Thread: When Will Christ Return?

Y'know, I really wish there was a middle finger icon.

As for having an objective as an atheist, it's not really necessary. I am an atheist because, quite simply, Christians are nutjobs, Islamics are murderous fascists, Hindus have long since forgot what "logic" is, and all smaller denominations and cults make no more sense than the large ones.
When all religions fail to make sense, you leave religion.
To insist that I need a long-term goal as an atheist is a major red herring argument--my long term goals need not have anything to do with religion.
My goals in life are to be successful enough to purchase and own my own house and car, have a great wife, two kids and live happily. That's it, and none of it has to do with whether I'm an atheist or not.

Though, if you really want to play that game, ultimately, my most long-term goal relating to atheism would be to expose religion's obvious errancy to the entire world.

Now, here's some junk you have not answered. Either at all, or not to a satisfying point.

• Why couldn't gawd create a world without a forbidden fruit?
• Why couldn't gawd limit his punishment to only Adam and Eve?
• Why does your gawd murder children? (2 Kings 2:23-24)
• Why did your gawd insist on killing every living thing on earth, including innocent babies and children?
• Where is your evidence for a global flood? Relating to that,
• How did all the fish survive the salinity change?
• How did the trees survive?
• How did Noah get species unique to certain continents onto the ark?
• Further, how did Noah get them back to those continents afterwards?
• How did the entire world repopulate from 8 people to 6,000,000,000 in >6,000 years?
• How did Noah & Co. avoid all the mutations and other nasty effects of inbreeding while repopulating?
• Why do we have written records from several cultures around the world from the same time period that the world was supposedly underwater?
• How did Noah fit all the animals aboard the ark? (There are billions of species, and even a few of the "core" species as Keeper calls them requires far more space than would be available. Simply, the ark would collapse.)
• Why do we have consistent fossil records dating back to millions of years before the world was created?
• Why don't we EVER find human remains on the same level as dinosaurs if those fossils came from the flood?
• How could geological formations such as salt domes form during a flood?
• How could the Grand Canyon form if there was a flood?
• How did Noah feed the animals?
• Moving away from the flood, why do we have extensive evidence for human society predating the supposed "creation" 6,000 years ago?
• Further, how is it that beer was invented thousands of years before your supposed "creation"?
• Why do we have extensive evidence for evolution if your gawd just magicked things the way they are?
• Why are we designed so incompetently if a gawd created us? (Eyes, hips, back, sinuses, etc.)

I've got more, too, but I might as well start you slow and work up from there, eh?

:bravo: Nice!

I'd like to see those answered to.

GoGo super-atheist Tsen!

I bet he isn't going to reply to them all, I doubt he even knows enough fromt the bible to anwser them

Here you go.

Originally Posted by Tsen

Why couldn't gawd create a world without a forbidden fruit?[/b]

First the tree of life was created on earth well before Adam and Eve were created. Now I cannot speak for the reason why the tree was placed but based off God's original plan for humans, the tree was more than likely placed their as a reward for the exemplary individuals showing worship on a level beyond others. Keep In mind that God's original plan was for people to pro-create and live in a paradise Earth for eternity. I believe we would've had far more opportunities to grow beyond the norm based upon our worship toward God. However God told the first human couple to not eat from the tree but yet they disobeyed God. God probably would've allowed them to eat from the tree in the future after they've proved themselves to be worthy on a level feasible to God giving them the option to level up.

Originally Posted by Tsen

Why couldn't gawd limit his punishment to only Adam and Eve?[/b]

Because it would've shown confliction with his original plan to allow humans to multiply and fulfill the earth. God's original purpose was to fill the earth by means of procreation by humans. When Adam and Eve rebelled against God, this did not thwart his original purpose, but it did cause a necessary adjustment of some details in order for his purpose regarding humans and the earth to be fulfilled. God has allowed mankind to operate independently of his direct guidance. That is what our original parents chose of their own free will. This allowance of independence from God's guidance and the subsequent rule by humans instead of by God would show up man's inability to direct his own steps and his inability to govern his fellowmen successfully.

Originally Posted by Tsen

Why does your gawd murder children? (2 Kings 2:23-24)[/b]

In the Old Testament, God's prophets have been known to have used extreme measures towards those that have lifted their hand against them.
Something else you have to realize also is that there are thousands of religious group in North America alone which promote systems of morality derived from their sacred texts and tradition; these are primarily Christian, Jewish, and Muslim. There are also dozens of non-religious, secular organizations which promote their own ethical and moral belief systems, as derived from social sciences and logic. Examples are the Agnostics, Atheists, and Humanists.*
There are many conflicts among this great diversity of beliefs over specific "hot" religious topics like equal rights for gays and lesbians, abortion access, physician assisted suicide, etc. However, there are many fundamental moral themes where the vast majority of these North American groups has reached a consensus:*
Democracy is the best alternative for civil government, and often for their own organization
Everyone is to be guaranteed freedom of speech, assembly, and religion.
Genocide is condemned.
People should be punished only for their own criminal acts, not the acts of others. The sins of guilty people should not be transferred to the innocent .

All countries, with the exception of the United States and a very few other states, prohibit capital punishment for youth offenders - no matter what their crime is. The U.S. at least waits until the convicted child is 18 before executing him or her.
There are many "hard passages" in the Bible which appear to conflict with today's moral consensus.* Some verses describe what appear to be unjust instructions or actions by God to commit genocide. Others involve the murder of innocent, defenseless*individuals, including the elderly, children, infants and newborns. Still others involve the murdering of a person for a minor transgression. Some are single murders; others are instances of mass murder.* *TODAY's moral standards doesn't support these type of events.

Originally Posted by Tsen

Why did your gawd insist on killing every living thing on earth, including innocent babies and children?[/b]

The earth was filled with violence and it's not like people were not given any warnings. They were warned for 120 years and only 8 people adhered the warning. And you ask how an unborn fetus can sin? The bible states Man is born into this world as a sinner carrying on a legacy from the first man and woman. A fetus fate is however determined by it's carrier. Oh and I guess you are going to blame the deaths of today's fetus on God also huh? Man has free will and choice to carrier out his/her own destiny. God doesn't make abortion clinics, Man makes abortion clinics as well as weapons of destruction and mass destruction.

Originally Posted by Tsen

Where is your evidence for a global flood? Relating to that,[/b]

There is some evidence perhaps the mid oceanic ridge in the Atlantic ocean spewed forth with water and lava. This could hold true because scientists can find no reason for the MAR to be there!
Related proof: There was a sediment sample taken from Mt. Everest at the very top matching sediment along the MAR.
Scientist are dumbfounded not knowing how it got there. The Coconino Sandstone within the Grand Canyon (and its equivalents), which covers an area of 200,000 square miles (518,000 square kilometres) averages 315 feet (96 metres) thick, and contains a volume of sand conservatively estimated at 10,000 cubic miles, shows significant evidence of a great flood. Not to mention fossil footprints examined determining some animals completely submerged under the water not floating on top. There was also formations of cross beds during sand deposition by migration of underwater sand waves due to sustained water flow.

Originally Posted by Tsen

How did all the fish survive the salinity change?[/b]

Many families of fish contain both fresh and saltwater species.* These include the families of toadfish, garpike, bowfin, sturgeon, herring/anchovy, salmon/trout/pike, catfish, clingfish, stickleback, scorpion fish, and flatfish.* Indeed, most of the families alive today have both fresh and saltwater representatives.* This suggests that the ability to tolerate large changes in salinity was present in most fish at the time of the Flood.* Specialization, through natural selection, may have resulted in the loss of this ability in many species since then.
Aquatic air-breathing mammals such as whales and dolphins would have been better placed than many fish to survive the Flood, not being dependent on clean water to obtain their oxygen. Many marine creatures would have been killed in the Flood because of the turbidity of the water, changes in temperature, etc.* The fossil record testifies to the massive destruction of marine life, with marine creatures accounting for 95% of the fossil record. Some, such as trilobites and ichthyosaurs, probably became extinct at that time.* This is consistent with the Bible account of the Flood beginning with the breaking up of the ‘fountains of the great deep’ (i.e. beginning in the sea; ‘ the great deep’ means the oceans). There is also a possibility that stable fresh and saltwater layers developed and persisted in some parts of the ocean.* Freshwater can sit on top of saltwater for extended periods of time.* Turbulence may have been sufficiently low at high latitudes for such layering to persist and allow the survival of both freshwater and saltwater species in those areas.

Originally Posted by Tsen

How did the trees survive?[/b]

Many terrestrial seeds can survive long periods of soaking in various concentrations of salt water. Indeed, salt water impedes the germination of some species so that the seed lasts better in salt water than fresh water.
Other plants could have survived in floating vegetation masses, or on pumice from the volcanic activity. Pieces of many plants are still capable of asexual sprouting.
Many plants could have survived as planned food stores on the ark, or accidental inclusions in such food stores ( Genesis 6:21).
Many seeds have devices for attaching themselves to animals, and some could have survived the flood by this means. Others could have survived in the stomachs of the bloated, floating carcasses of dead herbivores.
The olive leaf brought back to Noah by the dove ( Genesis 8:11) shows that plants were regenerating well before Noah and company left the ark.

Originally Posted by Tsen

How did Noah get species unique to certain continents onto the ark?[/b]

Let me guess, you thought he traveled personally to get all the animals? Well he didn't have to God brought all the animals to Noah. Even the ones from faraway and unique continents.

Originally Posted by Tsen

Further, how did Noah get them back to those continents afterwards?[/b]

Once again he didn't have to. Animals has a keen sense of their natural living areas and I'm sure with some guidance from the Almighty Father they had no problem with getting back to their roots.

Originally Posted by Tsen

How did the entire world repopulate from 8 people to 6,000,000,000 in >6,000 years?[/b]

Originally Posted by Tsen

How did Noah & Co. avoid all the mutations and other nasty effects of inbreeding while repopulating?[/b]

Keep in mind also that not only did they avoid that, but they've also lived hundreds of years longer than we do today. The life expectancy for humans decrease more and more each year. So why was this? Because Noah and his family were much more closer to perfection as far as bodies than we are now. So the majority of the smallest things that could effect us even allergies, they were immune to it, due to their close proximity of perfection from Adam and Eve.

Continuation on the next post below:



Moving Along...

Originally Posted by Tsen

Why do we have written records from several cultures around the world from the same time period that the world was supposedly underwater?[/b]

Really which cultures are you referring to?

Originally Posted by Tsen

How did Noah fit all the animals aboard the ark? (There are billions of species, and even a few of the "core" species as Keeper calls them requires far more space than would be available. Simply, the ark would collapse.)[/b]

Okay let's first take a look at the size of the Ark and then we will break it down as we continue. God said unto Noah… Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt though make in the ark, and thou shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of… the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make in the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side therof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it." ( Gen. 6:14-16)
Most Hebrew scholars believe the cubit to have been no less than 18 inches long [45.72 centimeters]. This means that the ark would have been at least 450 feet long [ 137.16 meters], 75 feet wide [ 22.86 meters] and 45 feet high [13.716000000000001 meters]. Noah's Ark was said to have been the largest sea-going vessel ever built until the late nineteenth century when giant metal ships were first constructed. Its length to width ratio of six to one provided excellent stability on the high seas. In fact, modern shipbuilders say it would have been almost impossible to turn over. In every way, it was admirably suited for riding out the tremendous storms in the year of the flood.
The total available floor space on the ark would have been over 100,000 square feet, which would be more floor space than in 20 standard-sized basketball courts. The total cubic volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet [462, 686.4 cubic meters] --that would be equal to the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars. Now comes the question, how many land dwelling air breathing animals would have had to be taken aboard the ark to survive the flood?
According to Ernest Mayr, America's leading taxonomist, there are over 1 million species of animals in the world. However, the vast majority of these are capable of surviving in water and would not need to be brought aboard the ark. Noah need make no provision for the 21,000 species of fish or the 1,700 tunicates (marine chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas of the world, or the 600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins, or the 107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters, or the 10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids or the 5,000 species of sponges, or the 30,000 protozoans, the microscopic single-celled creatures.
In addition, some of the mammals are aquatic. For example, the whales, seals and porpoises. The amphibians need not all have been included, nor all the reptiles, such as sea turtles, and alligators. Moreover, a large number of the arthropods numbering 838,000 species, such as lobsters, shrimp, crabs and water fleas and barnacles are marine creatures. And the insect species among arthropoda are usually very small. Also, many of the 35,000 species of worms as well as many of the insects could have survived outside the Ark.
So how many animals needed to be brought aboard? Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book,The Genesis Flood state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word "specie" is not equivalent to the "created kinds" of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.)
But, let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.
Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space.

Originally Posted by Tsen

Why do we have consistent fossil records dating back to millions of years before the world was created?[/b]

Oh really? So why is there an absence of transitional specimens among invertebrates, or between invertebrates and vertebrates? Anyway bring fourth your consistent fossil records evidence and I hope it's not done by any evolutionist paleontologist. Because I will disregard it for it's not universally accepted. I want to see evidence from those who are universally accepted among paleontological authorities,

Originally Posted by Tsen

Why don't we EVER find human remains on the same level as dinosaurs if those fossils came from the flood?[/b]

We don't find real Dinosaur fossil records either.

Originally Posted by Tsen

How could geological formations such as salt domes form during a flood?[/b]

Surprisingly large salt deposits lie under the Mediterranean Sea. A codiscoverer of this huge deposit claims the Mediterranean must have evaporated 8–10 times to deposit so much salt. The real question is, why didn’t each refilling of the Mediterranean basin dissolve the salt residue left from prior evaporations, allowing currents to remove the redissolved salt from the basin?

Originally Posted by Tsen

How could the Grand Canyon form if there was a flood?[/b]

That's funny that you mentioned Grand Canyon. The Coconino Sandstone along the Hermit Trail in Grand Canyon shows plenty of evidence for a massive flood. Anway here is your Answer

Originally Posted by Tsen

How did Noah feed the animals?[/b]

I'm sure it became extremely difficult with only 8 people to feed and water, to provide fresh air and sanitation for the huge menagerie of animals for a total of 371 days. However, a number of scientists have suggested that the animals may have gone into a type of dormancy. It has been said that in nearly all groups of animals there is at least an indication of a latent ability to hibernate or aestivate. Perhaps these abilities were supernaturally intensified during this period. With their bodily functions reduced to a minimum, the burden of their care would have been greatly lightened.

Originally Posted by Tsen

Moving away from the flood, why do we have extensive evidence for human society predating the supposed "creation" 6,000 years ago?[/b]

Really? I'll like to see some of that evidence.

Originally Posted by Tsen

Further, how is it that beer was invented thousands of years before your supposed "creation"?[/b]

Really and what hard evidence do you have to prove that because if you are talking about the two slate tablets that are displayed in the British Museum in London, discovered by the scientist Mr. E. Huber which was scientifically estimated to be about 9000 years old, then your evidence is inconclusive.
Recent research has indicated that the tablets are probably not as old as Mr. Huber thought and that even the connection with the brewing process may be doubtful. Subsequently the oldest proven records of brewing are about 6000 years old and refer to the Sumarians, who discovered a "divine drink" that they would offer to their god.

Originally Posted by Tsen

Why do we have extensive evidence for evolution if your gawd just magicked things the way they are?[/b]

You do not have any real evidence so I'll do you a favor, I'll give you the opportunity to present some of your evidence so that I can pick through it.

Originally Posted by Tsen

Why are we designed so incompetently if a gawd created us? (Eyes, hips, back, sinuses, etc.)[/b]

So what's so incompetent about having eyes? And the rest of your so called inaccurate features because I don't see a problem here. How do you think we should've been designed?

