Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Fossils are preserved through rapid burial not slowly over time.

 

[Hollie]

did you watch the videos I posted for the evidence ? Yes I would say they were recent according to evolutions time frames. The flood was between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago. Don't know if they were descendants of adam and eve don't think so. The genesis story only focuses on adam and eve it does not go in to detail about the people of Nod. I won't speculate any further because I have no clue about the people of Nod.

There are many things in the bible that would raise questions that we simply do not have an answer for and this is one of them.

Sorry buddy, but that guy has NO clue about anything, he's just making shit up, no scientific proof, nothing.

So you believe in evolution now?

Nope, not as you would.

You see that is only part of the evidence you also have fossils found in the wrong strata. You have graveyards of fossils.

The evidence of whales to far inland plus some that were found inverted.

"Fossils found in the wrong strata" is nonsense furthered by creationist to appeal to ignorance regarding geologic processes.

 

[Hollie]

Yes there is plenty of evidence supporting the global flood. I am not sure if the neanderthals came after the flood or before the flood.

Cain was bannished for the murder of his brother and he took a wife from the land of Nod. Maybe the people of the land of NOD were the neanderthals it's only an opinion.

God did not go in to detail on these people so we are forced to speculate just like we are forced to speculate on much of the past.

So then Adam and Eve weren't the first or only people god made?

So what evidence of the flood is there? Got any links? And wasn't the flood less than 6000 years ago? So neanderthals are pretty recent beings?
And so where not descended from Adam and Eve? But from them and some other species that Cain mated with? Or was it incest straight away as Cain mated with a sister?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGeULHljDn8]Startling Evidence That Noah's Flood Really Happened - YouTube[/ame]

Those silly videos are what creationist peddle to the gullible and the ignorant.

 

[newpolitics]

YWC, this is for you.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn_EPW17Fdc]Why I am no longer a Creationist - Part 1: Genus Homo - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ima]

did you watch the videos I posted for the evidence ? Yes I would say they were recent according to evolutions time frames. The flood was between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago. Don't know if they were descendants of adam and eve don't think so. The genesis story only focuses on adam and eve it does not go in to detail about the people of Nod. I won't speculate any further because I have no clue about the people of Nod.

There are many things in the bible that would raise questions that we simply do not have an answer for and this is one of them.

Sorry buddy, but that guy has NO clue about anything, he's just making shit up, no scientific proof, nothing.

So you believe in evolution now?

Nope, not as you would.

You see that is only part of the evidence you also have fossils found in the wrong strata. You have graveyards of fossils.

The evidence of whales to far inland plus some that were found inverted.

So you believe in a kind of evolution, thanks for the hair splitting.

The guy was talking about the flood, and like you say, bias A or bias B, putting scientific knowledge on the same equal footing as stuff that was just made up. Sorry, but that doesn't work in the real world. His contention that the waters receded by parts of the earth coming to poke through the water is pure stupidity, and based on nothing more than his fantasies, and I find it totally fucking amazing that people fall for that dumbness. But I guess, the general population just isn't that bright, what else can I say?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sorry buddy, but that guy has NO clue about anything, he's just making shit up, no scientific proof, nothing.

So you believe in evolution now?

Nope, not as you would.

You see that is only part of the evidence you also have fossils found in the wrong strata. You have graveyards of fossils.

The evidence of whales to far inland plus some that were found inverted.

"Fossils found in the wrong strata" is nonsense furthered by creationist to appeal to ignorance regarding geologic processes.

Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 2

FOSSILS AND STRATA Part 5




ONGOING STRATA CONTROVERSIESThe strata charts in the textbooks and popular magazines look so very complete and organized. Yet, in truth, it is not so. The problems are so serious that running controversies were carried on for years between feuding strata experts. Because the evidence was so confused, no one knew who was right. Finally, they arbitrarily settled on patterns which are on the charts as we see them today.


For example, here is the Sedgwick-Murchison-la Beche controversy, fought over the Cambrian, Silurian and Devonian strata systems:

"Sedgwick was the first to describe the fossils of the lower Graywacke Strata, which he named the Cambrian system, after an ancient name for Wales. Eventually their studies led them to different levels of the Graywacke, where the mercurial and territorial Murchison claimed much of Sedgwick's domain for his newly founded Silurian system.

"Inevitably, almost all of the members of the Geological Society were drawn into the fray, and, when another geologist of the time, Sir Henry Thomas de la Beche, claimed part of the Graywacke for his Devonian period, the battle lines were drawn. For nearly a decade the Great Devonian Controversy, as it was called, raged on in the scientific journals. The political maneuvering behind the scenes was almost as convoluted as the Graywacke itself." *R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 401.

Elsewhere, *Milner explains how *Murchison solved the controversy.

"The men were completely unable to agree on where the natural boundaries occurred. Murchison, however, found a way to resolve the dispute. He got himself appointed director of the National Geological Survey and simply ordered that the name "Cambrian" be deleted from all government books and geological maps." *R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 89.

