nose cannot be pierced... so (a) why wouldn't you be able to pierce an elephant's trunk, and (b) why should it say "tail" earlier when the word "nose" is used here anyway?

But it also says "that I made along with you" Dinosuars died out way before humans walked the earth.

Along with the coelacanth, the "Wollemi pine" tree, the "Gladiator" insect, and various others. Because evolutionists, like all human beings, are infallible. </sarcasm>

Actually, the Bible I have in front of ME says it is an Elephant.

Man's interpretation. The word is "behemoth", which like many words in Job, does not appear anywhere else in the Bible, so we only have this description to go on. And you still haven't answered my question regarding the comparison to cedar trees, but I'll throw some more in for you - some believe that it may be referring to the elephant's nose (ie. trunk), but it says in v24 that his nose cannot be pierced... so (a) why wouldn't you be able to pierce an elephant's trunk, and (b) why should it say "tail" earlier when the word "nose" is used here anyway?

But it also says "that I made along with you" Dinosuars died out way before humans walked the earth.

Along with the coelacanth, the "Wollemi pine" tree, the "Gladiator" insect, and various others. Because evolutionists, like all human beings, are infallible. </sarcasm>

Actually, the Bible I have in front of ME says it is an Elephant.

Man's interpretation. The word is "behemoth", which like many words in Job, does not appear anywhere else in the Bible, so we only have this description to go on. And you still haven't answered my question regarding the comparison to cedar trees, but I'll throw some more in for you - some believe that it may be referring to the elephant's nose (ie. trunk), but it says in v24 that his nose cannot be pierced... so (a) why wouldn't you be able to pierce an elephant's trunk, and (b) why should it say "tail" earlier when the word "nose" is used here anyway?

But it also says "that I made along with you" Dinosuars died out way before humans walked the earth.

Along with the coelacanth, the "Wollemi pine" tree, the "Gladiator" insect, and various others. Because evolutionists, like all human beings, are infallible. </sarcasm>

No, it's not debatable whether one can call creationism a theory because it's not. Let's start with the deifinition of a theory:

A well tested (as opposed to a hypothesis which is less well tested) explanation for observed events. A theory must allow one to make predictions which can be tested by experiment. When the results of those experiments are as predicted, it lends support to the theory as a good explanation. If the results are not as predicted, they may lead to the eventual modification of the theory, or even its replacement.

Since creationism/intelligent design relies on a supreme being to start the whole thing rolling, a being which can neither be proven nor disproven, the arguments for these concepts fall flat. Without being able to verify or deny any part of ones thoughts (I refuse to call them theories) you cannot have a theory. End of story.

One can argue until they're blue in the face about how their evidence shows they're thoughts are just as plausible as someone elses but unless/until they can offer proof of a supreme being their ideas are relegated to the same pile as Santa Claus and the Easter bunny.

Next thing you know people will want to believe that the Grand Canyon is only a few thousand years old and was made by the flood during Noahs time. Oh wait, that's already being done.

Well at least the fact that humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time is still a safe subject. Er, maybe not.

Whoa! The National Weather Service has "sunrise" and "sunset" on its web site. I think you should send them an email with the correct information right away! They obviously believe in a geocentric solar system. ;-)

Could anyone tell me exactly how Genesis and the theory of evolution are incompatible?

Yes.

I hope you read the small print sir
"Sponsored by Answers in Genesis, in association with GospelCom.Net"
=/

Adding to my earlier reply... this new article should kill the remainder of your arrogance. It has photos of the race of pgymy people on those islands, and shows the Flores skeleton was a member of that race who was born with a small brain.

[Link]

The article reports Dr. Teuku Jacob, a paleoanthropology professor from Gadjah Mada University, as saying:

"The skeleton is not a new species as claimed by these scientists, but simply a fossil of a modern human, Homo sapiens, that lived about 1,300 to 1,800 years ago."

While acknowledging the small brain size (380 cc, less than that of a chimp) and obvious differences with typical modern humans, he apparently stated that the remains were those of a member of the "Australomelanesid race, which had dwelled across almost all of the Indonesian islands." ...
An article in Britain's Observer quotes Dr. Jacob as suggesting the abnormality known as microcephaly (in which a human is born with a lower brain size) was responsible for Flores man's small brain/skull size. ...
Interestingly, the JP news report also highlighted the same fact we did, namely that the specimen was not really fossilized (mineralized). This of course is more consistent with a much younger age for the skeleton than in the Nature announcement. Dr. Soejono was quoted as saying, "...we were able to find soft tissue so that we could carry out a DNA test. We couldn't do that if it was already a fossil." Interestingly, a media release posted by Australia's Southern Cross University, on 8 November 2004, suggests that the Flores (or Liang Bua, as the site is also known) people may have inhabited the island up to about "500 years ago."