EDIT:

You know what. Screw it. I tried copy/pasting the Word document, but it totally killed all the formatting, and I'd have to manually redo it all with the limited options. Not to mention my final result was 12 pages long...that'd be a bit of an eyesore.
So, I'm attaching the file.

Anyway, thanks for the additional post, spoon, you probably did a better job at covering most of the points than I did.

Mind if I steal the easy ones tsen?

Edit:Boo-hoo curse these slow fingers. At least mine had quote boxes in it!

Tsen:Where is your evidence for a global flood? Relating to that,

Ne-yo:

There is some evidence perhaps the mid oceanic ridge in the Atlantic ocean spewed forth with water and lava. This could hold true because scientists can find no reason for the MAR to be there!
Related proof: There was a sediment sample taken from Mt. Everest at the very top matching sediment along the MAR.
Scientist are dumbfounded not knowing how it got there. The Coconino Sandstone within the Grand Canyon (and its equivalents), which covers an area of 200,000 square miles (518,000 square kilometres) averages 315 feet (96 metres) thick, and contains a volume of sand conservatively estimated at 10,000 cubic miles, shows significant evidence of a great flood. Not to mention fossil footprints examined determining some animals completely submerged under the water not floating on top. There was also formations of cross beds during sand deposition by migration of underwater sand waves due to sustained water flow.[/b]

How you can cling to this dodgy evidence in the face of all scientific fact astounds me. Mt Everest and other mountains have sediment/debris from the ocean flood for a simple fact - they were, at one point, part of the ocean floor; research plate tectonics.

The grand canyon could not possibly have been formed during a great flood, so I don't know why anything within the canyon could be seen as evidence for a flood. But if you really want to read about the coconino sandstone try to branch away from creationist sources into mainstream science where you'll find that it shares almost every trait similar with those formed by the wind - not underwater.

You can pull out this dodgy evidence, usually based on small numbers of old scientific studies (if that&#33, but you'll never get around the fact that all of relevant science contradicts the idea of a global flood. Varves, ice cores, dendochronology, complex geological features, the fossil record, the distribution of species, etc, etc - all of these contradict the flood. Whatever single examples you get from creationists' bad science wont change this fact.

Tsen:
Why do we have consistent fossil records dating back to millions of years before the world was created?

Ne-yo: Oh really? So why is there an absence of transitional specimens among invertebrates, or between invertebrates and vertebrates? Anyway bring fourth your consistent fossil records evidence and I hope it's not done by any evolutionist paleontologist. Because I will disregard it for it's not universally accepted. I want to see evidence from those who are universally accepted among paleontological authorities,[/b]

You really should stray away from creationist sources once and a while. IF you did so you'd find that such evidence is widely available, repeated in a great amount of seperate studies, and universally (as universal as science gets) agreed on. Here's a nice example of transitional fossils:

Fossil hominid skulls.

In reality every fossil is a transitional fossil, which makes the claim that none exist all the stranger. Of course, you could always fall back on the old creationist canard: "Transitional fossil found? All I see is two more gaps".

And anyway, the real point of tsen's was that we have fossils dating back millions of years before the world was created. Noone inside mainstream science denies, for example, that the Cambrian explosion happened ~540mya. A 6000 year old earth is clearly contradicted by science.

Tsen: Why don't we EVER find human remains on the same level as dinosaurs if those fossils came from the flood?

Ne-yo: We don't find real Dinosaur fossil records either.[/b]

Are you joking? You don't believe in dinosaurs? What can you really say to that.

Let me guess- there's some sort of mass evil-utionist conspiracy which manufactures fossils, puts them in perfect order, fused into the exact right strata, all over the world, then pays off the thousands of scientists whose life it is to examine these fossils - just to contradict young earth creationism?

No wait, maybe jesus is testing our faith! That was his other power right? Walking on water, healing the sick and fabricating fossil evidence?

Tsen:How could the Grand Canyon form if there was a flood?


Ne-yo: That's funny that you mentioned Grand Canyon. The Coconino Sandstone along the Hermit Trail in Grand Canyon shows plenty of evidence for a massive flood. Anway here is your Answer[/b]

Already mentioned this, but it could probably do with repeating - the grand canyon could not have been formed by a great flood. It shares no similarities with geological features that were created by floods. It is impossible for a single flood to both lay down the sediment to carve through and do the carving. There are no other grand canyons in the world (you'd expect to see more if it were a global flood, and they were that simple to form).

Tsen: Why do we have extensive evidence for evolution if your gawd just magicked things the way they are?


Ne-yo: You do not have any real evidence so I'll do you a favor, I'll give you the opportunity to present some of your evidence so that I can pick through it.[/b]

I know there's a lot of information here but you're really displaying your ignorance of even basic knowledge on evolution. The articles there have been written collaboratively by experts in the fields they discuss, and can be taken as the view of mainstream science on evolution. There is no creation/evolution controversy in mainstream science - this is what countless studies by countless people have proven to be reliable explanations of the natural phenomena we observe.

WHoo Hoo! it's getting intense Tsen had to bring the back-up. [spoon his little henchman] I must be a force to reckon with espcially if it takes two people to come after me.

Anyway Tsen I posted your answers with no problem the least you could do is post the same. because I don't do the attachment game, you and I haven't been formally introduced. So I'd appreciate if you post like I have.

I'll get to that stuff you posted Spoon when I get to it.

You mean "reckon" with. And "henchman". And it wasn't so much that you posted anything difficult to refute as that you posted one hell of a lot of material, so it took a while to compile the rebuttal, and in the mean time people noticed the more glaring of your mistakes and posted them.

About reposting, why?
Do you not have Word?
I'll post it manually, but I'm not going to take the time to reformat it again, so you'll have to pick out the quotes of yours from my rebuttal. I think that'll kill some of the links, too, but they'll all stay intact in the Word document. If you ask for my resources, that's exactly where I'm going to point you.

Brace yourself for a long post.

First the tree of life was created on earth well before Adam and Eve were created. Now I cannot speak for the reason why the tree was placed but based off God's original plan for humans, the tree was more than likely placed their as a reward for the exemplary individuals showing worship on a level beyond others. Keep In mind that God's original plan was for people to pro-create and live in a paradise Earth for eternity. I believe we would've had far more opportunities to grow beyond the norm based upon our worship toward God. However God told the first human couple to not eat from the tree but yet they disobeyed God. God probably would've allowed them to eat from the tree in the future after they've proved themselves to be worthy on a level feasible to God giving them the option to level up.

That doesn’t answer the question. You still have the problem of why your gawd couldn’t just keep the tree up floating on a cloud along side the big man himself. Then when “exemplary individuals” come along, he can magick the reward down to them lickity-split. BAM! No temptation. Plus, you have another problem.
Your gawd is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient. So, he would have KNOWN that Adam and Eve would sin, but he still created them in a way where they would sin. Then, he placed them in a situation where he KNEW they would sin, and still punished them for it.


Because it would've shown confliction with his original plan to allow humans to multiply and fulfill the earth. God's original purpose was to fill the earth by means of procreation by humans. When Adam and Eve rebelled against God, this did not thwart his original purpose, but it did cause a necessary adjustment of some details in order for his purpose regarding humans and the earth to be fulfilled. God has allowed mankind to operate independently of his direct guidance. That is what our original parents chose of their own free will. This allowance of independence from God's guidance and the subsequent rule by humans instead of by God would show up man's inability to direct his own steps and his inability to govern his fellowmen successfully.

Again, doesn’t answer the question. Why couldn’t he just make Adam and Eve suffer, but remove the “curse” from their children?

In the Old Testament, God's prophets have been known to have used extreme measures towards those that have lifted their hand against them.

Uh, earth to Ne-Yo. The kids hadn’t “lifted their hands against [him]”. They just made fun of his bald head.
I don’t know about you, but when a little kid jokes with me, I don’t try to have him ripped apart violently. I also refuse to worship your gawd if he would willingly murder said children.

The sins of guilty people should not be transferred to the innocent

Which just proves my earlier point that your gawd shouldn’t be cursing all of humankind for a sin they didn’t commit.

There are many "hard passages" in the Bible which appear to conflict with today's moral consensus. Some verses describe what appear to be unjust instructions or actions by God to commit genocide. Others involve the murder of innocent, defenseless individuals, including the elderly, children, infants and newborns. Still others involve the murdering of a person for a minor transgression. Some are single murders; others are instances of mass murder. TODAY's moral standards doesn't support these type of events.

I don’t know about you, but killing off defenseless children for teasing you doesn’t seem like “moral” action by ANY standard, regardless of the time period—and I won’t let you justify it by saying that it was “acceptable” at the time.

The earth was filled with violence and it's not like people were not given any warnings. They were warned for 120 years and only 8 people adhered the warning.

Yeah, sure, the adults were violent. But what about the unborn children and little kids?
Next, as to the warnings. Do you listen to “street prophets” proclaiming the impending end of the world on street corners? Because from the flood story, it seems like that’s about the level of credibility the “warnings” of yours had. After all, Noah was the one running around “warning” people, but we know from the scriptures that he was a drunkard and exhibitionist.

And you ask how an unborn fetus can sin? The bible states Man is born into this world as a sinner carrying on a legacy from the first man and woman.

Except that I don’t buy your “original sin” bit. You yourself said that it isn’t just to punish somebody for a crime they didn’t commit, so why is your gawd doing this every day?

God doesn't make abortion clinics

Nope, but that doesn’t stop him from being the biggest abortionist of all, since an amazing number of pregnancies are “naturally aborted” via miscarriage and the likes.

The Coconino Sandstone within the Grand Canyon (and its equivalents), which covers an area of 200,000 square miles (518,000 square kilometres) averages 315 feet (96 metres) thick, and contains a volume of sand conservatively estimated at 10,000 cubic miles, shows significant evidence of a great flood.

No, actually that’s evidence that no flood ever happened. The Grand Canyon wasn’t formed by flood waters—receding flood waters create wide, rounded and straight paths of erosion, not deep, narrow and winding ones. Quite simply, a massive flood CANNOT form the meanders in the Grand Canyon.

Specialization, through natural selection, may have resulted in the loss of this ability [to survive in salt and fresh water] in many species since then.

No, because the fish would have evolved to specialize to their environments BEFORE the flood, and the rapid change in salinity would kill them anyways. As to why there are salt water and fresh water variants of most species of fish, the change happens gradually, not in a single generation. There are VERY few fish that can survive in both fresh and salt water, and that’s what would be required to survive the flood.

The fossil record testifies to the massive destruction of marine life, with marine creatures accounting for 95% of the fossil record.

Excepting the slight problem that all of those fish date back to a few million—not a few thousand—years ago.
Also, the number of marine fossils is more simply explained by just reviewing the fossilization process, rather than involving the unlikely and simply ridiculous theory of a global flood.

Some, such as trilobites and ichthyosaurs, probably became extinct at that time.

Once again, excepting the FACT that the trilobites went extinct 450 MILLION YEARS AGO. And, once again, there’s a far more likely explanation: Their extinction coincides ever so nicely with the appearance of the first sharks and early marine predators, who probably found the trilobites quite tasty.

Many terrestrial seeds can survive long periods of soaking in various concentrations of salt water. Indeed, salt water impedes the germination of some species so that the seed lasts better in salt water than fresh water.

But it’s not a question of whether their SEEDS survive, it’s a question of whether the trees themselves survived. It’s nice and all that some trees could grow from seeds soaked in salt water for over three months, but what about all the animals that thrive by eating products derived from plants? Koalas need several pounds of FRESH eucalyptus leaves every day. Did the eucalyptus magically regrow itself overnight to provide new food for them?

The olive leaf brought back to Noah by the dove ( Genesis 8:11) shows that plants were regenerating well before Noah and company left the ark.

Again, you’ve overlooked something. How long was Noah on the ark? It rained for 40 days, then there was additional time for the water to recede, typically thought of by Christian “scholars” to be about 260 days. So, in under 260 days, enough eucalyptus grew to feed a Koala, which eats several pounds of leaves per day? I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t work out.

Let me guess, you thought he traveled personally to get all the animals? Well he didn't have to God brought all the animals to Noah. Even the ones from faraway and unique continents.

Yup, because when all else fails, “gawddidit”.

Once again he didn't have to. Animals has a keen sense of their natural living areas and I'm sure with some guidance from the Almighty Father they had no problem with getting back to their roots.

Except for the tiny problem of them living on isolated continents. According to the myth, the ark settled in the Middle East. So, the marsupials would all need to walk across all of Asia, then swim across the entire ocean (which is a physically impossible distance for them), land on Australia, and repopulate there? That seems unlikely. And, to top that off, they’d be doing that with a minute population, since they wouldn’t have time to repopulate before reaching Australia (and since they cannot survive outside their natural environment that long).

Keep in mind also that not only did they avoid that, but they've also lived hundreds of years longer than we do today. The life expectancy for humans decrease more and more each year. So why was this? Because Noah and his family were much more closer to perfection as far as bodies than we are now. So the majority of the smallest things that could effect us even allergies, they were immune to it, due to their close proximity of perfection from Adam and Eve.

Yup, because once again, we’re horrible, horrible failures no matter what we do so we’re doomed to eternal suffering. You’ve really got a miserable, masochistic gawd, don’t you?
And them living for hundreds of years still doesn’t make sense—since we have records predating the supposed flood that reaffirm the fact that humans actually had SHORTER life spans back then.

[In reply to me stating that there are cultures with continuous records during the time period of the supposed flood] Really which cultures are you referring to?

China’s a good example—they had extensive written records dating to several thousand years BC, and throughout them all, there’s no mention of a global flood.

Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt though make in the ark, and thou shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

Slight problem here, since pitch is made from oil, which wouldn’t be available unless there were organic remains being compressed underground for millions of years—but you insist that the world was created 6,000 years ago, which kind of screws that possibility. But wait! There’s more! If you try to reconcile that with the mythical creation 6,000 years ago by saying that oil appeared when everything was buried and submerged by the flood, you’re still screwed! If that was the case, oil still wouldn’t be present until AFTER the flood.

This means that the ark would have been at least 450 feet long [ 137.16 meters], 75 feet wide [ 22.86 meters] and 45 feet high [13.716000000000001 meters]. Noah's Ark was said to have been the largest sea-going vessel ever built until the late nineteenth century when giant metal ships were first constructed.

Which still doesn’t provide enough room for a few million animals and the supplies to keep them alive for 2/3 of a year. And let’s just jump back to the koalas, eh? Like I said earlier, they need several pounds of FRESH eucalyptus every day. It can’t be dried, it can’t be preserved, it needs to be FRESH, or the koala dies. So in addition to all the animals, you’ve also got to have an entire tree growing inside the ark. Several, actually.

By pointing out that the word "specie" is not equivalent to the "created kinds" of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.)

