Creationists, please provide evidence

[Noaidi]

ToE has no theory other than we came from chimps.

Why do you insist that this is what ToE proposes? This nonsense is continually trotted out by creationists and continually refuted by proponents of ToE.

Please - cite a reference where science claims we evolved from chimps.

 

[tumbleweed41]

If by 'poofed' you mean appeared 'magically' by the limits of human understanding, you are correct. Much the same way as Hawkins says all the matter in all the universe was contained in the size of an atom and just decided one day to explode.

You should really study up on cosmology and and physics before making such claims.

 

[jarofthoughts]

@ newhope101: I make a note of the fact that you have considered none of the refutations of your so called "evidence".

Strange that... :sarcastic

 

[PolyHedral]

That radiometric dating has been given population values and other data that biases the dating.

OK, this is a minor thing in all of your argument, but it bugs me. How can radiometric dating be biased? It's mathematics. You can't bias mathematics.

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact quote:Around 6000 years ago, God magically poofed two of each "kind" of animal into existence, as well as all of the plants.

If by 'poofed' you mean appeared 'magically' by the limits of human understanding, you are correct. Much the same way as Hawkins says all the matter in all the universe was contained in the size of an atom and just decided one day to explode. You believe that don't you? Then to explain that nonsense there are hypothesisied stages inflation and multiple universes and dimentions. OMG truly believing God created man 6,000 years ago does not appear silly comparatively.

I don't know about you Pegg, but I think God created humans around 6,000 years ago. That radiometric dating has been given population values and other data that biases the dating. I have given examples previously. Kinds were made prior to humans also in the area called 'the garden of Eden", and then spread and filled the earth as the bible quotes.

God created kinds in the garden of Eden and genomic testing supports there were one or two individuals traced, such as the wolf and sponge research I have posted. The ecological niche was made in Eden. From there all animals spread and adapted. Researchers need to research how many of each kind was initially made, one breeding pair or 100. It seems that only one pair of wolves were necessary.

Life was made in the order the bible states. Tiktaalic was meant to be the first creature to crawl out of the sea onto land. Yet there were already tetrapod footprints around to that time. Again this info supports the bible account.

Genomic research also identifes that humans were in a geographical area and spead, or at least the out of Africa proponents are attempting to illustrate this.

As to how these animals spread and adapted. Genomic research has identified that even trichoplax shared 80% of our genes. This is great news for creationists. It shows that every organism was created with much diversity so that it could spread adapt and fill the earth.

So basically genomic research, is supporting the bible account of creation.

You know, Pegg there are hundreds of researchers working on how their evidence fits in with TOE. Yet a couple of forum defenders of creationism are expected to come up with a solid theory. Just a trap. This lot as well as 100's of researchers around the world can't even stabilize their own theory for 5 minutes before it changes.

re naderthal first they were a dead end line then they 'prooved' lineage to humans now that's been retracted by other evidence. Seriously, they have no idea what they are looking at when they study genetics. They've turned humans into chimps with 99.4% shared genes. Now they are thinking of putting chimps into the 'homo' line. Regardless of if they do or not the thinking highlights the stupidity and level TOE proponents are prepared to swallow and go to to support Toe, and then demand creationists sort their story out on the spot. It's a request rooted in frustration. I think.

Autodidact knows creationists can smack ToE heaps. She just wants the opportunity to slap back. Don't bite Peg. ToE has no theory other than we came from chimps. How, when let alone why is all they need to work out. Even natural selection is doubted by many fancy brains as being an adequate explanation of macroevolution. I have posted the Wiki info and there is heaps out there.

See Peg, evolutionists believe in their theory despite the holes, the contradictions and the constant changes. They have as very strong faith in this and they will stick to it regardless of how silly anyone makes them look.

They will throw up evidence for ToE that is disputed within the ToE community, like arch the dino bird where evidence shows that birds macro'd into dinos now after having 'proven' that dinos maro'd into birds. There is so much that has turned around there is insufficient room to post it all. I'm mean seriously, how can any evolutionist offer fossils as evidence. Genomic testing does not validate the fossil record. To the contrary, and I have posted that info also. I have posted how one can use genomic dating methods to arrive at 6,000 years for humans, illustrating the complexity involved and assumptions that are entered into the computations to get dates. The same complexity is involved in all radiometric dating.

