ooops not sure what happened......

1.  You're really not saying much here Zoo except throwing around your qualifications. You're not saying  anything except that "your" experience" tells you otherwise? What experience?  Have you learned anything outside of the textbooks?   Everyone knows homework problems are presented in simplifed form in textbooks (especially in high school and undergrad). 

2.  No.. Every geologist (or scientist) has a bias based on ideas he already believes to be true and will interpret and present data according to his bias. 

3.

Yes.  Who's we? 

According to who????  Think about it.  If decay means particals breaking off of an element and if those particles are held in place by forces, then an external force of some amount could be applied such that the particle would break off more easily.   It doesn't take a Scientist to
understand this.

i don't have time to sit and debate every item of scientific data in the history of the universe nor do I have the knowledge to do so.  Basically if you are bent on believing evolution I can't change that even if I could prove to you that it is illogical you still would believe in it. You pretty much have said that yourself. 

 It really does have to do with faith Zoo on both sides.  Same  evidence; different interpretations.  I'm just saying look at both sides before jumping to a conclusion too soon.  You are really young to have made up your mind so quickly without looking at it from both angles honestly.

 

 

 

*sigh* Yes, they're simplified...however, if there were exceptions to the rule I would have been told.



That's why a lot of different people experiment with the same thing. Experiments are designed to eliminate bias as much as possible. Hundreds of people repeating the same things over and over and over and over and over again and coming up with the same results seems to point towards a well supported idea. Science is about detaching yourself from the experiment and looking at the results through a passive eye. Admittedly there may be a little, but that's what peer reviews are for and that's why people repeat other people's experiments- to make sure what is reported is actually the way things work.



People in general, the scientific community...etc. The answer is no, we do not use inherently flawed techniques. If we find a huge flaw we figure out a way to either fix it or we discard the entire concept we were using.



That would make sense with anything else. That's basic high school chemistry. However, radioactivity makes materials a little different than one would expect.

Their particles are lost at a constant rate, that's just the way it is...if you fire particle beams at the nucleus, you may change the constant by about a percent. Far as I know, particle beam wielding aliens haven't been blasting every rock on earth. Ask any physicist, chemist, or geologist...they will all tell you the same thing: Radioactive decay is constant, any outside source produces a negligible effect.

That's just the data out there and all I can do is present it.



Have I ever said that? Present me with some reasonable counter evidence and I'll evaluate it. So far all creationists offer is...well, nothing besides the Bible and while that may be important in matters of belief, it gives few insights into the workings of our world unless you prefer to believe instead of research.



There are 6 different definitions of faith...a couple apply to religion, a couple to science, and a couple to both. Unlike religion, "faith" in science is quite often flexible and subject to change when presented with some sort of concrete evidence. It's not really about different interpretations in science. They exist, yes...but that's why we repeat things and test them many times to eliminate that individual bias and stive to form an objective explanation for something.

If we all were to follow one person's interpretation, then science would no longer be science and it would become religion. Facts based on faith, not faith based on facts.

As to looking at both angles...well, that's what I've been doing. I'm also working to integrate things to make sense of the world. I'm flexible and far from fixed. If something new develops, I'll take a look at it. Show me, and I'll consider it and if I find it to my satisfaction then I'll believe it. Jumping to conclusions is not my style...it's irrational and inefficient...and not scientific.


~Zoo

Hello KFC

Hopefully I'll have my computer back from the shop in the next few days, until then I'm using my daughter's laptop. It's quite a foreign experience to me, so please Excuse all the typos, etc.!


You write:

Yes, getting the basics such as these noted at the beginning of a Creation/Evolution discussion is very helpful.

Definitions are important too. Take natural selection. Both sides of the debate use this term.

Creationists understand natural selection only in terms of small changes within a species (kind) which is not evolution per se at all. Race formation comes in here, as does immunological adaption to an invader.