I do LOVE how you only subscribe to evolution when it fits your needs. Simply put, in 4,000 years, 2,000 species CANNOT speciate into 35,000.
Plus, your original number was off. You hacked off entire groups at a time by making generalizations—but you failed to account for the several members of each family that cannot survive in flood waters, despite being aquatic. For example, the earlier mentioned problems of salinity. Plus, several amphibian species can survive in water, but only to a certain point—they cannot LIVE in water all the time. When you hacked off the entire amphibian species count, you removed over 5,000 species, of which the overwhelming majority are NOT capable of living in the environment that would be present during your flood.
Also, 1,000,000 species that you started with is an incorrect number.
There are 1,250,000 KNOWN AND VERIFIED species. There are EASILY another million undiscovered species. In fact, it’s estimated that there are 1.5 million undiscovered fungi species ALONE.
So the entire numbers game you played is irrelevant.
Not to mention that you GROSSLY underestimated the amount of food requisite for keeping those animals alive, AND you once again failed to account for unique and necessary diets for several animals.
Tigers, for one, will not eat preserved or salted meat. Zoos can make do with refrigerated meat, which is thawed and then fed to them—but the ark didn’t have refrigerators, did it?
Thus the only way to preserve the meat would be to salt or cook it—which the tiger wouldn’t eat—or to keep live food.
Keeping live food doesn’t seem like too big a problem—except that the food needs food too. It’s an exponential problem.
And tigers aren’t the only species that needs such care—lions, panthers and cougars all share similar eating habits in regard to salted or cooked food. In fact, it’s a fairly common trait among predators.

Oh really? So why is there an absence of transitional specimens among invertebrates, or between invertebrates and vertebrates?

Actually, we’ve got plenty of transitional fossils, but creationists like to pretend we don’t.

Transitional fossils between vertibrates and invertibrates:
[NOTE: This is one area that has links to references in the Word document but not in the post]
a. Pikaia, an early invertebrate chordate. It was at first interpreted as a segmented worm until a reanalysis showed it had a notochord.
b. Yunnanozoon, an early chordate.
c. Haikouella, a chordate similar to Yunnanozoon, but with additional traits, such as a heart and a relatively larger brain (Chen et al. 1999).
d. Conodont animals had bony teeth, but the rest of their body was soft. They also had a notochord (Briggs et al. 1983; Sansom et al. 1992).
e. Cathaymyrus diadexus, the oldest known chordate (535 million years old; Shu et al. 1996).
f. Myllokunmingia and Haikouichthys, two early vertebrates that still lack a clear head and bony skeletons and teeth. They differ from earlier invertebrate chordates in having a zigzag arrangement of segmented muscles, and their gill arrangement is more complex than a simple slit (Monastersky 1999).
The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:
a. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.
b. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).
c. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).
d. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).
e. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.
f. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).
g. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).
h. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).
i. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).
j. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).
k. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:
a. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).
b. Dinosaur-bird transitions.
c. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).
d. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).
e. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.
f. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.
g. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).
h. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).
i. A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).

The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:
a. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).
b. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.
c. An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).
Got any other beef with the fossil record? Feel free to post, it’s pretty concrete.

We don't find real Dinosaur fossil records either.

LMFAO. Sure.

Just FYI, here’s why it’s impossible that humans and dinosaurs coexisted:

There are no human fossils or artifacts found with dinosaurs, and there are no dinosaur fossils found with human fossils (except birds, which are descended from dinosaurs; out-of-place human traces such as the Paluxy footprints do not withstand examination). Furthermore, there is an approximately sixty-four-million-year gap in the fossil record when there are neither dinosaur nor human fossils. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, traces of the two should be found in the same time places. At the very least, there should not be such a dramatic separation between them.

That's funny that you mentioned Grand Canyon. The Coconino Sandstone along the Hermit Trail in Grand Canyon shows plenty of evidence for a massive flood. Anway here is your Answer [link broken by copy/paste]

That’s nice. Here’s a list of why the Grand Canyon couldn’t have been formed by a flood:
1. We know what to expect of a sudden massive flood, namely:

• a wide, relatively shallow bed, not a deep, sinuous river channel.
• anastamosing channels (i.e., a braided river system), not a single, well-developed channel.
• coarse-grained sediments, including boulders and gravel, on the floor of the canyon.
• streamlined relict islands.

The Scablands in Washington state were produced by such a flood and show such features (Allen et al. 1986; Baker 1978; Bretz 1969; Waitt 1985). Such features are also seen on Mars at Kasei Vallis and Ares Vallis (Baker 1978; NASA Quest n.d.). They do not appear in the Grand Canyon. Compare relief maps of the two areas to see for yourself.
2. The same flood that was supposed to carve the Grand Canyon was also supposed to lay down the miles of sediment (and a few lava flows) from which the canyon is carved. A single flood cannot do both. Creationists claim that the year of the Flood included several geological events, but that still stretches credulity.
3. The Grand Canyon contains some major meanders. Upstream of the Grand Canyon, the San Juan River (around Gooseneck State Park, southeast Utah) has some of the most extreme meandering imaginable. The canyon is 1,000 feet high, with the river flowing five miles while progressing one mile as the crow flies (American Southwest n.d.). There is no way a single massive flood could carve this.
4. Recent flood sediments would be unconsolidated. If the Grand Canyon were carved in unconsolidated sediments, the sides of the canyon would show obvious slumping.
5. The inner canyon is carved into the strongly metamorphosed sediments of the Vishnu Group, which are separated by an angular unconformity from the overlying sedimentary rocks, and also in the Zoroaster Granite, which intrudes the Vishnu Group. These rocks, by all accounts, would have been quite hard before the Flood began.
6. Along the Grand Canyon are tributaries, which are as deep as the Grand Canyon itself. These tributaries are roughly perpendicular to the main canyon. A sudden massive flood would not produce such a pattern.
7. Sediment from the Colorado River has been shifted northward over the years by movement along the San Andreas and related faults (Winker and Kidwell 1986). Such movement of the delta sediment would not occur if the canyon were carved as a single event.
8. The lakes that Austin proposed as the source for the carving floodwaters are not large compared with the Grand Canyon itself. The flood would have to remove more material than the floodwaters themselves.
9. If a brief interlude of rushing water produced the Grand Canyon, there should be many more such canyons. Why are there not other grand canyons surrounding all the margins of all continents?
10. There is a perfectly satisfactory gradual explanation for the formation of the Grand Canyon that avoids all these problems. Sediments deposited about two billion years ago were metamorphosed and intruded by granite to become today's basement layers. Other sediments were deposited in the late Proterozoic and were subsequently folded, faulted, and eroded. More sediments were deposited in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, with a period of erosion in between. The Colorado Plateau started rising gradually about seventy million years ago. As it rose, existing rivers deepened, carving through the previous sediments (Harris and Kiver 1985, 273-282).

I'm sure it became extremely difficult with only 8 people to feed and water, to provide fresh air and sanitation for the huge menagerie of animals for a total of 371 days. However, a number of scientists have suggested that the animals may have gone into a type of dormancy. It has been said that in nearly all groups of animals there is at least an indication of a latent ability to hibernate or aestivate. Perhaps these abilities were supernaturally intensified during this period. With their bodily functions reduced to a minimum, the burden of their care would have been greatly lightened.

Sure. So they were just magicked into a state of suspended animation? Once again, when all else fails, “gawddidit”.

[In reply to me stating that there is extensive recorded history predating the accepted date of Christian creation] Really? I'll like to see some of that evidence.

Alright then.
So, typical fundy doctrine suggest that the world is 6000 years old. So, according to you, creation was at approx. 4,000 BC.
Events predating 4,000 BC [all had accompanying links to resources, find them in the Word doc]:

• c. 30000 BC - 26000 BC - Lion-Human, from Hohlenstein-Stadel, Germany created. It is now in Ulmer Museum, Ulm, Germany.
• c. 23000 BC - Woman from Ostrava Petrkovice, Czech Republic, was made. It is now in Archeological Institute, Brno.
• c. 16500 BC - Paintings in Cosquer cave, Cap Margiou, France were made.
• c. 16000 BC - Spotted Horses and human hands, Pech-Merle cave, Dordogne, France were painted. Discovered in December 1994.
• c. 16000 BC - 10000 BC - Mammoth-bone village in Mezhirich, Ukraine inhabited.
• c. 15000 BC - 13000 BC - Hall of Bulls, Lascaux caves, was painted. Discovered in 1940. Closed to the public in 1963.
• c. 14000 BC - Pregnant woman and deer (?), from Laugerie-Basse, France was made. It is now at Musee des Antiquites Nationales, St.-Germain-en-Laye.
• c. 12000 BC - Bison, on the ceiling of a cave at Altamira, Spain, was painted. Discovered in 1879. Accepted as authentic in 1902.
• 11500 BC - 10000 BC - Wooden buildings in South America (Chile), first pottery vessels (Japan), dogs domesticated, bow and arrow appeared.
• c. 10000 BC - People started to live in Jericho.
• c. 9000 BC - Neolithic culture began in Ancient Near East.
• c. 9000 BC: Near East: First stone structures are built at Jericho.
• c. 9000 BC – Mediterranean - Settling on Mediterranean isles started.
• c. 9000 BC - Early Neolithic period in Ancient Near East (Jericho, Chatal Huyuk).
• c. 8700 BC – 8400 BC – Britain - Star Carr site in Yorkshire, Britain inhabited by Maglemosian peoples.
• c. 8500 BC – Great Britain - Mesolithic hunters camp at Cramond, Prehistoric Scotland.
• c. 8350 BC – Middle East - Neolithic settlement at Jericho.
• c. 8300 BC – Great Britain - Nomadic hunters arrive in England.
• c. 8000 BC – Norway - Øvre Eiker of Norway inhabited.
• c. 8000 BC – Africa - Earliest recorded African stone engravings, in the Apollo 1 cave.
• 8000 BC - 7000 BC; Jericho had about 2000 inhabitants living in mud-brick houses protected by a stone wall 5 feet thick and 12 to 17 feet high. The site covered 6 acres.
• c. 8000 BC – Settlements at Nevali Cori in present-day Turkey are established.
• c. 8000 BC – Settlements at Sagalassos in present-day southwest Turkey are established.
• c. 8000 BC – Settlements at Akure in present-day southwest Nigeria are established.
• c. 8000 BC – Settlements at Øvre Eiker and Nedre Eiker in present-day Buskerud, Norway are established.
• c. 8000 BC – Settlements at Ærø, Denmark are established.
• c. 8000 BC – Settlements at Deepcar near present-day Sheffield, England are established.
• c. 8000 BC – North American Arctic is inhabited by hunter-gatherers of the Paleo-Arctic Tradition.
• c. 8000 BC – Pre-Anasazi Paleo-Indians move into the Southwest United States.
• c. 8000 BC – Plano cultures inhabit the Great Plains area of North America (from 9th millennium)
• c. 7000 BC – Beginning of the Peiligang culture in China.
• c. 7000 BC – Agriculture and settlement at Mehrgarh in South Asia.
• c. 7000 BC - 600 BC - Elam.
• c. 7000 BC - 6000 BC; Figure, from Ain Ghazal, Jordan was made. It is now in National Museum, Amman, Jordan.
• c. 7000 BC – Mesolithic site Lepenski Vir emerges in today's Serbia.
• c. 7000 BC - Earliest pottery in Ancient Near East.
• c. 7000 BC - Elam became farming region.
• c. 6500 BC - 5500 BC; Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Inhabitants traded obsidian.
• c. 6500 BC - Naalebinding, a form of knitting, used in Judean Desert (modern day Israel).
• c. 6000 BC – Wall painting/map from Çatalhöyük, an early-civilized city that prospered by
trading obsidian, Anatolia -- modern Turkey.
• c. 6000 BC – Neolithic Age in Korea.
• c. 6000 BC - Cycladic people started to use a coarse, poor-quality local clay to make a variety of objects.
• c. 6000 BC – First traces of habitation of the Svarthola cave in Norway.
• c. 6000 BC – split of Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Anatolian and Proto-Indo-Iranian in India as a result of Proto-Vedic continuity. [1]
• c. 5900 BC – prehistoric Vinca culture emerges in today's Belgrade.
• c. 5700 BC – Samarran Culture at Mesopotamia (present day Iraq) begins (ca 5700 BC – 4900 BC C-14, 6640 BC - 5816 BC calBC).
• c. 5600 BC – The Red Paint People become established in the region from present-day Labrador to New York state.
• c. 5500 BC - agriculture started in Ancient Egypt.
• c. 5500 BC – pottery at Mehrgarh in South Asia.
• c. 5400 BC – Irrigation in Mesopotamia.
• c. 5200 BC – Beginning of human inhabitation and settlements in Malta.
• c. 5100 BC – Temples founded in South Mesopotamia.
• c. 5000 BC - Farming reached Europe.


Inventions between 6,000 and 5,000 BC:
• Agriculture appears in the valley of the Nile.
• Rice cultivated in Asia.
• Plough invented.
• Bricks are created for the first time in Persia.
• Wine is created for the first time in Persia.
• Artifacts of stone were supplemented by those of metal, and the crafts of basketry, pottery, weaving (Africa).
• Dead were buried in a fetal position, surrounded by the burial offerings and artifacts, facing west (Africa).
• Decorated, black-topped clay pots and vases; bone and ivory combs, figurines, and tableware, are found in great numbers (Africa).
• Jewelry of all types and materials (Africa).
• Objects began to be made not only with a function, but also with an aesthetic value. (Africa)
• Organized, permanent settlements focused around agriculture. (Africa)


[In reply to my statement that beer was invented before the accepted date of Christian creation] Really and what hard evidence do you have to prove that because if you are talking about the two slate tablets that are displayed in the British Museum in London, discovered by the scientist Mr. E. Huber which was scientifically estimated to be about 9000 years old, then your evidence is inconclusive.

No, I’m talking about the jars from Jiahu, China [which date to 7000 BC, so same time period as the tablets you mentioned], and they’re currently at the University of Pennsylvania's Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in Philadelphia. The jars have been substantially proven to have contained alcoholic beverages, and the brewing process has been linked to religious ceremonies at the time.

You do not have any real evidence [for evolution] so I'll do you a favor, I'll give you the opportunity to present some of your evidence so that I can pick through it.

Sure. Here's a start: Endogenous Retroviruses. The fossil record. Modern genetics.
But hell, don't hold your breath waiting for me to prove it to you. Point out ANY hole in evolution, don't feel restricted by what evidence I dredge up for you. You won’t find much of anything.

So what's so incompetent about having eyes? And the rest of your so called inaccurate features because I don't see a problem here. How do you think we should've been designed?

Incompetent design features of the human body:
• Eyes- Vertebrate eyes are constructed backwards and inside out. The nerve cells that connect the light-sensitive cells of the retina to the brain are located in front of these cells, partially blocking the incoming light.
• Pelvis- The human pelvis slopes forwards, which is nice if you want to walk on all fours. Otherwise it just causes problems.
• Back- Related to the pelvis issue, in order to stand upright, humans have a nasty kink in their lower back. This leads to all sorts of back problems.
• Throat- In order to swallow food, it has to first pass over the windpipe, hence why humans can choke to death.
• The existence of the appendix, which serves no purpose whatsoever to an adult human, and creates a significant threat to the lives of several adults because of appendicitis.


<NOTES:
-[Brackets] surround additions I&#39;ve made when I transferred from Word to a post. Most clarify context, or include notes.
-Some sentences might be slightly fractured. Apologies for that. I proofread the whole thing once, but I probably missed a few things.
-All bulleted lists including links to their sources originally, but they don&#39;t work now.
-Not all of the post is my words; I copy/pasted Ne-Yo&#39;s post into Word, italicized his words and put my rebuttal in normal or bold text. [I fixed the post to restore the italicization to make it easier to differentiate between Ne-Yo and me]
-Some quotes from Ne-Yo might appear out of context because I removed my original points, which he replied to, in interest of saving space. Some of them I edited with [bracketed insertions] to clarify what I was talking about, but I don&#39;t know if the changes were saved in the Word document or not. [They didn&#39;t transfer over, but I tried to manually scan through and fix things who&#39;s context might be unclear. If I missed something, point it out]>

<EDITS AFTER DEC. 1 &#39;06:
-Added clarification to a quote from Ne-Yo regarding evolution
-Added additional dates and events to the list of events before 4000 BC [Note: The dates added were between 10000 and 8000 BC; these are not in the word document I uploaded as of today (Dec. 1). Will fix eventually]
-Added MORE dates and events to the list. All events predating 8000 BC are still not in the Word document. Eventually will fix, I promise&#33;>

Originally Posted by spoon

[/b]

I don&#39;t see the resemblances.