The articicle below demonstrated yet again that scientists have no clue what they are doing or talking about. Rather they grasp at any straw. The article below says these changes are a part of science, unlike religion. What this lass needs to see is this: The Toe was proposed, any primate found was collected and used to back up evolution. Then came along advanced genomic sequencing techniques, that slapped the fossil hunters and made them look again at their old bones, but also showed biblical creationists the evidence they require and the folly of ToE.

The great thing about Toe is the proponents only need yet another hypothesis to explain this and how this fits into the nice smooth transition to human. It would be so easy to explain if researchers were only asking the right questions. ie how does this fit in with creation....easy...they were all non human primates that adapted to their environment and available food, and we'll try to work out if they are orangutangs, chimps, banobos or gorillas etc. Really easy for creationists!!!!

Current genomic data supports the biblical standpoint for creation and only confuses or contradicts ToE..because true scientific evidence will not support myth.
Fossils Challenge Old Evolution Theory

Thursday, August 09, 2007
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer

WASHINGTON —
Surprising research based on two African fossils suggests our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, challenging what had been common thinking on how early humans evolved.
The paper is based on fossilized bones found in 2000. The complete skull of Homo erectus was found within walking distance of an upper jaw of Homo habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis, researchers said.
That old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, is just too simple and keeps getting revised, said Bill Kimbel, who praised the latest findings. He is science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and wasn't part of the Leakey team.
"The more we know, the more complex the story gets," he said. Scientists used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, he said. But now we know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals.
Now a similar discovery applies further back in time.
Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.
"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."
For the past few years there has been growing doubt and debate about whether Homo habilis evolved into Homo erectus. One of the major proponents of the more linear, or ladder-like evolution that this evidence weakens, called Leakey's findings important, but he wasn't ready to concede defeat.

So is that a yes, my description of your hypothesis is correct? Anything in it you want to correct?

Any answer now as to why you've been lying to all of us all this time? I mean, I expect YECs to lie, but not about whether or not they're YECs. That's even less honest than the average YEC.

Did you think we wouldn't notice?

 

[Noaidi]

Newhope101

I get the impression that you are deliberately avoiding addressing the question of providing evidence for creationism. Your posts consist either of various goddidit references with nothing to substantiate them, or you deliberately (?) misrepresent ToE. Am I correct? Have you taken on board anything that anyone has informed you of on this thread?
This isn't intended as a snide comment - it's a genuine query.

 

[Autodidact]

The articicle below demonstrated yet again that scientists have no clue what they are doing or talking about.

Like all YECs, our dishonest friend newhope hates science. You just have to let them post long enough to admit it. Thanks, newhope, your true colors are emerging more and more with each post.

So your belief is that scientists don't know what they're talking about. Interesting. The combination of arrogance and ignorance is classic YEC. Also hypocritical. How many of the benefits of the work of those stupid scientists do you take advantage of every day? At least one that we know of.

YEC is fundamentally anti-scientific. YEC seeks to retreat to a world of superstition and magic, the world of the Dark Ages. Let's fight against that with everything we've got.

 

[newhope101]

PolyHedral quote:OK, this is a minor thing in all of your argument, but it bugs me. How can radiometric dating be biased? It's mathematics. You can't bias mathematics.

I don't think it's a minor thing. I'm restricted to 10,000 words, if you google the topic you'll find heaps of info. Genomic dating requires knowledge of the population numbers at any given point, the fetility rates and viable offspring. It needs to account for things like drought and other environmental factors that affect numbers of organisms. Researchers can only best guestimate these numbers and add them to their mathematical computations. If you change the data you enter you change the result. Radiocarbon also presumes atmospheric carbon, is open to bacterial an human contamination, can be leached etc etc. The sun's action on the atmosphere has already caused the earth dating to revised to 30 million years earlier. No much but this shows how crtical it is to have ver accurate data. Volcanic erruptions and many other things can affect the atmospheric acrbon rate and scew the results. Of course scientists have formulas to try to level this. However in the end it is mostly guesswork. A previous post of mine in this thread has an example. As I am a lay person I can rely on educated researchers to provide my evidence for creation and against ToE. One can find a cfredentailled refute to any evidence you care to post. It's not that hard at all. I'll post some genomic dating refutes in next reply.​

Here's some info.
Radiocarbon Dating & Errors​

By Emily Manthei, eHow Contributor
updated: April 15, 2010
Searching for truth in prehistory is an ongoing exercise in patience and adaptation. Radiocarbon dating, or C14 dating, seeks to discover the origins of fossils by using the constant rate of their decaying carbon to measure their age
The Method​