Hey, didn't you read the attribution of the article? The author, Robert Newton, is a doctoral student in astrophysics, at an accredited university in the United States. An accredited university! I dunno who you are, but I'll bet you're not no doctoral student in astrophysics at an accredited university!

Of course, "Robert Newton" is not his real name: it appears to be Jason Lisle. He is actually now Dr. Jason Lisle, although apparently he wasn't in August. He should be congratulated on his freshly-minted doctoral degree from a reasonable-looking astrophysics program at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He should also be congratulated on his publication record. It includes a number of publications in creationist journals, and at least a few academic research publications in various journals.

Funny guy: can't figure him out. Seems to be doing some good research on solar and planetary stuff, but to be somewhat out of his league in cosmology-land. His scientific credibility is certainly not enhanced by his use of an alias for much of his work, nor by his flippant dismissal of the cosmic microwave background as evidence for time scales of universal expansion.

Hope he finds what he is looking for. Maybe I'll learn something from him someday.

Hey, didn't you read the attribution of the article? The author, Robert Newton, is a doctoral student in astrophysics, at an accredited university in the United States. An accredited university! I dunno who you are, but I'll bet you're not no doctoral student in astrophysics at an accredited university!

Of course, "Robert Newton" is not his real name: it appears to be Jason Lisle. He is actually now Dr. Jason Lisle, although apparently he wasn't in August. He should be congratulated on his freshly-minted doctoral degree from a reasonable-looking astrophysics program at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He should also be congratulated on his publication record. It includes a number of publications in creationist journals, and at least a few academic research publications in various journals.

Funny guy: can't figure him out. Seems to be doing some good research on solar and planetary stuff, but to be somewhat out of his league in cosmology-land. His scientific credibility is certainly not enhanced by his use of an alias for much of his work, nor by his flippant dismissal of the cosmic microwave background as evidence for time scales of universal expansion.

Hope he finds what he is looking for. Maybe I'll learn something from him someday.

Hey, didn't you read the attribution of the article? The author, Robert Newton, is a doctoral student in astrophysics, at an accredited university in the United States. An accredited university! I dunno who you are, but I'll bet you're not no doctoral student in astrophysics at an accredited university!

Of course, "Robert Newton" is not his real name: it appears to be Jason Lisle. He is actually now Dr. Jason Lisle, although apparently he wasn't in August. He should be congratulated on his freshly-minted doctoral degree from a reasonable-looking astrophysics program at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He should also be congratulated on his publication record. It includes a number of publications in creationist journals, and at least a few academic research publications in various journals.

Funny guy: can't figure him out. Seems to be doing some good research on solar and planetary stuff, but to be somewhat out of his league in cosmology-land. His scientific credibility is certainly not enhanced by his use of an alias for much of his work, nor by his flippant dismissal of the cosmic microwave background as evidence for time scales of universal expansion.

Hope he finds what he is looking for. Maybe I'll learn something from him someday.

Wow. Just - wow.

I never really knew what lipstick on a pig looked like before.

The article explaining that dinosaur tracks are mostly in a straight line, so that means they were running away from the great flood was particularly delusional.

Oh, and this gem on the speed of light was just amazing.

That most of science does not agree with the church is entirely because the church's claims are supported by little to no evidence.

Groups working to fix this problem include Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, and the Creation Research Society. AiG and CRS both publish peer-reviewed journals.

No.

You're thinking of Philip Henry Gosse's "Omphalos" hypothesis, which is kind of obsolete anyway now that Uniformitarianism is flying into the ground.

...the science of a guy who can't even get footy scores right? Tough call.

IPOF, creationists are quite happy to have dinosaurs exist, the YEC variety say roughly 6-10,000 years not 3,000 and it took six days. Go and read their own stuff if you don't believe me.

You'd look like a bit of an ignoramus coming at them with so many misquotes.

Thanks for your response.

Can you add some specifics about the evidence for no bottleneck? Also, what is the later bottleneck you refer to?

Here's the website of the original research: Joe Chang's website

The Joe Chang work I originally is just one thing. There is the NYTimes work we discussed with it's striking parallels in the Bible, there is the evidence to think higher observed mutational rates date mEve earlier, as well as other genetic evidence on recent divergence of populations. There seems to be some evidence for similar acceleration for Y Adam timelines. I recall reading about similar trends for agricultural plant and animal lineages.

There is also a different genetic study (see article) that concurs with the Biblical assertion that Jews and Arabs have a common ancestor. And other genetic studies back a similar assertion for a Jewish "Cohen priestly gene" (also mentioned in the article).

You're a sad case - the Bible says Noah's sons entered the ark with their wives:
I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall go into the ark--you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you.

BTW, Adam's sons had their sisters as wives.