Some-one that doesn&#39;t believe in dinosaurs is just silly. Untill that guys goes to some sort of university or college -or maybe just a prehistory museum is enough- there is really no point in talking to him.

Okay Okay.. I&#39;ve read half of your material and that&#39;s just way to much information I&#39;m not going to do this any longer.

This is senseless and too much material to try and prove wrong.

I don&#39;t care I still have my beliefs.

Originally Posted by Ne

Okay Okay.. I&#39;ve read half of your material and that&#39;s just way to much information I&#39;m not going to do this any longer.

This is senseless and too much material to try and prove wrong.

I don&#39;t care I still have my beliefs.[/b]

You&#39;d think at the point where you realised just how much evidence against your beliefs there is you&#39;d re-evaluate them a little. Oh well, intellectual dishonesty is fun too I guess.

At least care to explain why we have 6000 [EDIT: You know, I put 6000 before because that&#39;s a nice number and gives the rough time period of the first real societies and records. But we&#39;ve still got another 20000 years of human society before that] years of recorded history preceding the date you put on creation?
Or why you claimed there were no transitional fossils when there quite clearly were?

how do you know it is 6000 years?

Uh...earth to Keeper:

• c. 30000 BC - 26000 BC - Lion-Human, from Hohlenstein-Stadel, Germany created. It is now in Ulmer Museum, Ulm, Germany.
• c. 23000 BC - Woman from Ostrava Petrkovice, Czech Republic, was made. It is now in Archeological Institute, Brno.
• c. 16500 BC - Paintings in Cosquer cave, Cap Margiou, France were made.
• c. 16000 BC - Spotted Horses and human hands, Pech-Merle cave, Dordogne, France were painted. Discovered in December 1994.
• c. 16000 BC - 10000 BC - Mammoth-bone village in Mezhirich, Ukraine inhabited.
• c. 15000 BC - 13000 BC - Hall of Bulls, Lascaux caves, was painted. Discovered in 1940. Closed to the public in 1963.
• c. 14000 BC - Pregnant woman and deer (?), from Laugerie-Basse, France was made. It is now at Musee des Antiquites Nationales, St.-Germain-en-Laye.
• c. 12000 BC - Bison, on the ceiling of a cave at Altamira, Spain, was painted. Discovered in 1879. Accepted as authentic in 1902.
• 11500 BC - 10000 BC - Wooden buildings in South America (Chile), first pottery vessels (Japan), dogs domesticated, bow and arrow appeared.
• c. 10000 BC - People started to live in Jericho.
• c. 9000 BC - Neolithic culture began in Ancient Near East.
• c. 9000 BC: Near East: First stone structures are built at Jericho.
• c. 9000 BC – Mediterranean - Settling on Mediterranean isles started.
• c. 9000 BC - Early Neolithic period in Ancient Near East (Jericho, Chatal Huyuk).
• c. 8700 BC – 8400 BC – Britain - Star Carr site in Yorkshire, Britain inhabited by Maglemosian peoples.
• c. 8500 BC – Great Britain - Mesolithic hunters camp at Cramond, Prehistoric Scotland.
• c. 8350 BC – Middle East - Neolithic settlement at Jericho.
• c. 8300 BC – Great Britain - Nomadic hunters arrive in England.
• c. 8000 BC – Norway - Øvre Eiker of Norway inhabited.
• c. 8000 BC – Africa - Earliest recorded African stone engravings, in the Apollo 1 cave.
• 8000 BC - 7000 BC; Jericho had about 2000 inhabitants living in mud-brick houses protected by a stone wall 5 feet thick and 12 to 17 feet high. The site covered 6 acres.
• c. 8000 BC – Settlements at Nevali Cori in present-day Turkey are established.
• c. 8000 BC – Settlements at Sagalassos in present-day southwest Turkey are established.
• c. 8000 BC – Settlements at Akure in present-day southwest Nigeria are established.
• c. 8000 BC – Settlements at Øvre Eiker and Nedre Eiker in present-day Buskerud, Norway are established.
• c. 8000 BC – Settlements at Ærø, Denmark are established.
• c. 8000 BC – Settlements at Deepcar near present-day Sheffield, England are established.
• c. 8000 BC – North American Arctic is inhabited by hunter-gatherers of the Paleo-Arctic Tradition.
• c. 8000 BC – Pre-Anasazi Paleo-Indians move into the Southwest United States.
• c. 8000 BC – Plano cultures inhabit the Great Plains area of North America (from 9th millennium)
• c. 7000 BC – Beginning of the Peiligang culture in China.
• c. 7000 BC – Agriculture and settlement at Mehrgarh in South Asia.
• c. 7000 BC - 600 BC - Elam.
• c. 7000 BC - 6000 BC; Figure, from Ain Ghazal, Jordan was made. It is now in National Museum, Amman, Jordan.
• c. 7000 BC – Mesolithic site Lepenski Vir emerges in today&#39;s Serbia.
• c. 7000 BC - Earliest pottery in Ancient Near East.
• c. 7000 BC - Elam became farming region.
• c. 6500 BC - 5500 BC; Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Inhabitants traded obsidian.
• c. 6500 BC - Naalebinding, a form of knitting, used in Judean Desert (modern day Israel).
• c. 6000 BC – Wall painting/map from Çatalhöyük, an early-civilized city that prospered by
trading obsidian, Anatolia -- modern Turkey.
• c. 6000 BC – Neolithic Age in Korea.
• c. 6000 BC - Cycladic people started to use a coarse, poor-quality local clay to make a variety of objects.
• c. 6000 BC – First traces of habitation of the Svarthola cave in Norway.
• c. 6000 BC – split of Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Anatolian and Proto-Indo-Iranian in India as a result of Proto-Vedic continuity. [1]
• c. 5900 BC – prehistoric Vinca culture emerges in today&#39;s Belgrade.
• c. 5700 BC – Samarran Culture at Mesopotamia (present day Iraq) begins (ca 5700 BC – 4900 BC C-14, 6640 BC - 5816 BC calBC).
• c. 5600 BC – The Red Paint People become established in the region from present-day Labrador to New York state.
• c. 5500 BC - agriculture started in Ancient Egypt.
• c. 5500 BC – pottery at Mehrgarh in South Asia.
• c. 5400 BC – Irrigation in Mesopotamia.
• c. 5200 BC – Beginning of human inhabitation and settlements in Malta.
• c. 5100 BC – Temples founded in South Mesopotamia.
• c. 5000 BC - Farming reached Europe.[/b]

Keeper, you might aswel say cave-men never existed, or that the egyptian society never existed, for there are some leads they build the sphinx a lot longer ago then we think.

you dont get what I am saying: how do you know it is millions of years old?

your dating tequneks

that is all I&#39;m asking

Originally Posted by Keeper

you dont get what I am saying: how do you know it is millions of years old?

your dating tequneks

that is all I&#39;m asking
[/b]

I don&#39;t believe you exist, Keeper. All I see is alot of post coming from you, but it could be god using the internet or some miracoulus virus that happens randomly generate stuff we see as posts, however hence the average spelling.

Lets seeeee, proof for the earth Not being 6000 years old.... Hmm... DINOS? Dino&#39;s alone should be enough, by their coolness, but to try to keep it scientific I just refer to Tsen&#39;s posts.

Really, deny hunderds of thousands of fossils, geographical layers, ancient civlilisations, carbon dating (god has no reason to fake that), overwealming proof of evolution, the fact the universe is drifting apart (did god start the universe at a point where it is drifting apart? Why? The big bang didn&#39;t happen 6000 years ago), also the impossablity of adam and eve making a shitload of babies in no time, to populate the earth. The sheer differences in races, asians, blaks, mexicans, whites, eskimos, all that came from 2 white people in 6000 years?

I really wish you were playing with us, posing like you are a religious fanatic, but you really are...

I dont denigh Dinos. Heck, they even are part of why I think the Bible is correct (but you already know that)

so you say Carbon dating proovs the millions of years theory?

do you know how accurate carbon dating is?

Originally Posted by Keeper

so you say Carbon dating proovs the millions of years theory?

do you know how accurate carbon dating is?[/b]

Carbon dating is only accurate to ~50,000 years. For anything younger than this, carbon dating has been demonstrated to be consistent (multiple tests on the same sample give consistent results) and have been verified as correct when tested against other dating techniques (such as dendochronology) or against objects of known date. I think Neruo meant to say radiometric dating rather than carbon.

Radiometric dating, which consists of several different techniques (all of which give consistent results), provides results with lots of non-radiometric dating methods. All of which point to an earth that is much older than 6000, or even much older than the reliability of c-14.

Did you really think I was serious? Let&#39;s get started

Sorry for the wait for those who were waiting. But Tsen really did post a lot of material/However Mine will not be near as Long. and it took a while to analyize the rebuttals. Now shall we continue?

This is the new format:

--------&#62;This is my original post in italics’

Originally Posted by Tsen

Tsen&#39;s rebuttal post goes here[/b]

My rebuttal post goes here

Additional members post here along with name[/b]

First the tree of life was created on earth well before Adam and Eve were created. Now I cannot speak for the reason why the tree was placed but based off God&#39;s original plan for humans, the tree was more than likely placed their as a reward for the exemplary individuals showing worship on a level beyond others. Keep In mind that God&#39;s original plan was for people to pro-create and live in a paradise Earth for eternity. I believe we would&#39;ve had far more opportunities to grow beyond the norm based upon our worship toward God. However God told the first human couple to not eat from the tree but yet they disobeyed God. God probably would&#39;ve allowed them to eat from the tree in the future after they&#39;ve proved themselves to be worthy on a level feasible to God giving them the option to level up.

Originally Posted by Tsen

That doesn&#39;t answer the question.
You still have the problem of why your gawd couldn&#39;t just keep the tree up floating on a cloud along side the big man himself.
Then when "exemplary individuals" come along, he can magick the reward down to them lickity-split.
BAM&#33;
No temptation.
Plus, you have another problem.
Your gawd is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient.
So, he would have KNOWN that Adam and Eve would sin, but he still created them in a way where they would sin.
Then, he placed them in a situation where he KNEW they would sin, and still punished them for it.[/b]

How does that not answer the question? How can you not see it? It&#39;s clear. God gave Adam and Eve free will just as we all have free will. God did know what Adam and Eve was going to do before they did it. At the same time Humans must understand that their way is not the right way. We need the guidance of our Heavenly father and this is currently in progress right now. God did not intervene because that will destroy the free will he&#39;s given us. The tree in Eden wasn&#39;t some sort of temptation gimmick. God gave explicit instructions in regards to the tree, but the instructions were disregarded. Anyway what sense would that make to put the tree away from the people when God is trying to give people a chance to show their sincerity and righteousness toward the Heavenly Father. How can we prove ourselves if we don&#39;t have something to give us incentive to do so?

Because it would&#39;ve shown confliction with his original plan to allow humans to multiply and fulfill the earth. God&#39;s original purpose was to fill the earth by means of procreation by humans. When Adam and Eve rebelled against God, this did not thwart his original purpose, but it did cause a necessary adjustment of some details in order for his purpose regarding humans and the earth to be fulfilled. God has allowed mankind to operate independently of his direct guidance. That is what our original parents chose of their own free will. This allowance of independence from God&#39;s guidance and the subsequent rule by humans instead of by God would show up man&#39;s inability to direct his own steps and his inability to govern his fellowmen successfully.

Originally Posted by Tsen

Again, doesn&#39;t answer the question.
Why couldn&#39;t he just make Adam and Eve suffer, but remove the "curse" from their children? [/b]

Once again God&#39;s original purpose was to fill the earth by means of "Procreation" Why would he just disregard his original promise to us, thus making him out to be a liar. Procreation has a single starting point and original source from God&#39;s original idea. Clearly, a vital point is this: Humans were not created to be independent of God. He made them in such a way that their success and happiness depend on obedience to his righteous laws. God&#39;s prophet Jeremiah said: "I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." —Jeremiah 10:23.

In the Old Testament, God&#39;s prophets have been known to have used extreme measures towards those that have lifted their hand against them.

Originally Posted by Tsen

Uh, earth to Ne-Yo.
The kids hadn&#39;t "lifted their hands against [him]".
They just made fun of his bald head.
I don&#39;t know about you, but when a little kid jokes with me, I don&#39;t try to have him ripped apart violently.
I also refuse to worship your gawd if he would willingly murder said children.
The sins of guilty people should not be transferred to the innocent
Which just proves my earlier point that your gawd shouldn&#39;t be cursing all of humankind for a sin they didn&#39;t commit.
I don&#39;t know about you, but killing off defenseless children for teasing you doesn&#39;t seem like
"moral" action by ANY standard, regardless of the time period— and I won&#39;t let you justify it by saying that it was "acceptable" at the time.[/b]

I&#39;ll Quote WhiteUnit for your better understanding here.

Originally Posted by Tsen

"From Jericho, Elisha climbs to Bethel, about 900 m (3,000 ft) above sea level, where he had previously visited a group of the sons of the prophets in company with Elijah. (2Ki 2:3) On the way, a band of juvenile delinquents comes out and shows great disrespect both to him and his office as prophet. "Go up, you baldhead&#33; Go up, you baldhead&#33;" they jeer. They mean for him either to keep on going up to Bethel or to get off the earth just as his predecessor was supposed to have done. (2Ki 2:11) To teach these boys and their parents respect for the prophet of Jehovah, he turns and calls down evil upon them in Jehovah&#39;s name. Suddenly two she-bears come out from the woods and tear to pieces 42 of their number. —2Ki 2:23, 24.

Insight Book, p.714
Published by Jehovah&#39;s Witness

All of the boys were repeating the same information that was getting passed on through their parents to them.
The were a generation of no goods.

• (Proverbs 20:11) Even by his practices a boy makes himself recognized as to whether his activity is pure and upright.
• (Proverbs 22:15) Foolishness is tied up with the heart of a boy; the rod of discipline is what will remove it far from him.
• Parents also share the responsiblity for their childrens actions to some degree.

Also, the flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah didnt dodge around children, they were accountable too.

Even David as a child worshiped and loved God.

If he died at a young age, it wouldnt make sense that none of it counted because he was too young and couldnt possibly have known what he was doing.

It&#39;s a sensative scripture and often brought up as it gets the "not the children&#33;" reaction.[/b]

The earth was filled with violence and it&#39;s not like people were not given any warnings. They were warned for 120 years and only 8 people adhered the warning.

Originally Posted by Tsen

Yeah, sure, the adults were violent.
But what about the unborn children and little kids?
Next, as to the warnings.
Do you listen to "street prophets" proclaiming the impending end of the world on street corners?
Because from the flood story, it seems like that&#39;s about the level of credibility the "warnings" of yours had.
After all, Noah was the one running around "warning" people, but we know from the scriptures that he was a drunkard and exhibitionist.[/b]

Regardless of the credibility of who was giving the warnings. For one people back then would&#39;ve disregarded the Pope if he was telling them of what&#39;s to come because their hearts were filled with evil and hate and they were all living foul. The funny things about all of this is that, all you see is that God destroyed all those people but what you fail to look at is, the sequence of events leading to that. You don&#39;t see the "Why?"