On the other hand, Evolutionists believe and modern science text books teach that every living plant, animal, bird, evolved from other creatures which ultimately originated from mud type slime. Natural selection by survival of the fittest, I believe, was Darwin's original mechanism to show how evolution occurs...random acvivity naturally selects itself into improvements and in the struggle for life one species supposedly evolved into a new and different one. Darwin claimed that natural selection was the primary way that lower life forms changed into new and higher ones. Meanwhile, none of this has been proven with empiracal evidence.

Zoo posts:

It's been my understanding that Carbon/radioactive dating has long been proven unreliable with respect to the age of the earth. C-14 is applicable to only to up to tens of thousands years and not as proof of millions of years of age theory.

When evolution scientists say that the cosmos (universe)and the earth is billions of years old, it's just a guess. ..and what's more...the conventional idea that the earth must be billions of years old is only because that's what it would take for macro-Evolution to occur. Macro-evolution absolutely requires vast amounts of time, molecules to man requires billions of years. If one idea falls, the other one does as well.



KFC POSTS #3:

Good point. Carbon is continually entering the atmosphere by the sun's rays and it's continually leaving by radioactive decay. It's impossible to determine the age of the earth in this way becasue we have no way of going into the past and ascertain whether or not the decay was affected by external influences.

Actually natural processes such as the amount of salt in the ocean, the earth's magnetic field, the question of stars burning, meteorite dust, all show values for a "young " earth. EVOLUTionists aren't laughing as they used to for evidence for a young earth is every bit as worthy of belief as the modern estimate of billions of years old.

Well, that must be why we keep using it...and you know, further base our entire history around. It's not like we don't double check with tree rings or various strata within the earth's crust. We also apparently don't use a variety of methods and materials for dating analysis.

It's a shame that science is such a sham and that we consistently use faulty techniques.


Or maybe...take a look at a scientific website or two...they usually explain things quite well and in great detail. In fact, I believe there are various links to satisfy one's thrist for knowledge peppered throughout my replies.

Why this is so impossible for you guys to believe is beyond me.


*sigh*...I need a break from the creation argument...it's tedious...maybe I'll go back to poetry for awhile.

~Zoo

How much do you know of Darwin personally Zoo?  I mean, have you ever read a bio on him?  Do you even know what the original name of Origin of Species was to begin with?  Did you know it had to be changed to even sell it in the first place because it was so racist? 

Did you know that it was NOT the Scientists who backed him in the beginning?  Did you know that, in fact, he rose to prominence on the coattails of religious leaders of his day?  Did you know his wife EMMA was a devout Christian reading the bible to her own children?   Did you know she wrote Darwin a letter accusing him of suppressing evidence to further his own theory?   I read his bio years ago wanting to know more about the man behind the theory. 

One thing, if anything that I picked up from this seminar I went to was  to really really not to underestimate critical thinking.  We need to be critical thinkers.  He brought out some really good points.  Of course the basic thing we have to continually ask ourseleves is this a belief or a fact?   Some of what I was taking as fact is, in fact, belief.  The Evolutionists do the same thing. 

We need to ask ourselves,

1.  Can we test it?

2.  Can we verify it?

3. Can we repeat it?

If the answer to any of those questions is no.  Then it HAS to be a belief, not a fact. 

I hope to expand more on this coming up in a separate blog on Creation Science. 

 

 

Welcome to the scientific method.


This is what makes or breaks hypotheses. Theories have been tested, verified, and repeated many, many, many, many, many, many times. They're still being tested to this day and where something appears suspect it is tested more and changed if it is found out that previous data was faulty in some way.

In the case of evolution we've been researching for over 150 years, with radioactivity over 100 years. I think we might have caught onto a fatal flaw that is so obvious by now.

~Zoo

Lula posts:

carbon/radioactive dating methods of measuring rates of decay certainly have  usefullness...jit's just that it must now be admitted that scientists cannot use this to determine the age of the earth as being 4.5 billion years old. All this is is wishful guessing.

Lula posts: [quote]It's been my understanding that Carbon/radioactive dating has long been proven unreliable with respect to the age of the earth.

 HA, I can relate... only the other way around...for years and years we've been hammered with evolution theory as fact (no critical thinking questions on the other side of the debate allowed).   I've been fighting that fbeing used in some of my kid's Catholic school textbooks!