All living things absorb carbon from the atmosphere. When they die they stop absorbing carbon, and the carbon currently in the organic matter begins to decay. Half of the carbon is depleted in 5,730 years, which is called its half-life. After another 5,730 years, half of the remaining carbon will disappear, and so on. Measuring how much carbon is being emitted by the fossil or other remaining element determines how long the organism has been dead and therefore how old it is. But the rate at which the C14 decays only makes it accurate up to about 70,000 years, at which point carbon traces can no longer be accurately detected. ​

Problems
Further tests of Egyptian antiquities provided mixed results. Some radiocarbon dates appeared to be younger than the known dates. Libby assumed that the level of carbon in the atmosphere should have already achieved "equilibrium," meaning the ratio of carbon introduced into the atmosphere with carbon dissolving from dead things in the atmosphere is constant.​

But scientists discovered that the emissions of radiocarbon into the atmosphere fluctuate over time, and calculations must be made to offset that fluctuation. But determining the rate of fluctuation and establishing a pattern has proven difficult. Religious groups are especially critical of radiocarbon dates, citing the underlying assumption that the C14 ratios are constant as a bias toward an evolutionary "old earth." ​

Inconsistent Fluctuations
Decay in the earth's magnetic field results in more carbon radiation entering the earth's atmosphere, therefore increasing the production of C14. Nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s also increased the amount of radiocarbon in the atmosphere, which could have a significant effect on the dating process in the future. With just these two examples of fluctuations, dating using the idea of a constant rate of radiocarbon production and depletion seems questionable at best. ​

Errors
Checking one method's results against another has traditionally been scientists' way of keeping their methods honest. In 1990, the New York Times published an article revealing that Columbia University researchers using the uranium-thorium dating method to confirm radiocarbon dating had found huge discrepancies between the radiocarbon dates and the uranium-thorium dates, calling into question the validity of radiocarbon dating. More recently, a group of Christian scientists tested substances thought to be millions of years old, like coal and diamonds, only to find traces of radiocarbon, which would make them much younger according to the radiocarbon method. ​

 

[PolyHedral]

Radiocarbon also presumes atmospheric carbon, is open to bacterial an human contamination, can be leached etc etc.

IANAGeologist, but it doesn't, AFAIK. Radiocarbon dating depends on the proportion of different carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, which is nigh-impossible to change. (Except with nuclear reactions)

The sun's action on the atmosphere has already caused the earth dating to revised to 30 million years earlier.

You're telling me that the figure for the age of the earth had to be revised 6 tenths of a percent?

As I am a lay person I can rely on educated researchers to provide my evidence for creation and against ToE.

Um, you shouldn't be able to, since Creation shouldn't be accepted by anyone who knows what they are doing.

 

[newhope101]

Note at 38 the writter says" since many SNPs will actually be false​

positives.Yet, as no other clearly better method exists for

this purpose, thismayindeed be a reasonable application".​

So there you have it a smart educated researcher, just as smart as anyone here, agrees with me. Current dating methods are reasonable because that's all they have. What else can they do but best guess population size etc at any time? However this is not scientific evidence to anyone other than those clutching at straws with all their might.
Look up the complete article. This is just one of many similar papers that attest to the limits and falability of genomic testing.
​

General palaeontology (Taphonomy and Fossilisation)
​

Palaeogenomics
Michael Hofreiter
MPI for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany
Received 27 June 2007; accepted after revision 10 December 2007
Available online 4 March 2008​

Written on invitation of the Editorial Board

5. Conclusions and perspectives
Although having its roots back to 1984, palaeogenomics
in its own right is a very young research field. The
analysis of complete mitochondrial genomes has shown
great potential for resolving the phylogenetic position
of extinct species, including dating critical divergence​