Later, after both men were dead, part of Murchison's Silurian was renamed "Cambrian."

MIXED-UP FOSSILS Have you ever noticed that, on the standard strata time charts, certain fossils will always be in certain strata? That is another generalization in the evolutionary theory that does not prove to be correct. Fossils are frequently found in the wrong places, especially far below the strata where they are first supposed to have "evolved" into existence.

There are three ways that the experts deal with to this problem: (1) Ignore the evidence. (2) When small numbers of fossils are found in solid rock below their proper strata, they are said to have been "downwashed" through the solid rock into lower strata. That is, they slipped, slid, or fell through solid rock into lower levels. (3) When only a few are located below their theoretical strata, they are said to have "reworked" themselves into the higher strata.

More detail on this will be found near the end of this chapter (appendix 14).


"Fossils frequently occur where they are not 'supposed' to. It is then claimed that either the fauna [animals] or flora [plants] have lived longer than previously known (simple extension of stratigraphic range) or that the fossil has been reworked. In 'reworking,' it is claimed that the fossil has been eroded away from a much older host rock and has thus been incorporated into a rock of more recent age. The reciprocal situation is `downwash,' where it is claimed that an organism has been washed down into rock much older than the time it lived and has become fossilized." John Woodmorappe, "An Anthology of Matters Significant to Creationism and Diluviology: Report 2," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1982, p. 209.

"Reworking" and "downwash" are used to explain a few fossils not in agreement with the theory; "overthrusts," to be discussed shortly, are used to explain much larger numbers of such fossils.


A related problem concerns the fact that pollen from flowering plants has been found in Cambrian and even Precambrian strata! This, of course, is in total disagreement with evolutionary theory, which maintains that flowering plants did not exist until many millions of years later. This would mean that the "Cambrian explosion" included flowering plants!

Additional quotations dealing with this problem will be found in the chapter appendix referred to below, or the "Cambrian and Precambrian" chapter appendix. For a listing of over 200 out-of-place fossils, see John Woodmorappe, "An Anthology of Matters Significant to Creationism and Diluviology: Report 2," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1982, pp. 210-214.

For additional information see the appendix topic, "14 - Problems with Fossils" and "15 - Problems with Pollen and Spores."

Still another problem is skipping in the fossil record. A species will be in a strata, and totally disappear from the next strata or two above that, and then reappear. In some cases a species disappears, never again to be seen until our own time when--there it is--alive and well on planet earth!

For additional information see the appendix topic, "16 - The Problem of Skipping."

MIXED-UP STRATA The problems with the "geologic column" of strata and fossils keep getting worse! We have been discussing problems with the fossils, but now we will turn our attention to the strata itself, and we will learn that the situation becomes unmanageable! Evolutionary theory falls helpless in the process of trying to reconcile these insoluble hurdles to its success.

For additional information see quotation supplements, "18 -Rocks Not Now Being Made," and "19 - Mixed Up Strata and Overthrusts. "


MISSING STRATA Surprising as it may seem, the only evidence for the geologic succession of life is found in the strata charts of the geologists and in their imagination. Nowhere in geological formations can we find (1) all the strata in order, (2) all the strata--even out of order, (3) most of the strata, in order or out of it. Instead we only find little bits here and there, and frequently they are mixed up (out of their theoretical sequence).

Never--anywhere in the world--are all the strata in the theoretical "geologic column" to be found in one complete sandwich. Most of the time only two to eight of the 21 theoretical strata can be found. Even that classic example of rock strata, Grand Canyon, only has about half of them. But the missing strata should be there! How can strata be missing? Yet this is the way it is everywhere on earth. In the Southwest United States, in order to find Precambrian or Paleozoic strata, we would need to go to the Grand Canyon. To find Mesozoic requires a trip to eastern Arizona. To find Tertiary, off we would have to go to New Mexico. Nowhere--anywhere--is the entire geologic column of the evolutionists to be found, for it is an imaginary column.


"Practically nowhere on the earth can one find the so-called 'geologic column.' In fact, at most places on the continents, over half the 'geologic periods' are missing! Only 15-20 percent of the earth's land surface has even one-third of these periods in the correct consecutive order. Even within the Grand Canyon, over 150 million years of this imaginary column are missing. Using the assumed geologic column to date fossils and rocks is fallacious." *Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 15.

The next few quotations contain startling admissions. We do well to carefully consider what they say:


"If a pile were to be made by using the greatest thickness of sedimentary beds of each geological age, it would be at least 100 miles [161 km] high . . It is of course, impossible to have even a considerable fraction of this at any one place." *O. Von Engein and *IG Caster, Geology (1952), pp. 417-418.