Not any more....science is fast disproving the atheistic evolution theory of Darwinianism.

Oh blather!  Using this laptop is way tedious!

I would like a link to this.

~Zoo

Exactly.  If I give you a stopwatch  paper and pen and a burning candle  with marks on it can you figure out how long it would take to burn halfway?  Can you verify this hypothesis and write it down?  Yes.  We have the same Science.  What we CAN'T do is to know how long before the candle started burning.  How long was it burning?  How long was the candle before it started burning?  So how much was there to begin with?  We don't know when it started or if it stopped in the middle do we?  That's the problem.  That's when interpretation comes in. 

There was a guy mentioned this weekend, an Evolutionist whose last name was Milton...didn't catch his first name who wrote a book  truthfully writing about the problems with carbon dating in Chap 5 of his book (that's all I remember).  So there are even Evolutionists out there who debunk the inerrant carbon dating method.  It's not pure.  It's good and useful but it can only go back at the most 50,000 years according to their own data so how do we know what happened 65 million years ago like they report all the time? 

Then that's fine Zoo.  No problem from me, if it is indeed verified.  That's Science.  But I'm going to get into some "Science" that is believed that HAS NOT been tested nor can it be but it's still being taught as Science.  More on that later.

 

 

Didn't I cover this in reply 21?


Eh, I grow weary of this...


I suppose it is easier to say God did it all...much less thinking is involved.

~Zoo

Zoo posts: #1

Yes it plays a crucial part in the minds of Evolution theorists.  Modern ET, at least from the biology textbooks,  is based on the idea that random mutational changes  plus natural selection plus lots of time can produced new life forms. But the problem for them is mutations cannot produce cross species changes. Mutations do not give rise to new creatures, they only altar existing ones.  

For macro evolution to occur, mutations must occur frequently and be beneficial when the opposite is true. Mutations are rare and when they occur, they do not help or improve the organism,they only damage or weaken in some way so that it;s offspring if able to have any will not long survive.

KFC posts:

Right. Mutation experiments have been done by the hundreds of thousands and not one has been beneficial or had permanent good effects. That's becasue  Mutation is damage to a DNA unit, correct?  In this sense, the perfection of the code is damaged or changed.

 

In regard to the mutated form, when the antobiotic treatment is stopped, the number of the natural strain increases and the resistant strain soon dies out becasue as a mutated form it was never really strong.

So both normal variants and mutated forms can be involved. The resistance of houseflies to DDT and other chemicals is parallel to that of resistant bacteria. In any case, the resistance isn't evolution.

KFC posts:

I found this from CP Martin pg. 102 in AmericanScientist Jan. 1953...not once has there ever been a recorded instance of a truly beneficial mutation..(one which is a known mutation and not merely a reshuffling of latent characteristics in the genes), nor such a mutation that was permanent, passing on from one generation to another.

Could it be that those you found in your search are a reshufflingof latent characteristics?

 

I thought you did cover it, Zoo, if that helps any.

 

Fortunately it's not solely based on mutation.  Some mutations have occured...but on the genetic level so they can be passed on.  The majority of mutations have no effect, some are detrimental and some are beneficial.

I had a fruit fly example where just the environment and food choice allowed them to evolve into two unique species.  I'll dig it up if you want to check it out.  So called "macroevolution" is just "microevolution" over a longer time period.  Longer time=greater chance for variation.

Selective breeding is also a form of evolution...albeit more of an unnatural selection.  Of course it hasn't been near long enough to make them completely unable to breed, but you can clearly see huge variation within the species.  If they were isolated then they'd become unique species.  Like foxes, wolves, and coyotes...all canine, yet very different species.

Heck, there were even different species of humans existing:  Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo neanderthalensis, and us, Homo sapien.  Out of those only we were able to survive...natural selection at play right there.  Show me in the Bible where it tells us about those different species of humans.

Thanks, Jyth...was pretty sure I did.

~Zoo

 

Lula posts:

 

Zoo posts:

I don't have link, but will quote directly including the highlights from my daughter's 10th grade biology book by Kenneth R. Miller, Ph.D. Prentice Hall Fourth Edition, 1998.