And you ask how an unborn fetus can sin? The bible states Man is born into this world as a sinner carrying on a legacy from the first man and woman.

Originally Posted by Tsen

Except that I don&#39;t buy your "original sin" bit.
You yourself said that it isn&#39;t just to punish somebody for a crime they didn&#39;t commit, so why is your gawd doing this every day?[/b]

Once again you pointing the finger in the wrong direction. Why do you keep insisting on asking why is God doing this to us on a daily basis?. I never for once seen you ask the question of why is Satan doing this to us?


God doesn&#39;t make abortion clinics

Originally Posted by Tsen

Nope, but that doesn&#39;t stop him from being the biggest abortionist of all, since an amazing number of pregnancies are "naturally aborted" via miscarriage and the likes.[/b]

===========Continue Below==============

===========Sorry the remainder is not correctly formated===============

Firstly one of the largest numbers of miscarriages are as a result with Problems associated with the chromosomes of the embryo, by far the most common reason for loss of pregnancy, are found in more than half of miscarriages occurring in the first 13 weeks. Miscarriages apparently eliminate about 95 percent of fertilized eggs or embryos with genetic problems —perhaps nature&#39;s way of ending a pregnancy in which the child would be unable to survive. Spontaneous abortions of this type usually occur before the woman knows that she is pregnant. Most chromosomal problems happen by chance,- this is due to our imperfection, have nothing to do with the parents, and are unlikely to recur. And you must also realize that miscarriages are also a result to the carrier&#39;s fault as well, not properly taking care of themselves and abusing their bodies.

The Coconino Sandstone within the Grand Canyon (and its equivalents), which covers an area of 200,000 square miles (518,000 square kilometres) averages 315 feet (96 metres) thick, and contains a volume of sand conservatively estimated at 10,000 cubic miles, shows significant evidence of a great flood.

No, actually that&#39;s evidence that no flood ever happened.
The Grand Canyon wasn&#39;t formed by flood waters— receding flood waters create wide, rounded and straight paths of erosion, not deep, narrow and winding ones.
Quite simply, a massive flood CANNOT form the meanders in the Grand Canyon.

Oh really so you actually believe the Colorado river carved the Grand Canyon ? If the Colorado River carved the canyon, as commonly assumed, there should be a gigantic river delta where the Colorado River enters the Gulf of California. Instead, the delta is relatively tiny. I guess you are probably more geared to Headward Erosion and opposed to Superpostion, whichever one, it is it still doesn&#39;t explain the Missing Mesozoic Rock of 10,000 square miles. However, sitting at a few dozen isolated spots on this Kaibab Limestone are piles, 1,000 feet high, of softer (crumbly or weakly cemented) Mesozoic rock; those piles are always capped on top by a very hard rock, such as lava. Obviously, lava did not flow up to the top; lava, which flows downhill, collected in a depression and hardened. Later, a fast moving sheet of water flowed over northern Arizona and swept all the soft, Mesozoic rock off the hard Kaibab Limestone —except for the few dozen spots that were capped and protected by hard rock. Why was it a sheet of water? Falling rain would only cut channels. Flowing rivers or streams, even if they meandered for millions of years, would not be very thorough in sweeping 1,000 feet or more of dirt off the 10,000 square miles of the fairly flat Kaibab Limestone floor. Besides, meandering rivers would produce meandering-like patterns. Therefore, before you can excavate 800 cubic miles of rock below the rim to form the Grand Canyon, something must sweep off almost all the Mesozoic rock above —a much bigger excavation project.


Specialization, through natural selection, may have resulted in the loss of this ability [to survive in salt and fresh water] in many species since then.

No, because the fish would have evolved to specialize to their environments BEFORE the flood, and the rapid change in salinity would kill them anyways.
As to why there are salt water and fresh water variants of most species of fish, the change happens gradually, not in a single generation.
There are VERY few fish that can survive in both fresh and salt water, and that&#39;s what would be required to survive the flood.

This ability was pre-existent before the flood. Many families of fish contain both fresh and saltwater species. These include the families of toadfish, garpike, bowfin, sturgeon, herring/anchovy, salmon/trout/pike, catfish, clingfish, stickleback, scorpionfish, and flatfish. Indeed, most of the families alive today have both fresh and saltwater representatives. This suggests that the ability to tolerate large changes in salinity was present in most fish at the time of the Flood. And like I said specialization, through natural selection, may have resulted in the loss of this ability in many species since then. Unless you find a problem with Natural Selection? There is also evidence of post-Flood specialization within a kind of fish. For example, the Atlantic sturgeon is a Migratory salt/freshwater species but the Siberian sturgeon (a different species of the same kind) lives only in freshwater. Keep in mind also that stable fresh and saltwater layers may have developed and persisted in some parts of the ocean. Fresh water can sit on top of salt water for extended periods of time. Turbulence may have been sufficiently low at high latitude for such layering to persist and allow survival of both freshwater and saltwater species in those areas. So in regards to Salinity that may not even had been an issue.

The fossil record testifies to the massive destruction of marine life, with marine creatures accounting for 95% of the fossil record.

Excepting the slight problem that all of those fish date back to a few million— not a few thousand—years ago.
Also, the number of marine fossils is more simply explained by just reviewing the fossilization process, rather than involving the unlikely and simply ridiculous theory of a global flood.

Just like it&#39;s ridiculous to believe in something that can be made in 12 months. There are fossils of fishes showing extremely fine soft tissue details such as muscle fibres, so proving that the entombing sediment containing the fossilising minerals must have hardened considerably before the onset of any decay. So one important question is: just exactly how old are fossils? In fact, contrary to what may be a general understanding, fossils do not take hundreds of thousands, or millions of years to form. In fact, the impregnation of minerals into bones can take place very quickly, and indeed, the shells of some living crustaceans can become fossilised in less than a year after shedding. And since radiometric analysis of lava beds from known very recent volcanic activity has yielded (incorrect) dates of millions of years, this, along with a wealth of biological evidence, means that the extreme old age commonly ascribed to fossils may be quite erroneous.

Some, such as trilobites and ichthyosaurs, probably became extinct at that time.

Once again, excepting the FACT that the trilobites went extinct 450 MILLION YEARS AGO.
And, once again, there&#39;s a far more likely explanation:
Their extinction coincides ever so nicely with the appearance of the first sharks and early marine predators, who probably found the trilobites quite tasty.

Sorry but I disagree with any fossils going back 450 million years ago especially if you are going off fossil records tampered with by man. There is not a soul on this planet that can give a factual date in regards to fossil record but it seems more logical that impregnation of minerals into bones can take place very quickly, and indeed, the shells of some living crustaceans can become fossilised in less than a year after shedding.

When you hacked off the entire amphibian species count, you removed over 5,000 species, of which the overwhelming majority are NOT capable of living in the environment that would be present during your flood.

Yup you are absolutely right I did hack off the entire amphibian species because they were capable of surviving and you know what else? I got proof that they survived. Take a look outside.. Don&#39;t you see them? Lol. However it&#39;s pretty irrelevant, but I&#39;ll take you up on your offer anyway. Let&#39;s just say Noah stopped and said "oh what the Heck lets grab all the amphibian species". What are we looking at? Some toads, salamanders, newts and caeclilians. About 6000 in total. Noah had about 35,0000 kinds on the ark but let&#39;s bumped the number to 50,000 just for your pleasure Tsen. Even with 50,000 of their kind Noah would have still had 67% of room remaining on the ark. Oh by the way did you know there is an
Australian frog that can survive underground and be dormant for up to eight years?

Also, 1,000,000 species that you started with is an incorrect number.
There are 1,250,000 KNOWN AND VERIFIED species.

You know what you&#39;re right there are 1.25 Million species verified. But you know what else roughly about 800,000 of them are INSECTS KNOWN AND VERIFIED.

There are EASILY another million undiscovered species.
In fact, it&#39;s estimated that there are 1.5 million undiscovered fungi species ALONE.
So the entire numbers game you played is irrelevant.

My goodness Tsen you are reaching. Are you serious? How many midsized to large animals do you think have not been discovered already? They wouldn&#39;t be to hard to miss. So I&#39;m pretty much sure that the remaining 1 million Species are of the insect type or water dwellers. And Fungi? Please tell me you are really not asking how did Fungi survive the flood? I&#39;m not even going to answer that one.

Not to mention that you GROSSLY underestimated the amount of food requisite for keeping those animals alive, AND you once again failed to account for unique and necessary diets for several animals.
Tigers, for one, will not eat preserved or salted meat.
Zoos can make do with refrigerated meat, which is thawed and then fed to them— but the ark didn&#39;t have refrigerators, did it?
Thus the only way to preserve the meat would be to salt or cook it— which the tiger wouldn&#39;t eat—or to keep live food.
Keeping live food doesn&#39;t seem like too big a problem— except that the food needs food too.
It&#39;s an exponential problem.
And tigers aren&#39;t the only species that needs such care— lions, panthers and cougars all share similar eating habits in regard to salted or cooked food.
In fact, it&#39;s a fairly common trait among predators.

Once again the animals were in a hibernated state. Just as God put Adam into a "Deep Sleep" in Gen. while he took his rib to create Woman.

Oh really? So why is there an absence of transitional specimens among invertebrates, or between invertebrates and vertebrates?

Actually, we&#39;ve got plenty of transitional fossils, but creationists like to pretend we don&#39;t.

Transitional fossils between vertibrates and invertibrates:
[NOTE: This is one area that has links to references in the Word document but not in the post]
a.

Pikaia, an early invertebrate chordate. It was at first interpreted as a segmented worm until a reanalysis showed it had a notochord.
b.

Yunnanozoon, an early chordate.
c.

Haikouella, a chordate similar to Yunnanozoon, but with additional traits, such as a heart and a relatively larger brain (Chen et al. 1999).
d.

Conodont animals had bony teeth, but the rest of their body was soft. They also had a notochord (Briggs et al. 1983; Sansom et al. 1992).
e.

Cathaymyrus diadexus, the oldest known chordate (535 million years old; Shu et al. 1996).
f.

Myllokunmingia and Haikouichthys, two early vertebrates that still lack a clear head and bony skeletons and teeth. They differ from earlier invertebrate chordates in having a zigzag arrangement of segmented muscles, and their gill arrangement is more complex than a simple slit (Monastersky 1999).
The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:
a.

Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.
b.

The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior ( Stanley 1974).
c.

A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).
d.

The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).
e.

Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.
f.

Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).
g.

Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).
h.

Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).
i.

The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).
j.

Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).
k.

Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:
a.

Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking ( Richmond and Strait 2000).
b.

Dinosaur-bird transitions.
c.

Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).
d.

The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake&#39;s stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).
e.

Transitions between mesonychids and whales.
f.

Transitions between fish and tetrapods.
g.

Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).
h.

Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).
i.

A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).

The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:
a.

The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk&#39;s foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk&#39;s mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).
b.

Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.
c.

An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).
Got any other beef with the fossil record?
Feel free to post, it&#39;s pretty concrete.

Thanks I think I will take you up on that offer. Now let&#39;s talk about fossils a little bit more shall we?

Looking at the fossil record, cellular chemistry and structures, or living creatures, the evidence does not support the notion that there has been an evolution of organisms from simple chemicals to mammals. If this is indeed the case, then it follows that there cannot have been any evolution of Man from ape ancestors either. However, the reader may protest that the concept of human evolution is well supported by fossil evidence showing changes from ape-like to man-like skulls and skeletons.
It must be remembered that within any given species, the external appearances can be very varied, and that this propensity for variation is also found in humans. So we have to be very careful when we come to interpret any individual fossil. To make things more complicated, uncertainties about the age of many fossils must also temper any dogmatism about any supposed evolutionary trends or relationships.
On the stage of (supposed) human evolution, the relevant fossils fall comfortably into two main categories: those that are more ape-like than human, and those that are very human-like. Into the first group fall the australopithecines and the smaller Homo habilis specimens, and into the second group fall Homo erectus, archaic humans, Neanderthals and modern Man.
In addition, there have been found a number of small fossil skulls with human-like features and some large fossil skulls with ape-like features. However, none of these fossils give any insight into human origins.
Ape-like fossils
Australopithecines
Australopithecines had relatively long arms and short legs, and although their ankle joints shared features with those of humans, their feet were more ape-like. They had ape-like skulls, and indeed, casts of the insides of the skulls show surface patterns and general features, which suggest that they had ape-like brains. Thus, since neither bipedalism, nor a flat face, nor small molars equates with human-ness, all we can say from the evidence is that australopithecines represent, in all probability, simply extinct apes that differed from living apes and were not ape-human intermediaries.
Homo habilis
The evidence only tells us that Homo habilis individuals were as different from orang-utans, chimpanzees and gorillas as baboons are, and as such Homo habilis cannot be classed together with the living great apes. In all probability, the Homo habilis group simply represents extinct apes that differed from living apes and were not ape-human intermediaries.
Human-like fossils
Homo erectus
Whilst prominent brows are commonly seen in living humans of native Australian or African origin, there are living examples showing the typical characteristics of the Homo erectus skull form even in the UK. It is therefore quite clear that a skull with a large brow or sloping forehead can house a fully human brain. This is not surprising since the prominence of the brow is largely related to the size of the frontal sinuses that reside within the bone, and has no bearing on the form of the underlying brain. It is likely that the Homo erectus brain was no different from our own. Furthermore, the Homo erectus body skeleton was identical to that of living humans.
NeanderthalsAny scheme describing the position of Neanderthals in relation to modern Man has to explain three main issues: firstly, the apparently sudden appearance of Neanderthals in a relatively short space of time (remember that Homo erectus supposedly remained unchanged for over one million years); secondly, their restrictive geographical distribution; and thirdly, their apparently abrupt disappearance in a relatively short space of time. The peculiarities of the Neanderthal bones, their geographical distribution, and their sudden appearance and disappearance, can all be explained by disease, without the need to invoke an evolutionary process.
Ancient human fossils
A number of ancient fossils show that australopithecines and humans lived contemporaneously, and that australopithecines were not our ancestors.
For example:
Laetoli footprints
In 1975 some human looking fossilised footprints in the form of a trail running for some 23 metres were found in Laetoli, Tanzania. The footprints had been made in mud that had been subsequently covered over by a layer of volcanic dust.
Since no one doubts that the Laetoli footprints are indistinguishable from human footprints, if the question of a presumed age of 3.5 million years was not part of the equation, then most certainly, everyone would be happy to accept that these prints were most likely made by human beings.
KNM-ER 20419 radius
The KNM-ER 20419 radius is a forearm bone which was found in Allia Bay on the east side of Lake Turkana and is dated as being around 4 million years old.
It is quite unlike the radius of any living ape, and is twice the size of the australopithecine radius AL288-1. Furthermore, it is indistinguishable from an adult human bone in size, in general appearance, and in its detailed features.
Other fossils such the OH8 foot, the femurs KNM-ER 1481 and 1475, and the humerus KP 271 also show that humans were living contemporaneously with australopithecines.
ConclusionThe human-like fossil evidence actually paints a completely different picture from that which is commonly portrayed. Instead of Man evolving from apes via crude-looking ancestors, the evidence suggests that populations of ancient human beings passed through some morphological changes (whether from inbreeding and/or disease), before acquiring the modern human form.
Humans have always been human, and apes have always been apes.

Shall we get into Radiometric Dating?