"Whatever his method of approach, the geologist must take cognizance of the following facts . . There is no place on the earth where a complete record of the rocks is present . . to reconstruct the history of the earth, scattered bits of information from thousands of locations all over the world must be pieced together. The results will be at best only a very incomplete record. If the complete story of the earth is compared to an encyclopedia of thirty volumes, then we can seldom hope to find even one complete volume in a given area. Sometimes only a few chapters, perhaps only a paragraph or two, will be the total geological contribution of a region; indeed, we are often reduced to studying scattered bits of information more nearly comparable to a few words or letters." *H. Brown, *V. Monnett, and *J. Stovall, Introduction to Geology (1958), p. 11.

"We are only kidding ourselves if we think that we have anything like a complete succession for any part of the stratigraphical column in any one place." *Derek V. Alter, Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (1981), p. 32.

The proper word for them are "unconformities;" it would not do for scientists to use the phrase "missing strata, "for if they are missing, then where did they go? Did billions of years of life on earth suddenly vanish?


"Potentially more important to geological thinking are those unconformities that signal large chunks of geological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel and show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible though controversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on." *William R. Corliss, Unknown Earth (1980), p. 219.

How can it be that the geologic column is so incomplete, when evolutionary theory teaches that it was quietly, slowly laid down uniformly over millions of years? The truth is that the rock strata point us back to a terrible worldwide catastrophe--a Flood,--not to millions of years of gradual soil deposits from dead plants and windblown soil.

Chapter 17 FOSSILS AND STRATA Part 5

 

[Hollie]

Did anyone notice that the fundies' "quotes" are frequently 1950's vintage material from a Christian creationist website?

Chuckle.

 

[Big_D2]

Can someone on the creationist side advise why nearly all if not every radiometric dating method is wrong?

 

[Big_D2]

Can someone also advise how many species survived the global flood?

 

[UltimateReality]

Hollie and daws why would neanderthals live among humans if they were not human ?

List of Neanderthal sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

neanderthals are not humans, if you are defining humans as homo sapiens sapiens. Neanderthals are Homo Neanderthalensis. See that? Different name. It is that simple. Just understand that. please. you are trying to change reality to fit your viewpoint. it is pathetic. they are a hominid species, closely related to modern humans, and in fact, could be considered a sub-species, but they are not human, by definition. You wouldn't call a poodle a doberman, would you? same thing. I emplore you to find one scientist that believes they are.

No that is exactly what evolutionists do is put organisms in to classifications if they put the neanderthal in to a different group they can use that as evidence of evolution. Neanderthals are human and the more research that is done on this group they grow closer and closer to humans it's because they are human. Please point out something that is not found in humans that is found in neanderthals ?

So are you suggesting there are different breeds of humans ? A canine is a canine even though they look different. A human is a human even though they look a little different.

Neanderthals are humans that were discovered in neander valley Germany. What is so different about them that they are not human ?

The proof is in Neanderthal's ability to interbreed and leave their DNA in modern man. And NP proves the evolutionary bigotry. Both dobermans and poodles are part of the species dog and can interbreed. NP's point is the same one used to describe blacks as subhuman due to their different features from Anglos.

 

[UltimateReality]

New research may show that Neanderthals did not go extinct.
DNA derived from the Neanderthals has been found in many human populations around the globe.
http://wsws.org/en/articles/2011/12/nean-d27.html

Proof they were human.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Can someone on the creationist side advise why nearly all if not every radiometric dating method is wrong?

Assumptions and presuppositions are used.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Can someone also advise how many species survived the global flood?

No way to answer this question.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Did anyone notice that the fundies' "quotes" are frequently 1950's vintage material from a Christian creationist website?

Chuckle.

You have demonstrated you lack any kind of schooling in science and you're gonna chuckle at those who do

 

[Youwerecreated]

Happy New Year UR,a little early.

 

[UltimateReality]

Did anyone notice that the fundies' "quotes" are frequently 1950's vintage material from a Christian creationist website?

Chuckle.

Funny, coming from the tool who repeatedly borrows Dawkins question from The God Delusion of who designed the designer and then claims she doesn't know who Dawkins is.

 

[UltimateReality]

Happy New Year UR,a little early.

Same to you!!!

 

[Big_D2]

Can someone also advise how many species survived the global flood?

No way to answer this question.

Well, can you advise how salt water fish survived as I assume the rain water was fresh. Also, how could fish that can only live in the rivers and not the oceans survive.

 

[Big_D2]

Can someone on the creationist side advise why nearly all if not every radiometric dating method is wrong?

Assumptions and presuppositions are used.

Well, it seems illogical for these assumption and presuppositions are never correct in every attempt they use these methods.

Also, if the world is 6000 years old then how could gasoline, coal, and diamonds that take millions of years to form be around?

 

[Hollie]

Did anyone notice that the fundies' "quotes" are frequently 1950's vintage material from a Christian creationist website?

Chuckle.

You have demonstrated you lack any kind of schooling in science and you're gonna chuckle at those who do

You have demonstrated the poverty of Christian creationist arguments.