Page 272......Darwin and other scientists have accumulated a vast amount o0f evidence that proves that evolution has occurred. Some of the evidence certifies that planet earth is more than four billion years old....Much of the evidence is found in the rocks of the earth itself.

Evidence that supported the idea that the eatrth was very old first came from geologist James Hutton in 1788.  Hutton proposed that rocks, mountains and valleys had been changed gradually ...and becasue these processes operate slowly, Hutton argued the Earth had to be more than afew thousand years old.....

In 1830, Chrales Lyell carried these arguments further. Lyell's work was an important influence on Darwin's thinking. The evidence proved to Hutton and Lyell that the Earth wasvery old. ... At the same timeother sceintists while examining Earth's rocks began to make some startling idscoveries. In the stones they examined they found fossils.

Pg. 273...Earth's story is not complete without a "clock" totell us when things happened. Dating the Earth's past with the help of a record in the rocks is called the geologic time scale. ..More than 100years ago researchers noticed that certain layers of rock often appeared in the same verticalorder where everthey were found. It is the position of the layers relative to each other that determines their age. This knowledge helped geologists assemble a column of rocks in which each layer represented a different period of time.

Lower rock layers were depositied before the upper layers provided the upper layers have not been disturbed sincethey were formed. In addition fossils in the lower layers are older than fossisles found in the layers above them. Relative dating is a technique use to determine the age of the fossils relativeto other fossils found in the differentlayers of the rock.  However, because geologists did not know howlong ittook for the layers to form they could not determinethe actual age of the fossils.

In the middle of this century, scientists were provided with a tool called radioactivity that could determine the actual age of rocks. Rocks are made up of different elements..some are radioactive....(defines half-life)...Each radio element has a different half-life. Uranium 238 hasa halflife of 4.5 billion years During that time half of the uranium 238 atoms in a rock sample decay into lead 206.  Carbon 14 has a half life of 5770 years and half the carbon 14 decays to nitorgen 14. Elements with different half lifes provide  natural "clocks" that tick at different rates. When properly interpreted these clocks help scientists date rocks...

Suppose geologists have uncovered what they think is avery old rock one they think might date back to the birth of our planet...to determine the age, they measure and compare the amounts of Ur 238 and lead 206 it ocntains. Next they determine how much lead has been produced by radioactive decay since the rock was formed. Becausewe know the halflife of ur 238, we can calculate rocks age.     

Pg. 275....Because it has a relatively short half life, c-14 isn't really useful in dating samples that are more than 60,000 years old ..after this period there is really too little carbon 14 left tomeasure accurately...page 276....The traces of radioactive isotopes enable scientists to calculate the actual age of of a sample..process known as radioactive dating..The evidence provided by radioactive dating along with observations of loong trm geological processes has enabled geologists to compile a remarkable accurate history of life on our planet.

Using this data, scientists have determined that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old....by combining radioactive dating, relativedating, and observations of importanet  events in the history of life on Earth scientists have divided the 4.5 billion years into large units called eras.

Page 280 ...to place an absolute date on a fossil, scientists look for a sample of rock fromame geological layer and test its age by using radioactive dating. Potassium 40 works well with old fossils anbd c-14 is an accurate way of dating more recent fossils.

See what I mean about my frustration with what they teach unwary students? Radioactive dating isn't as straightforward as this...it's not 100 prooftrustworthy...it's loaded with problems...

first we don't know how much Uranium 238 was in the rock in the first place and there is no way to tell how much lead in the came from Uranium or how much lead there was from the  start.

Second no one knows for absolutely certain that Uranium has always broken down at the same speed. Was the rock sample polluted somehow?  What if somelead wasmixediniwth lava beforeit wasformed? or washed into by ground water ust before it hardened? 

It's a known fact that scientists have done radioactive dating on rocks of known age and come up with dates that were wrong by tens of millions of years. Take the Hawaiaian volcanoe that erupted in 1801. Scientists tried to date the lava 12 times and came up with dates from between 140 million years to 2.96 billion years. Again radioactgive dating doesn'tprove anything about the age of the earth....at best it's an attempt, an assumption  to date the age of rocks and that's how it should be purported in science text books..