1. Radiodating
There is a basic pattern that occurs in the decay of radioactive substances. In each of these disintegration systems, the "parent" or original radioactive substance, gradually decays into "daughter" substances and this process is irreversible. The theory asserts that by measuring the amount of parent and daughter elements in a given sample and knowing the decay rate, one might be able to calculate the time elapsed from its formation.
Several types of radiodating methods are used today, but when applied to the same sample, they give different dates[1]. A very good example of how scientists interpret the results of their radiodating method is presented in reference [2]. They select only the "most reasonable" dates, the ones that agree with the evolutionary theory of long ages and discard the ones that do not fit in. Well, this method is far from an objective and precise scientific approach&#33;
These special dating methods are seriously flawed: too many assumptions are made without any factual evidence. We can easily show the problems arising from the disregard of the following:
List.

• The parent and daughter products could easily have been contaminated during their long decay process underground. For the results to be accurate, the systems had to be closed during the decay process, but this doesn&#39;t happen in nature.
  2.
• Nobody was there at the beginning to make sure that no daughter products were present in a certain rock, whereas the radiodating method assumes exactly this. It is impossible to know what had initially been in a given piece of radioactive mineral.
  3.
• The decay rate is not constant. Many environmental factors, such as pressure, changes in cosmic radiation level, nearby radioactive materials, high temperatures influence it [3]. In one of their studies, Westinghouse Laboratories have been able to change the decay rates simply by placing inactive iron next to radioactive lead.
  4.
• Part of the radioactive substances could have been leached out. Experiments show that even distilled water and weak acids can do this.[4]
  5.
• Rocks could have been altered by sediment displacements.[5]
  A few examples of the accuracy of this method:
  •
• Hawaiian lava flows known to be less than two centuries old have been dated at up to 3 BILLION years old&#33;
  •
• Laboratories that "date" rocks insist on knowing in advance the "evolutionary age" of the strata from which the samples were taken—this way, they know which dates to accept as "reasonable" and which to ignore.

But don’t take my word for it You can also look at the inaccuracy of The Radioactive Carbon Isotope (C-14)


We don&#39;t find real Dinosaur fossil records either.

LMFAO.
Sure.
Just FYI, here&#39;s why it&#39;s impossible that humans and dinosaurs coexisted:

There are no human fossils or artifacts found with dinosaurs, and there are no dinosaur fossils found with human fossils (except birds, which are descended from dinosaurs; out-of-place human traces such as the Paluxy footprints do not withstand examination). Furthermore, there is an approximately sixty-four-million-year gap in the fossil record when there are neither dinosaur nor human fossils. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, traces of the two should be found in the same time places. At the very least, there should not be such a dramatic separation between them.

All living and extinct organisms could have existed contemporaneously
Just how long ago an extinct animal could have existed before the date given to its (supposed) oldest fossil, or after the date given to its (supposed) youngest fossil, cannot be stated dogmatically. Clearly, it could have been a short time or a very long time. If animals such as the coelacanth or tuatara (whose youngest fossils are supposedly 65myo and 135myo respectively) can (seemingly) exist for many millions of years without leaving any fossil trace, then the absence of any particular fossil in any particular sediment does not mean that that animal was not alive at the time represented by that sediment.
As a result of hydrodynamic sifting, bones can be carried hundreds of miles away from the place of death. This means that fossil animals are not necessarily found entombed in their native habitat. For example, creatures such as Lystrasaurus (a 2m long reptile) comprise implausibly huge proportions (up to 90%) of all vertebrate fossils in a given sedimentary layer. Therefore, fossil accumulations cannot be relied upon to reflect the true diversity of animal life in any given location at any particular time.
All this means that, for example, even if human fossils are not found in the same sediments as dinosaur fossils, T rex could still have lived contemporaneously with, and in the same locality as humans in pre-history.

Inaccuracy of Dinosaur Fossils.Under what circumstances did whole organisms remain intact long enough to be fossilized? In most cases it seems, these victims were rapidly buried in great loads of sediment, which quickly hardened into rock. Not only did these situations require catastrophic burial but also the sediment involved had to be very fine grained in order for such exquisite preservation of detail to come about. Geologists generally interpret silt beds as the result of fine particles settling gradually out of still water. If that had happened in these instances, the corpses would have decayed long before burial and lithification (turning to rock) could occur."
The replacement process is supposed to involve calcium in skeletal material being replaced, atom by atom, by silica, calcite, pyrite, dolomite, etc., over a long period of time. This goes against the natural law of increasing disorder, entropy. How are all these dead atoms intelligent enough to know what to do and where to go to produce the finished fossil?
Another alleged mode of preservation is permineralization, whereby porous bone structures are supposed to become more dense by the deposition of mineral matter by groundwater. The more porous the bone, the more susceptible it is to destruction. In Speed and Conditions of Fossilization, we learn that "secondary mineralization, remineralization, leaching of bone mineral, and biologically-induced mineralization begin very rapidly after the bone is exposed to the environment. If the bone is not buried or underwater within 1-2 years of defleshing, it will literally become dust in the wind. The bone fragments may persist for several more years, but they are unrecognizable as to species." After a so-called dinosaur dies, I would conservatively estimate the chances of its bones becoming buried or underwater within 1 to 2 years of defleshing at much less than one in a thousand. "Hypersaline environments in which carbonates are precipitating favor bone remineralization and secondary mineralization. Saline environments also are good, but there the processes are slower." Are not dinosaurs supposed to have lived in a relatively non-saline fresh water environment? Inducing mineralization under ideal laboratory conditions is one matter, but completely different than real-world natural processes that tend to dissolve, not precipitate, bone mineral. Once the internal part of a decaying bone fills up with saline water from a sea, I am unaware of any reason why it should be a preferred location for mineral precipitation compared to the rest of the sea bottom.

The fossil record does not show a progression in complexity
Contrary to general opinion, the fossil record does not show a progression in complexity. There is a fallacy in accepting firstly, that creatures commonly understood as being &#39;simple&#39; such as snails or worms are indeed simple, and secondly, that they are significantly less complex than other creatures generally considered to be more complex. In fact, most organisms, however &#39;simple&#39;, are incredibly complex. Look at it this way: should we anticipate that starting only with simple chemicals ( i.e. with no available DNA or proteins etc.), it would be a simpler matter for us to produce a living snail than it would be to produce a living elephant? Under the microscope, both these creatures have virtually identical intracellular features. And both contain nerves, muscles, and blood. They also both have seeing, feeling, breathing, digesting, excreting and reproducing mechanisms. Therefore, since all living organisms are so complex, we should expect that the production of either a snail or an elephant (starting only with simple chemicals) would, for practical purposes, be equally difficult.
Therefore, if shellfish fossils are found below vertebrate fossils in any sedimentary layering, this is not evidence that &#39;simple&#39; life forms evolved into more complex forms. Any such sedimentary separation of different creatures is more likely to reflect hydrodynamic sifting.
Conclusion
The fossil record does not support the notion that all living and extinct creatures are related by common ancestry.


That&#39;s funny that you mentioned Grand Canyon. The Coconino Sandstone along the Hermit Trail in Grand Canyon shows plenty of evidence for a massive flood. Anway here is your Answer [link broken by copy/paste]

That&#39;s nice.

Here&#39;s a list of why the Grand Canyon couldn&#39;t have been formed by a flood:
1. We know what to expect of a sudden massive flood, namely:

• a wide, relatively shallow bed, not a deep, sinuous river channel.
• anastamosing channels (i.e., a braided river system), not a single, well-developed channel.
• coarse-grained sediments, including boulders and gravel, on the floor of the canyon.
• streamlined relict islands.

The Scablands in Washington state were produced by such a flood and show such features (Allen et al. 1986; Baker 1978; Bretz 1969; Waitt 1985). Such features are also seen on Mars at Kasei Vallis and Ares Vallis (Baker 1978; NASA Quest n.d.). They do not appear in the Grand Canyon. Compare relief maps of the two areas to see for yourself.
2. The same flood that was supposed to carve the Grand Canyon was also supposed to lay down the miles of sediment (and a few lava flows) from which the canyon is carved. A single flood cannot do both. Creationists claim that the year of the Flood included several geological events, but that still stretches credulity.
3. The Grand Canyon contains some major meanders. Upstream of the Grand Canyon, the San Juan River (around Gooseneck State Park, southeast Utah) has some of the most extreme meandering imaginable. The canyon is 1,000 feet high, with the river flowing five miles while progressing one mile as the crow flies (American Southwest n.d .). There is no way a single massive flood could carve this.
4. Recent flood sediments would be unconsolidated. If the Grand Canyon were carved in unconsolidated sediments, the sides of the canyon would show obvious slumping.
5. The inner canyon is carved into the strongly metamorphosed sediments of the Vishnu Group, which are separated by an angular unconformity from the overlying sedimentary rocks, and also in the Zoroaster Granite, which intrudes the Vishnu Group. These rocks, by all accounts, would have been quite hard before the Flood began.
6. Along the Grand Canyon are tributaries, which are as deep as the Grand Canyon itself. These tributaries are roughly perpendicular to the main canyon. A sudden massive flood would not produce such a pattern.
7. Sediment from the Colorado River has been shifted northward over the years by movement along the San Andreas and related faults (Winker and Kidwell 1986). Such movement of the delta sediment would not occur if the canyon were carved as a single event.
8. The lakes that Austin proposed as the source for the carving floodwaters are not large compared with the Grand Canyon itself. The flood would have to remove more material than the floodwaters themselves.
9. If a brief interlude of rushing water produced the Grand Canyon, there should be many more such canyons. Why are there not other grand canyons surrounding all the margins of all continents?
10. There is a perfectly satisfactory gradual explanation for the formation of the Grand Canyon that avoids all these problems. Sediments deposited about two billion years ago were metamorphosed and intruded by granite to become today&#39;s basement layers. Other sediments were deposited in the late Proterozoic and were subsequently folded, faulted, and eroded. More sediments were deposited in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, with a period of erosion in between. The Colorado Plateau started rising gradually about seventy million years ago. As it rose, existing rivers deepened, carving through the previous sediments (Harris and Kiver 1985, 273-282).

Here are some additional evidence

Katoomba Australia
The sandstone, of which the Sisters are made, points to huge watery deposition. The valleys and gorges, shaped when the Sisters were carved, are evidence of immense watery erosion. The Biblical global Flood explains this deposition and erosion. Let&#39;s look a bit closer.
It&#39;s not difficult to appreciate that the sandstone covers an immense area. From the lookout, we can see that the same rocks form steep cliffs all around the gorge. Before the magnificent valley was eroded, the sandstone strata covered a large area.

Magnetic Field Reversals
Magnetic fields are involved in the magma flow. The Secular community claims that about every 700,000 years the magnetic field reverses. But new evidence documented in Earth and Planetary Science Letters212/292-298 indicate that there is evidence for a very rapid reversal of the magnetic fields taking place in 15 days, the time needed for a pool of molten lava to cool.213 Michael Aarate a scholar has stated that lightning can cause local magnetic field reversals.214/170-181 Thus, we do not have a global planetary reversal of magnetic fields, but rather local reversal of magnetic fields which did not take long periods of time to come about.

Evidence of Rapid Deposition in the
Internal Characteristics of Strata Sequences
The widespread physical similarity in the Cedar215 of strata in each sequence indicates that virtually identical conditions were prevalent laterally over broad areas. Sandstones and conglomerates, which form the basal and best preserved parts of many sequences indicate that widespread flood conditions once prevailed. Sequences are often thousands of feet in thickness with the coarsest material at the base progressively decreasing in coarseness toward the top.
Mountains Uplifted after Most Sedimentation
Many mountain ranges can be shown to have been uplifted after nearly all of the stratigraphic record was deposited.
"Underfed" Streams and Rivers
Global Evidence that most natural drainage systems drained off larger amounts of water at one time in the past.
Massive, Rapid Erosion
Evidenced of Massive Rapid Erosion at many locations worldwide, including the Grand Canyon.
Other evidences are Existence of great "plunge pools": created as torrents of flood water and mud plunged off the continents. Existence of submarine canyons. Waterlines: found on the coasts of every continent. Evidence from studies of smaller scale catastrophes: studies of modern floods, volcanic eruptions. Flood legends found throughout the world. The Genesis Record itself.

Rapid Fossilization
as Evidenced by Preservation of Delicate Parts
Thousands and millions of fish fossils which retain all the body parts indicating very rapid burial. Under normal conditions, fish do not fossilize. Dead fish are torn apart by scavengers and disintegrated by bacteria. There are the existence of fossils with soft tissue like jellyfish and sponges. There are the preservation of animal tracts, fish odors, amino acids, proteins, epidermal bark in plants, cell details, chlorophyll, etc.
Whale Fossils
There are huge ancient whale fossils that can be found completely and quickly buried in sediment.185 Near Lompo, CA there was found in diatomaceous earth an 80 foot Valine Whale upright on its tale. In order to sweep a creature like that up on its tale, in order to sedimentarally incase it would require global catastrophic proportions.
Random order of fossils
The sediments do not exhibit strong evidence of a record of Evolution with simple animals at the bottom, progressing type by type up to more and more complex animals. The order is often random or completely upside down or out of order for Evolution. But this would be expected in a global flood catastrophe.186, 187/67
Massive Sedimentation
There is global existence of massive amounts of sediment. Most of the Earth&#39;s crust is covered with layer upon layer of sediment and evidence of strong sorting action produced by moving. Frequently the sediment bears strong evidence of having been laid under flood conditions.44/231
Dolostone Beds
There is global existence of massive amounts of dolostone. These beds are sometimes thousands of feet thick. Dolostone is not forming today.
Chert Beds
There is global existence of large amounts of chert. These beds are up to 50 feet thick (or more). No chert is forming today. Chert is a compact rock consisting of microcrystalline quartz.92/231
Conglomerate
The global existence of massive amounts of conglomerate rock indicating deposition under flood conditions over extremely wide areas with very strong currents. Conglomerate consists of cemented gravel, sand and boulders.
Fluid dynamics carried on by M.E. Clark and H.D. Voss have actually taken various silts of mud, sand: red and white, and other materials, mixed them together in large vats and then let them settle.188 To their amazement they settled down in like products. Their were striation layers of red sand, of white sand, of organic material and other material. Each was attracted to its own.
Massive Volcanism
There is evidence of world wide volcanic activity. There exists thousands of cubic miles of volcanic and granite rock types, as would be expected during a global catastrophic geologic upheaval.
Evidence of Significant Past
Global Changes in Temperature
This would be an expected result of a world-wide catastrophe involving massive volcanic releases into the atmosphere, worldwide flooding and, later, great evaporation from wet continents.
Correlation of Death
Dates by Radiocarbon
When the carbon-14 dating method is "correctly" calibrated, and 25-thousand radiocarbon dates are graphed, the result shows evidence of a great peak of deaths about 4-thousand years ago.

The Bible says that the mountains rose and the valleys sank. The water ran to the place God founded for it and He set a boundary that they would not return again to cover the earth. As we will examine later, there was much more going on here than just rain. The earth&#39;s landscape was catastrophically changing. Even today we observe this in many ways. We see the mountains rising today. Even Mt Everest is still moving. This mountain moves northeast an average of 6 centimeters a year and increases in height 7.5 to 10 centimeters per year. If this happens during relative calm, what could have happened when the whole earth was violently moving? It is also interesting to note that the top 3,000 feet of Mt Everest is covered with clam fossils and other ocean living fossils. This would clearly indicate that either clams migrated upwards 26,000+ feet above sea level, or Mt Everest was once at or below sea level.