Isochron dating.

"Isochron dating is a common technique of radiometric dating and is applied to date certain events, such as crystallization, metamorphism, shock events, and differentiation of precursor melts, in the history of rocks. Isochron dating can be further separated into mineral isochron dating and whole rock isochron dating; both techniques are applied frequently to date terrestrial and also extraterrestrial rocks (meteorites). The advantage of isochron dating as compared to simple radiometric dating techniques is that no assumptions about the initial amount of the daughter nuclide in the radioactive decay sequence are needed. Indeed the initial amount of the daughter product can be determined using isochron dating. This technique can be applied if the daughter element has at least one stable isotope other than the daughter isotope into which the parent nuclide decays."



I know the 4.5 billion years thing was around, learned it myself. Makes sense to me.

I wanted a link to show where scientists have said that it is flat out wrong or "wishful thinking."

~Zoo

Different species of humans , nah, no way. Where's the proof...you know those transitional  forms between apes and humans?

Man...there's only one species and all humans belong to this one...ancient man, early man and Modern man all are members of one species.....homo sapiens.  The name homo sapiens in latin is "the wise one".

Australopithicines is supposed to be the oldest  human ancester, an apefrom the neck up...found in Africa.  After 20  years of study, the Australopithicine has been determined to be an ape in the chimpanzee family.  One of the most famous Australopiticines was named "Lucy".  Homo habilis is another ape. In the 1960s, Leakey found some teeth and skull fragments at Olduvai. He datedthem at 1.8 million years and decidedthey belonged to the humanfamily and namedthem homo. Today, many experts have clearly shownthat habilis was nothing more than a large brained Australopithicines. ..an ape, not a human and not a transition between the two.

The Australopithicinbes like modern apes had a wide range of varieties, but they were all pure apes.

According to A R. Kennedy's book, "Homo Erectus never existed", 1987. The famous ape-man, Java Man,  was supposed to be the species called homo erectus, the so called missing link. In 1891, A medical doctor , Eugene Dubois, found on the island of  Java a piece of a skull and leg bone.  He called it an erect ape-man, Ptithecanthropus erectus.  Turns out that Dubois kept it a secret for 30 years that he had also found 2 human skulls in the same area. Peking man is also called homo erectus.  All the homo erectus skulls that were found belonged to humans.   Homo erectus had a brain size likethat of modern man and vey similiar to the Neanderthal man who can be shown to be true human who had serious ricket and syphilis problems.

piltdown Man was a fraud which fooled the world's sceintists for nearly 50 years.

Hiumans are truly unique andthey don't have apes for ancestors. Dna has proven that beyond a doubt. The Holy Bible tells us that man alone was created in the image and likeness of God. Man alone has an immortal soul and we are created to live  eternal life in happiness or the dark, hellish  abyss.  

 

Wow...what a rationalization. Neanderthals were a whole species just riddled with rickets and syphillis? That's a little hard to believe.


A bipedal ape is a pretty good indicator that humans and they share a common ancestor, if they were not indeed the ancestor to begin with.


DNA shows pretty surprising similarities between us and our hairy cousins. In the high 90th percentile. Seems pretty darn likely. Also their behavior is eerily like ours, their innovation, several things, actually.

Then again, being on the same level as the rest of God's creatures doesn't resonate with Christianity. We're above all that...God bless our egotism.

~Zoo

 

Ya, com'on Zoo, remember the drill.....can you test it, verify it and repeat it? 

Is it fact or belief?....

again.....fact or belief Zoo?   Didn't I already cover this in my latest thread.....the fossil record shows that man has always been man, ape has always been ape...etc? 

fact or belief?  Maybe it points to the same designer?  I'd like to talk more about this later...too late now. 

As far as I know the textbooks keep changing because these theories keep changing but the bible remains constant, unchanging and there has been nothing found thus far that is not consistent with scripture.  Nothing. 

One thing Kerby said this weekend at the Seminar as he held up the bible...."if I can get you to doubt the first chapter of this book, I own you."  Who do you think he was talking about?

 

 

 

It's not an experiment, merely an observation.  Fact: they existed. Theory: Homo sapien was more adaptable and was able to survive.  Supporting evidence: We're alive today and they are dead.

Ugh....the point is that they CHANGED significantly.  You mentioned the whale in your article did you not?  A four legged land animal returns to the sea and develops flippers, a blowhole, in fact, a whole new body structure and way of life.  THAT IS EVOLUTION!  Ancestors are technically the animal of their day.  The ancestor of a horse was a small dog sized creature...it was the horse of its day.  Through evolution it has become larger and our beast of burden. Now, go back far enough and everything starts to converge to a common ancestor.  If you want to get technical...everything is everything else, just different, because we come from the same source, that primal sealife billions of years ago.  We're all made up of cells, cells can live individually....we're just a cluster of a bunch of little organisms all working together when you think about it.  So yes, in some respect we've always been what we've always been because every form of life originated from the same thing- one little bunch of cells in an ancient ocean.

The fossil record shows transitions between different forms of life.  A small feathered dinosaur...bird ancestor.  A weird fish with legs...amphibian ancestor.  It's right there in the rock.

 

Because you don't let anyone change it.  You want me to take up the pen and add a few chapters?  I'll be more than happy to do that. Make it a little clearer and easier to read.

Apparently evolution is inconsistent with scripture and radiometric dating.  I'm sure there are other things as well. 

I think that is why science is great.  It's willing to change according to evidence...find something new, change your understanding.  It's fascinating, really.

Obviously that if you believe anything differently from the Christian viewpoint then you become this man's property.  That would include a lot of people.

Funny, I always thought that if I could get someone to believe everything in a book in spite of free thinking and questioning, that I could own them.  Like putting a ring in a bull's nose, so to speak.

~Zoo 

Hopefully that's somewhat coherent...I'm really tired.

Where are you getting this from?  Is this the Archaeoraptor hoax?  Phoney Feathered Fossil?  Years ago National Geographic came with with a nice fancy cover with a Dino with colorful feathers attached saying we are confident now that dinos turned into birds.  Months later they had to retract in a much smaller article (of course) saying it was a fraud.  This time they included no fancy artwork.   You may want to check the March 2000 issue.  From AIG's site explaining this fraud:

As more evidence of altered fossils begins to surface, one must seriously question the integrity of the fossil industry and the stories these fossils are supposed to tell. A Feb. 19, 2000 New Scientist article sheds light on the growing problem of faked and altered fossils. Referring to the Chinese fossil birds, paleontologist Kraig Derstler from the University of New Orleans in Louisiana says, ‘almost every one that I’ve seen on the commercial market has some reconstruction to make it look prettier.’ ³

The illegal yet highly profitable market of Chinese bird fossils has enticed the local farmers into creating marketable fossils, real or not. Derstler points out that ‘adhesives and fake rock have become very easy to make and very difficult to spot.’ ⁴

The paleontologist Luis Chiappe, of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, describes how one such specimen almost fooled him, till he noticed that one leg was longer than the other. ‘I wasn’t sure what was wrong with it,’ Chiappe said. Only close examination revealed that two slabs had been mortared together. ‘On the surface you really couldn’t see that.’ ⁵

Dr Larry Martin of the University of Kansas, who is a staunch critic of the dino-to-bird theory, commented, ‘I don’t trust any of these specimens until I see the X-rays.’ ⁶ Joints and gaps in the reworked fossils are revealed with X-rays. Martin went on to say:

Here's the link with about 20 articles just under the heading "Do Birds Really Evolve From Dinosaurs?" 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp#birds

KFC,

Even if you were somehow able to falsify all the evidence for evolution science would still not be able to consider biblical creation as a scientific explanation. Your only hurting your faith by trying to marry the two.  

If science is able to explain anything about God then how something as complex as god came about must be answered, what don't you understand about this? God must remain outside of what science can deal with or he is no better of an explanation for existence than random chance. Any argument over how complexity can't arise by chance would have to explain where God came from.  It's the same as saying the intelligent designers were aliens, well who designed the aliens? If God doesn't fall outside of the explainable, then he must have a designer, and so on and so on until we end up with something that just is.