The top of the Grand Canyon is considerably higher than the beginning of the canyon where the Colorado River enters into it. This would mean that the river would have to flow uphill for thousands or even millions of years before it could cut a groove below the mouth of the canyon so the water could begin to flow downward. This &#39;mystery&#39; can&#39;t be explained by anything except the fact that the water had to be higher than the canyon when it was formed. It would either have had to be higher than the canyon for millions of years, or it would have to be flowing over a land that is not yet hardened into rock. Additional evidence here if you like to See

[In reply to me stating that there is extensive recorded history predating the accepted date of Christian creation] Really? I&#39;ll like to see some of that evidence.

Alright then.
So, typical fundy doctrine suggest that the world is 6000 years old.

So, according to you, creation was at approx. 4,000 BC.
Events predating 4,000 BC [all had accompanying links to resources, find them in the Word doc]:

• c. 30000 BC - 26000 BC - Lion-Human, from Hohlenstein-Stadel, Germany created. It is now in Ulmer Museum, Ulm, Germany.
• c. 23000 BC - Woman from Ostrava Petrkovice, Czech Republic, was made. It is now in Archeological Institute, Brno.
• c. 16500 BC - Paintings in Cosquer cave, Cap Margiou, France were made.
• c. 16000 BC - Spotted Horses and human hands, Pech-Merle cave, Dordogne, France were painted. Discovered in December 1994.
• c. 16000 BC - 10000 BC - Mammoth-bone village in Mezhirich, Ukraine inhabited.
• c. 15000 BC - 13000 BC - Hall of Bulls, Lascaux caves, was painted. Discovered in 1940. Closed to the public in 1963.
• c. 14000 BC - Pregnant woman and deer (?), from Laugerie-Basse, France was made. It is now at Musee des Antiquites Nationales, St.-Germain-en-Laye.
• c. 12000 BC - Bison, on the ceiling of a cave at Altamira, Spain, was painted. Discovered in 1879. Accepted as authentic in 1902.
• 11500 BC - 10000 BC - Wooden buildings in South America (Chile), first pottery vessels (Japan), dogs domesticated, bow and arrow appeared.
• c. 10000 BC - People started to live in Jericho.
• c. 9000 BC - Neolithic culture began in Ancient Near East.
• c. 9000 BC: Near East: First stone structures are built at Jericho.
• c. 9000 BC – Mediterranean - Settling on Mediterranean isles started.
• c. 9000 BC - Early Neolithic period in Ancient Near East (Jericho, Chatal Huyuk).
• c. 8700 BC – 8400 BC – Britain - Star Carr site in Yorkshire, Britain inhabited by Maglemosian peoples.
• c. 8500 BC – Great Britain - Mesolithic hunters camp at Cramond, Prehistoric Scotland.
• c. 8350 BC – Middle East - Neolithic settlement at Jericho.
• c. 8300 BC – Great Britain - Nomadic hunters arrive in England.
• c. 8000 BC – Norway - Øvre Eiker of Norway inhabited.
• c. 8000 BC – Africa - Earliest recorded African stone engravings, in the Apollo 1 cave.
• 8000 BC - 7000 BC; Jericho had about 2000 inhabitants living in mud-brick houses protected by a stone wall 5 feet thick and 12 to 17 feet high. The site covered 6 acres.
• c. 8000 BC – Settlements at Nevali Cori in present-day Turkey are established.
• c. 8000 BC – Settlements at Sagalassos in present-day southwest Turkey are established.
• c. 8000 BC – Settlements at Akure in present-day southwest Nigeria are established.
• c. 8000 BC – Settlements at Øvre Eiker and Nedre Eiker in present-day Buskerud, Norway are established.
• c. 8000 BC – Settlements at Ærø, Denmark are established.
• c. 8000 BC – Settlements at Deepcar near present-day Sheffield, England are established.
• c. 8000 BC – North American Arctic is inhabited by hunter-gatherers of the Paleo-Arctic Tradition.
• c. 8000 BC – Pre-Anasazi Paleo-Indians move into the Southwest United States.
• c. 8000 BC – Plano cultures inhabit the Great Plains area of North America (from 9th millennium)
• c. 7000 BC – Beginning of the Peiligang culture in China.
• c. 7000 BC – Agriculture and settlement at Mehrgarh in South Asia.
• c. 7000 BC - 600 BC - Elam.
• c. 7000 BC - 6000 BC; Figure, from Ain Ghazal, Jordan was made. It is now in National Museum , Amman, Jordan.
• c. 7000 BC – Mesolithic site Lepenski Vir emerges in today&#39;s Serbia.
• c. 7000 BC - Earliest pottery in Ancient Near East.
• c. 7000 BC - Elam became farming region.
• c. 6500 BC - 5500 BC; Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Inhabitants traded obsidian.
• c. 6500 BC - Naalebinding, a form of knitting, used in Judean Desert (modern day Israel).
• c. 6000 BC – Wall painting/map from Çatalhöyük, an early-civilized city that prospered by
trading obsidian, Anatolia -- modern Turkey.
• c. 6000 BC – Neolithic Age in Korea.
• c. 6000 BC - Cycladic people started to use a coarse, poor-quality local clay to make a variety of objects.
• c. 6000 BC – First traces of habitation of the Svarthola cave in Norway.
• c. 6000 BC – split of Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Anatolian and Proto-Indo-Iranian in India as a result of Proto-Vedic continuity. [1]
• c. 5900 BC – prehistoric Vinca culture emerges in today&#39;s Belgrade.
• c. 5700 BC – Samarran Culture at Mesopotamia (present day Iraq) begins (ca 5700 BC – 4900 BC C-14, 6640 BC - 5816 BC calBC).
• c. 5600 BC – The Red Paint People become established in the region from present-day Labrador to New York state.
• c. 5500 BC - agriculture started in Ancient Egypt.
• c. 5500 BC – pottery at Mehrgarh in South Asia.
• c. 5400 BC – Irrigation in Mesopotamia.
• c. 5200 BC – Beginning of human inhabitation and settlements in Malta.
• c. 5100 BC – Temples founded in South Mesopotamia.
• c. 5000 BC - Farming reached Europe.
Inventions between 6,000 and 5,000 BC:
• Agriculture appears in the valley of the Nile.
• Rice cultivated in Asia.
• Plough invented.
• Bricks are created for the first time in Persia.
• Wine is created for the first time in Persia.
• Artifacts of stone were supplemented by those of metal, and the crafts of basketry, pottery, weaving ( Africa).
• Dead were buried in a fetal position, surrounded by the burial offerings and artifacts, facing west ( Africa).
• Decorated, black-topped clay pots and vases; bone and ivory combs, figurines, and tableware, are found in great numbers ( Africa).
• Jewelry of all types and materials (Africa).
• Objects began to be made not only with a function, but also with an aesthetic value. (Africa )
• Organized, permanent settlements focused around agriculture. (Africa)

[In reply to my statement that beer was invented before the accepted date of Christian creation] Really and what hard evidence do you have to prove that because if you are talking about the two slate tablets that are displayed in the British Museum in London, discovered by the scientist Mr. E. Huber which was scientifically estimated to be about 9000 years old, then your evidence is inconclusive.

No, I&#39;m talking about the jars from Jiahu, China [which date to 7000 BC, so same time period as the tablets you mentioned], and they&#39;re currently at the University of Pennsylvania&#39;s Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in Philadelphia.
The jars have been substantially proven to have contained alcoholic beverages, and the brewing process has been linked to religious ceremonies at the time.

Hmmm. I wonder how much money a jar of that magnitude and that type of history generate?
Just a thought

You do not have any real evidence [for evolution] so I&#39;ll do you a favor, I&#39;ll give you the opportunity to present some of your evidence so that I can pick through it.

Sure.

Here&#39;s a start: Endogenous Retroviruses.

Nope . They contain nonsense mutations or major deletions, and cannot produce infectious virus particles. This is because they are supposed to be just ancient fossils.

The fossil record.

Can be created in 12 months.

Modern genetics.
But hell, don&#39;t hold your breath waiting for me to prove it to you.

I won&#39;t unless you&#39;d like to kick it up a notch.

Point out ANY hole in evolution, don&#39;t feel restricted by what evidence I dredge up for you.

You won&#39;t find much of anything.

Oh don&#39;t worry I will get to that one soon enough.


So what&#39;s so incompetent about having eyes? And the rest of your so called inaccurate features because I don&#39;t see a problem here. How do you think we should&#39;ve been designed?

Incompetent design features of the human body:
•

Eyes- Vertebrate eyes are constructed backwards and inside out.
The nerve cells that connect the light-sensitive cells of the retina to the brain are located in front of these cells, partially blocking the incoming light.

This nerve cell (choriod) contains blood vessels that supply the retina cells with necessary oxygen and remove waste products of respiration. Thank God it is in the front of these light-sensitive cells because they also prevent disruptive refection&#39;s within the eyes. So I don&#39;t see a problem here. Beside I have 10/20 vision what do I have to complain about. Let me guess, you wear glasses don&#39;t you?
But while we are here let&#39;s clear some other things up in regards to the eye. The step-by-step gradual change idea is a false model for a number of reasons. For example, the embryological development of an eye does not follow a series of sequential changes from a flat sheet of photo-receptive cells to a hollow ball; and the mammalian lens is not simply a blob of proteins but is formed out of very specific modifications to whole cells. Furthermore, we have no evidence to show that each and every tiny supposed changes to a flat sheet of cells that would be needed to produce an eye, could indeed be powered by tiny changes in the genes that determine embryological development

•

Pelvis- The human pelvis slopes forwards, which is nice if you want to walk on all fours.
Otherwise it just causes problems.
•

Back- Related to the pelvis issue, in order to stand upright, humans have a nasty kink in their lower back.
This leads to all sorts of back problems.

The Human pelvis doesn&#39;t slop forward. Here is a diagram of a the Pelvic Region for a human and a four legged animal.

Canine

HUMAN

That kink you are referring to is essential to you. You can call it nasty or whatever but that&#39;s just your opinion. You should appreciate the Sacral Curve it controls provides a stable centre of gravity when you move, otherwise standing for extended periods of time would be virtually impossible.

•

Throat- In order to swallow food, it has to first pass over the windpipe, hence why humans can choke to death.

Well it&#39;s not a big problem and choking can often be avoided by taking only small bites of food and thoroughly chewing it. Laughing and talking while chewing and swallowing and excessive intake of alcohol before and during meals also increase the risk of choking.

•

The existence of the appendix, which serves no purpose whatsoever to an adult human, and creates a significant threat to the lives of several adults because of appendicitis.

Well perhaps they don&#39;t really server a purpose however people who get appendicitis probably are not eating to healthy to start. Try more fiber.

I kept Tsen&#39;s original Notes below to keep statements in sync, since I had to create a new version.

I also kept Tsen&#39;s original rebuttals without sherding his work for better understanding considering this post is extremely long.
Additional Post’s in progress to simplify topics associated by links

Tsen&#39;s additional notes/remarks are listed below.

<NOTES:
-[Brackets] surround additions I&#39;ve made when I transferred from Word to a post.

Most clarify context, or include notes.
-Some sentences might be slightly fractured.
Apologies for that.

-Some quotes from Ne-Yo might appear out of context because I removed my original points, which he replied to, in interest of saving space.

Some of them I edited with [bracketed insertions] to clarify what I was talking about, but I don&#39;t know if the changes were saved in the Word document or not. [They didn&#39;t transfer over, but I tried to manually scan through and fix things who&#39;s context might be unclear.

Forget it I was going to fix the format but nah I&#39;m not going to worry about it. It&#39;s all pretty clear

lol @ waste of time by huge posts in a discussion that isn&#39;t going to change anyone&#39;s mind.

-

Man I am so glad I am not &#39;god&#39; &#39;s bitch and have to make up stuff in every arugment I participate in. Anyhow, back to jesus. I think it is pretty likely jesus was a homosexual, since he had no wife (maria magadalena was censored out of the bible, if god let that happen, there has to have been a reason). No wife + 12 dudes around you all the time = buttieboy. And like what, 5% of people people are gay? At least it is 8% in sheep population, so I would say at least 1%.

So, there is at least 1% that jesus was gay.

Praise the lord.

[on why the tree and original sin is illogical]

We’d still have the incentive, it just wouldn’t be hovering in front of our faces where we’d be tempted to take it “against gawd’s will”.
And it still doesn’t answer why gawd intentionally placed them in a situation where he knew the outcome would be negative, hence ultimately your gawd is STILL at fault for making life so crappy. Yeah, yeah, free will. But he kind of killed the whole free will thing by holding us all responsible for something we didn’t do—eating the “forbidden fruit”.
Another thing to note is that “free will” is kind of a nil point, since your gawd knows the outcome already. So basically, by creating things the way he did, he was ensuring a specific outcome—hence the choice would really be an illusion.

[on the supposed problems passed down to successive generations because of the “original sin”]

So why couldn’t their children get back on the “path to righteousness”? Why couldn’t they just be good people, and BAM&#33; Be problem-free?
Now, again, you could say “free will”. But once again, your gawd KNEW what would happen. So he was creating circumstances with known outcomes, therefore KNEW that humans would be incapable of making the right choices, and he STILL created them that way. Also, note that fixing this does not necessarily violate free will—if your gawd simply gave people a better capability to rationalize choices by looking at consequences, then the whole thing would be averted. But he didn’t, therefore I can only conclude that your gawd must have WANTED us to suffer.

[on the killing of the children in 2 Kings]

And? By killing them, your gawd was removing their opportunity to repent later on, therefore violating their free will.
Also, it is important to note that psychologically, children are incredibly likely to follow in their parent’s footsteps—the majority of people retain the same political, religious and social mannerisms and opinions as their parents. That’s a simple fact. So, wouldn’t that mean that your gawd created people with that tendency, hence was at fault?
The scriptures you quoted go against you as well, especially the one on discipline—since the prophet’s “discipline” was fatal, there was no opportunity for the children to learn any lesson from the encounter.

[on the flood’s killing of all people with no credible warning]

But why DIDN’T your gawd give them a credible warning? It was certainly in his power, wasn’t it?
I also refuse to believe that the entire world’s population was evil. It links back to Christianity’s pessimistic view of humankind, one that I do not share.

[I never for once seen you ask the question of why is Satan doing this to us?]

For one simple reason: If your gawd is all-powerful, why can’t he stop satan from doing all that? Or why couldn’t he just snap satan out of existence?

[on the size of the Colorado River delta]

1. The Colorado River delta itself is quite extensive. It covers 3,325 square miles (Sykes 1937) and is up to 3.5 miles deep (Jennings and Thompson 1986), containing over 10,000 cubic miles of the Colorado River&#39;s sediments from the last two to three million years. The sediments that were deposited by the river more than two to three million years ago have been shifted northwestward by movement along the San Andreas and related faults (Winker and Kidwell 1986). Sediments have also accumulated elsewhere. Some were deposited in flood plains between the delta and the Grand Canyon.
2. Wind is a major erosional force in parts of the Colorado River basin. Some sediments from Colorado and Wyoming were blown as far as the Atlantic Ocean.
3. Much of the strata exposed in the Grand Canyon are limestone and dolomite. These rocks eventually simply would have dissolved.

[Unless you find a problem with Natural Selection? [in relation to adaptation to salinity]]

Not at all. But you seem to only subscribe to it when it suits your purposes. Specialization would mean that BEFORE the flood those species would have adapted to their environments, not AFTER.

[on possible separation of salt water and fresh water layers]

Which is all irrelevant anyways because the temperature change would be just as detrimental as the salinity change.