I have read about "microevolution" before. But Creationists have never explained what exactly stops "microevolution" from becoming "macroevolution".

Does G-d intervene just before two populations evolve enough to become two distinct species?

Why does He not intervene when it happens in a lab? (Or for that matter, why does He not intervene when it happens in nature and is being observed?)

 

If Creationists reject facts, what is there about Creationism that is worth learning? Why would I deliberately let people lie to me?

Whence do Creationists take their (false) information? The Bible does not say that the world is only a few thousand years old. Bereshith makes no statements about how old (geologically and biologically) the earth was when G-d created it. Do you have another source?

I'm not saying that the Bible (or my collection of French-language Smurf comic books) is right about the history of the world. But I do want to know which part of the Bible (or of any Smurf comic book) specifically says that the world G-d created was NOT several million years old at the time He created it.

G-d created, according to the Bible (although my Smurf comic books don't mention it, so it could be wrong), Adam, a man, not a child. Adam was obviously not a toddler but was created with an adult body. Scientific measurements would have shown, perhaps, that Adam was, say, 20 years old after creation.

How do you KNOW that the world G-d created was not one that was several million years old? How do you KNOW that the animals G-d created where not the result of evolution? And how do you KNOW that that same animal population has not continued to evolve ever since?

The Bible doesn't tell you any of those things.

You ASSUME that the Bible is correct AND that anything created by G-d has all attributes but an age. The first is faith,  the second is invented knowledge about G-d that no man can possibly have (because G-d cannot be understood by man).

You also ASSUME that what G-d created does not come with its own history.

You claim that the Bible is true, without proof or verifiable experiments, and you make claims that the Bible doesn't support. It's no wonder Creationism is not a science. The data you use in your research has not been shown to be true or relevant and the information you get from it contains lots of assumed facts that your own data does not confirm.

It's a good thing Creationism is no longer taught to children. It would destroy their ability to understand science and theology for good.

 

Nothing to do with evolution.

But Creationists hardly "reject" an origin of life from non-life. Creationists claim that life originated from G-d, who is very much "non-life" in the biological sense. The theory of evolution does not make any statement about where life comes from.

 

Java man was a true man, a true homo sapien only dubois decided to name him homo erectus. The science community bought into it. Today, we know better.
Fact is Leakey found a true ape remains and mistakenly called it ape-girl, Lucy. Again, the science community believed and today we know better.

The Holy Book tells us that "In the beginning" God created each to his own kind and the genetics barrier demonstrates that apes and man...never the twain shall meet!
This is why Evolutionists have absolutely no evidence of ape-people.



A bipedal ape is a pretty good indicator that the ape could stand and walk on two legs. It was like that from "the beginning."

KFC posts:

Exactly, and this is what keepsdriving the Evolutionists to come up with new ideas to support Godless molecules to man theory.





Where's the solid evidence of this significant change? Especially physical change? I understand that those human skulls of so long ago are the same shape and size as ours today. Sure, Our knowledge of things has improved, but not our mental capacity itself. All mankind from the beginning had intelligence far in advance of any animal in the world.

The mind and intelligence as well as human speech of man is a great unanswerable hurdle for Evolutionists. It isn't for Creationists...the isolation of groups and the differences of language happened as a result of Babel.



When someone describes a small feathered dinosaur..bird ancestor...or half-men/half -ape creatures...one immediately gets a picture in their mind that comes from the art world in an effort of proving Macro-Evolution as sceinfitic fact. From a few bones or a couple of teeth, they come up with a creature....very imaginative indeed...some have scales, some leathery skin...different colors, the finished work is given to the public for consumption, hook, line and sinker! Plastic molds are made and set up in museums. Movies get made and hoorah!...everybody believes! In reality, no one can tell what the owner of the bones or the teeth looked like. No one, neither scientist or the greatest artist can tell what covered the bones...yet, the older they believe the specimen to be,the more ape-like they draw the figure!