[And since radiometric analysis of lava beds from known very recent volcanic activity has yielded (incorrect) dates of millions of years]

Cite your evidence, please. Most likely you were referring to K-Ar dating, since that&#39;s the only radiometric dating that gives incorrect dates for volcanic rock. If so, read here. And here&#39;s a quick overview of why radiometric dating is accurate:
1. Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.
2. Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:
o The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).
o Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth&#39;s tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997).
o Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).
o Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).

3. The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990).

[Oh by the way did you know there is an Australian frog that can survive underground and be dormant for up to eight years?]

Which is totally irrelevant because it is a single species, and not a representative one at that.
RE the rest of your amphibian bit, did you know that almost ALL amphibians require relatively clean water to survive without serious damage? That’s why pollution is such a big deal, it’s rapidly causing a large number of mutations and extinctions in amphibians.

[Please tell me you are really not asking how did Fungi survive the flood? I&#39;m not even going to answer that one.]

Actually, it’s a pretty relevant question, since most fungi need stable conditions to survive as well. Especially ferns—their reproductive system is quite specialized, and quite simply they wouldn’t be able to reproduce and repopulate unless living populations were maintained on the ark.

[Once again the animals were in a hibernated state. Just as God put Adam into a "Deep Sleep" in Gen. while he took his rib to create Woman.]

“Gawddidit” eh?

[on human ancestry and hominid fossils]

Basically your entire rebuttal requires that everybody accept that ALL fossils of humans and apes from more than a few thousand years ago are all incredibly disfigured and unique.
We don’t find ANY skeletal remains that resemble the average modern human from several thousand years ago. So are you saying that they were all coincidentally disfigured?

[Shall we get into Radiometric Dating?]

Sure.

[All this means that, for example, even if human fossils are not found in the same sediments as dinosaur fossils, T rex could still have lived contemporaneously with, and in the same locality as humans in pre-history.]

But, once again, you’re arguing against statistics—for there to be NO coinciding human and dinosaur fossils, not even any in the same strata, or even CLOSE to the same strata, makes the possibility of humans and dinosaurs coexisting incredibly unlikely.

[The fossil record does not show a progression in complexity]

1. There is no reason to think that the life around today is comparable in complexity to the earliest life. All of the simplest life would almost certainly be extinct by now, outcompeted by more complex forms.
2. Self-replicators can be incredibly simple, as simple as a strand of six DNA nucleotides (Sievers and von Kiedrowski 1994). This is simple enough to form via prebiotic chemistry. Self-replication sets the stage for evolution to begin, whether or not you call the molecules "life."
3. Nobody claims the first life arose by chance. To jump from the fact that the origin is unknown to the conclusion that it could not have happened naturally is the argument from incredulity.

[Katoomba Australia]

Then why don’t you explain how the flood simultaneously deposited AND eroded the valley? That seems to be what you’re suggesting.

["Underfed" Streams and Rivers]

Yeah, obviously, most rivers are NOT currently at their maximum capacity. Were you expecting this exact moment in time to have all rivers simultaneously breaking their previous records of water volume? And evidence does NOT suggest that that overfeeding was simultaneous, so the point is moot.

[Massive, Rapid Erosion]

But, once again, how could the flood simultaneously deposit AND erode the Grand Canyon?

[Flood legends found throughout the world.]

Floods are a common occurrence, and, since they are relatively destructive, they are likely to be incorporated into myth. Further;
1. Flood myths are widespread, but they are not all the same myth. They differ in many important aspects, including
o reasons for the flood. (Most do not give a reason.)
o who survived. (Almost none have only a family of eight surviving.)
o what they took with them. (Very few saved samples of all life.)
o how they survived. (In about half the myths, people escaped to high ground; some flood myths have no survivors.)
o what they did afterwards. (Few feature any kind of sacrifice after the flood.)

If the world&#39;s flood myths arose from a common source, then we would expect evidence of common descent. An analysis of their similarities and differences should show either a branching tree such as the evolutionary tree of life, or, if the original biblical myth was preserved unchanged, the differences should be greater the further one gets from Babylon. Neither pattern matches the evidence. Flood myths are best explained by repeated independent origins with some local spread and some spread by missionaries. The biblical flood myth in particular has close parallels only to other myths from the same region, with which it probably shares a common source, and to versions spread to other cultures by missionaries (Isaak 2002).
2. Flood myths are likely common because floods are common; the commonness of the myth in no way implies a global flood. Myths about snakes are even more common than myths about floods, but that does not mean there was once one snake surrounding the entire earth.

[Rapid Fossilization]

Just because rapid fossilization is POSSIBLE does not mean that it is prevalent, or that ALL fossilization was rapid.

[Whale Fossils]

1. The fossil was not vertical. It was 40 to 50 degrees off horizontal, and the fossil was oriented parallel to the strata. In other words, the whale was horizontal when buried. The strata were later uplifted and folded into their present orientation.
2. There is no evidence for catastrophic deposition. The strata show laminations such as occur from slow accumulation onto an anoxic bottom. A partially buried whale skeleton has been observed off the coast of California; it exemplifies how such fossilization could occur.
Also, it’s important to note that the Lampoc whale is a single case, and there are not large amounts of fossils supporting your theory, only a few, and in this case, only one.

[Random order of fossils]

1. Few if any of the "anomalous" fossils are truly anomalous. It is fairly common for fossils to erode out of an old formation and be redeposited in a younger formation. (It is usually easy to recognize such reworked fossils by the extra wear they show.) Pollen, spores, and other very small fossils can also be blown or washed into tiny cracks to appear in older formations. The few anomalies that remain might be explained by genuine range extensions (see below), misidentification of the fossil, or uncertain attribution of where the fossil came from.
2. For most species, the fossil record is quite spotty. The earliest known fossil of a species is likely to be quite a bit later than the earliest appearance of the species; likewise, the latest known fossil is earlier than the species&#39; extinction. There are plenty of opportunities for the discovery of new fossils to extend the known range of a species. It is inappropriate to refer to such new discoveries as anomalies.
3. Even 200 anomalies is an insignificant amount compared with the estimated 250 million fossils that have been catalogued and the much larger number that have been discovered.

[Massive Sedimentation]

Yet again, you’re forgetting the chronology. Yes, quite a bit of sediment is formed by floods or other forms of water. But all evidence points AWAY from a single cataclysmic event depositing all of the sediment. They are all chronologically spaced, not uniform.

[Dolostone Beds]

Which has WHAT to do with anything?

[Chert Beds]

And again, WHAT does that have to do with anything?

[Conglomerate]

Chronology. ‘Nuff said.

[Global Changes in Temperature]

Yup. A global flood would cause some serious climate changes. Notably, it would cause an ice age. But, well—the last ice age ended 10,000 years ago, and you’re claiming this flood happened ~4000 years ago. Further, ice ages last a LONG time. Millions, or at the very least, tens of thousands of years. Now, you’re saying the world was formed 6,000 years ago—and an ice age started less than 4,000 years ago. So, by your definition, we should be under, or on, quite a bit of glaciers right now, seeing as how we’d be in the thick of an ice age.

[Correlation of Death
Dates by Radiocarbon]

Ha&#33; So now, not only to you circumstantially believe in evolution, but you ALSO believe in radiometric dating when it suits you. So tell me, what makes your calibration correct, and the scientifically established one false?

Further, you might want to note that C-14 is only ONE method of radiocarbon dating, and not always an accurate one—especially past the 50,000 year mark. So C-14 is rarely used on fossils—because it gives the wrong dates for things that old. Now, you might claim that really it’s because they aren’t as old as we think, but OTHER radiometric dating methods ALL give coinciding results for the same samples—dates FAR older than what C-14 would give. AND, we can find sources of new or old carbon that has contaminated fossils that C-14 DOES give incorrect dates for.
So you’re implying that C-14 is right when we have a reason we KNOW its wrong in that situation, and everything else is simultaneously wrong in the same situation.

[It is also interesting to note that the top 3,000 feet of Mt Everest is covered with clam fossils and other ocean living fossils. This would clearly indicate that either clams migrated upwards 26,000+ feet above sea level, or Mt Everest was once at or below sea level.]

And? The Earth’s crust is entirely recycled every 200 million years or so—we already KNOW that there are plate movements. You’re just saying that they happened all at once 4,000 years ago. Unfortunately, dating of the marine fossils in the mountains seems to suggest that they are from a period FAR older than 4,000 years.
Not to mention the Shang dynasty doesn’t seem to have noticed that they were submerged in water at any point in time; nor did they realize that the Himalayas magically popped up.
In fact, none of the 100 million people world wide seemed to notice being underwater at that time.

[The top of the Grand Canyon is considerably higher than the beginning of the canyon where the Colorado River enters into it.]

That assumes that the beginning of the canyon was always at its current level. And again, when you can answer all these, I’ll accept your flood explanation.
1. We know what to expect of a sudden massive flood, namely:
o a wide, relatively shallow bed, not a deep, sinuous river channel.
o anastamosing channels (i.e., a braided river system), not a single, well-developed channel.
o coarse-grained sediments, including boulders and gravel, on the floor of the canyon.
o streamlined relict islands.

The Scablands in Washington state were produced by such a flood and show such features (Allen et al. 1986; Baker 1978; Bretz 1969; Waitt 1985). Such features are also seen on Mars at Kasei Vallis and Ares Vallis (Baker 1978; NASA Quest n.d.). They do not appear in the Grand Canyon. Compare relief maps of the two areas to see for yourself.
2. The same flood that was supposed to carve the Grand Canyon was also supposed to lay down the miles of sediment (and a few lava flows) from which the canyon is carved. A single flood cannot do both. Creationists claim that the year of the Flood included several geological events, but that still stretches credulity.
3. The Grand Canyon contains some major meanders. Upstream of the Grand Canyon, the San Juan River (around Gooseneck State Park, southeast Utah) has some of the most extreme meandering imaginable. The canyon is 1,000 feet high, with the river flowing five miles while progressing one mile as the crow flies (American Southwest n.d.). There is no way a single massive flood could carve this.
4. Recent flood sediments would be unconsolidated. If the Grand Canyon were carved in unconsolidated sediments, the sides of the canyon would show obvious slumping.
5. The inner canyon is carved into the strongly metamorphosed sediments of the Vishnu Group, which are separated by an angular unconformity from the overlying sedimentary rocks, and also in the Zoroaster Granite, which intrudes the Vishnu Group. These rocks, by all accounts, would have been quite hard before the Flood began.
6. Along the Grand Canyon are tributaries, which are as deep as the Grand Canyon itself. These tributaries are roughly perpendicular to the main canyon. A sudden massive flood would not produce such a pattern.
7. Sediment from the Colorado River has been shifted northward over the years by movement along the San Andreas and related faults (Winker and Kidwell 1986). Such movement of the delta sediment would not occur if the canyon were carved as a single event.
8. The lakes that Austin proposed as the source for the carving floodwaters are not large compared with the Grand Canyon itself. The flood would have to remove more material than the floodwaters themselves.
9. If a brief interlude of rushing water produced the Grand Canyon, there should be many more such canyons. Why are there not other grand canyons surrounding all the margins of all continents?
10. There is a perfectly satisfactory gradual explanation for the formation of the Grand Canyon that avoids all these problems. Sediments deposited about two billion years ago were metamorphosed and intruded by granite to become today&#39;s basement layers. Other sediments were deposited in the late Proterozoic and were subsequently folded, faulted, and eroded. More sediments were deposited in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, with a period of erosion in between. The Colorado Plateau started rising gradually about seventy million years ago. As it rose, existing rivers deepened, carving through the previous sediments (Harris and Kiver 1985, 273-282).

[Hmmm. I wonder how much money a jar of that magnitude and that type of history generate?
Just a thought]

Love it, Ne-Yo. You propose a crack-pot theory that’s more joke than serious about ONE piece of evidence, and just ignore the 26,000 years of evidence preceding that.
RE your notion that it was done for profit, and wasn’t real science—guess what? It hasn’t generated any money, because its still in the labs being examined, not out on display.

[They [endogenous retroviruses] contain nonsense mutations or major deletions, and cannot produce infectious virus particles. This is because they are supposed to be just ancient fossils.]

Actually, a working and living virus was recreated from genetic material from retrovirus infections. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8103
The oldest of retrovirus infections are harder to recreate because of the mutations, but kindly explain why the mutations in human and ape retrovirus infections happen to match up ever so nicely?

[[the fossil record] Can be created in 12 months.]

Then kindly explain the oh-so-perfect matchups of all methods of radiometric dating, including dendrochronography, and why they suggest a date far older than the one you’re slapping on them?

[I won&#39;t [post any evidence against evolution] unless you&#39;d like to kick it up a notch.]

Earth to Ne-Yo, I just told you to do exactly that.

[Oh don&#39;t worry I will get to that one soon enough.]

We’re waiting, Ne-Yo.

[Beside I have 10/20 vision what do I have to complain about. Let me guess, you wear glasses don&#39;t you?]

Nice red herring you’ve got there. Still doesn’t change the fact that the eye could have been designed SO much better—are you saying that your gawd is all-powerful, but can’t find a way to get oxygen to the retina without impeding the eye’s function?

[But while we are here let&#39;s clear some other things up in regards to the eye. The step-by-step gradual change idea is a false model for a number of reasons.]

A few things: One, the embryonic changes of the eye do not necessarily represent the exact path the evolution took. Second, nobody said that the eye had a simple blob of proteins for a lens NOW, only that at one point, such a blob was developed, and was refined over time.
And don’t give me any of that irreducible complexity BS right now, it’s all been disproved a hundred times over.

[You should appreciate the Sacral Curve it controls provides a stable centre of gravity when you move, otherwise standing for extended periods of time would be virtually impossible.]

And again, are you saying that your gawd is not all-powerful? Yes, it does give us a nice sense of balance, but evolution already has that covered—what evolution CAN’T do is make it so that the back can curve but not provide all sorts of back problems. The problem with that kink in the back is that it makes slipped disks and all those lovely problems that plague most senior citizens quite commonplace. It wouldn’t be a hard problem to fix up the vertebre so that they wouldn’t funk up their alignment all the time, but apparently that simple engineering task was far beyond your gawd.

[Well it [the placement of the esophagus and windpipe] is not a big problem and choking can often be avoided by taking only small bites of food and thoroughly chewing it.]

Which doesn’t answer why your gawd couldn’t just make the whole thing simpler and separate the two, nixing the problem altogether.

[Well perhaps they don&#39;t really server a purpose however people who get appendicitis probably are not eating to healthy to start.]

Again, you’re dodging the question. Evolutionarily, we know why we have an appendix. Thousands of years ago, it helped us eat raw meat without dying. But nowadays it just causes problems—but wait. According to you, we never did evolve from apes, hence would never need the appendix for digesting raw meat. Why, then, did your gawd go out of his way to stick it there? And hell, if he was going to stick it there, why didn&#39;t he at least make it FUNCTIONAL?

By the way, while on that topic, why are our sinuses so bloody messed up?
You see, evolutionarily, our ape ancestors had wider and longer faces, but over time it was all compacted and shortened, and the sinuses, which were once all nicely arrayed, are now crammed up into a space several times too small for them. That’s why we get sinus headaches, congested noses, and all those other lovely problems. And again, it wouldn’t be a hard problem to sort out, but apparently far beyond the capabilities of your gawd.

[Just a note--that mess up there, despite its bulk, is actually quite the reduction. My reply to Ne-Yo&#39;s first post was 12 pages. Ne-Yo&#39;s reply was 26 pages, mostly quotes. This one&#39;s only 11&#33; Wow, really cutting things to an effective level now, aren&#39;t we? ]