events using molecular clock approaches

​

​

[5,12,22,41].​

[37]. Thus, nuclear sequences show great
promise for ancient DNA analyses.
Unfortunately, it is not yet clear whether palaeogenomics
can actually realize its potential, as several
problems limit its applicability. First, non-replicated
shotgun sequences contain a large number of errors.
Thus, studying potential adaptations will always require
confirmation of sequence positions via either PCR or
high-coverage genomic sequencing, although the latter
approach will most likely remain too expensive in the
near future. Therefore, for studying potential adaptations,
a candidate gene approach, as recently taken for
the study of mammoth hair colour
[42], may be more
appropriate. The large error rate also limits the potential
for using palaeogenomic sequences in the identification
of SNPs for population genetic studies, as recently
suggested
[38], since many SNPs will actually be false
positives.Yet, as no other clearly better method exists for
this purpose, thismayindeed be a reasonable application,
while keeping in mind that SNP typing in ancient DNA
may suffer from problems of contamination, as mentioned
above. Second, due to the random sampling of the
genome by shotgun sequencing, palaeogenomics is not
in itself suitable for population studies. This is unfortunate,
because only ancientDNAprovides direct evidence
of how the genetic composition of populations changes
over time, making it one of the most interesting aspects
of ancient DNA research (e.g.,
[2,16,25,43,45]). Third,
the high costs of producing complete genomic sequences
prevent extending this approach to large numbers of samples.
This problem is exacerbated with ancient DNA,
as most samples will have only a small proportion of
endogenous sequences between 1% and 6%
[10,31,32],
rather than the 50% recovered for the analyzed mammoth
bone

In conclusion, nuclear palaeogenomics will probably
remain a rather small research field. Just as all of
biology is not genomics, not all of ancient DNA will
become palaeogenomics. However, within this limitation,
it clearly has the potential to yield some intriguing
results. If the Neanderthal genome project succeeds –
even only in the form of a ‘probabilistic genome’ – we
will learn much about our own species and probably
also about Neanderthals. Even if the resulting genomes
are full of errors, low-coverage genomic sequences of
extinct species – such as the mammoth or aurochs –
would provide valuable resources for further research,
e.g. by identifying potential SNPs that can then be verified
using PCR or by providing better insight into the
biology of extant species.
I will close on a cautionary note. Even if we obtained
a high-quality genome of an extinct organism, this will
not mean that we can bring this species back to life, as
often claimed. The mammoth will never roam the earth​

again. The best we can do is trying to understand its

biology, evolution and maybe the reasons for its extinction.
Perhaps this information will provide us with better
tools necessary to prevent the extinction of the millions​

of species that currently live on our planet.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Why the hell do you keep posting huge blocks of text?

Text that is utterly irrelevant to the topic of the tread no less...

And even IF we were discussing the validity of various types of evidence and methods, which we are not; since you apparently do not take into account the refutations posted in relation to your arguments it seems rather pointless to go through the trouble.

In other words, this is just spam.

 

[newhope101]

Poly:IANAGeologist, but it doesn't, AFAIK. Radiocarbon dating depends on the proportion of different carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, which is nigh-impossible to change. (Except with nuclear reactions)

Rubbish... get your head out of that old biology book! Carbon variations have been observed...and I get really bored with having to refute what should be common knowledge even for the 'undeducated' (not a typo). Besides what's the point of refuting with other evidence that can be easily refuted!!! That's the whole point. Toe is not science. The theory of general relatively works every time without question untill you look at the cellular level. ToE doesn't work that way and is a long way from there. Besides I can't sit here in cyber world all day, I do have a life.

Quoote:And even IF we were discussing the validity of various types of evidence and methods, which we are not; since you apparently do not take into account the refutations posted in relation to your arguments it seems rather pointless to go through the trouble.

Please note the thread topic. I don't dipute every refute because you use flawed evidence that I get bored with constantly refuting. Many refutes are uneduacted attacks rather than requests for clarification. I'll say again there are No bones, No data that you can post that does not have a refute made by an equally credentialled researcher. There are tons of research to dispute my claims also. What does it all mean? Scientists have no idea as they can refute each other till the stars fall from the sky with perfecty valid legitimte countering research and never agree.That goes right back to basic fundamental tennant of ToE with is natural selection being disputed (example posted) as an adequate explanation for species changing into another species.ie dino into bird or visa versa (depending on the flavour of the day). I refer you back to the species problem. Wiki has a simple explanation you will undertand, hopefully, because scientists certainly don't and can't agree even on this very basic concept. Also I refer you to the info on 'Races" on Wiki to further highlight researchers are not even sure how to differentiate species in the known world, let alone the prehistoric world...to the point where many researchers challenge the current tree of life. Don't believe me check it out for yourself..

Also, if we post research as examples we get 'why all the posts', if we post no info we get "where's your evidence'. Make up your mind.

Here's a refute to your claim that atmospheric carbon is stable. again Rubbish!!!!!
Wiki



Libby's original exchange reservoir hypothesis assumes that the exchange reservoir is constant all over the world. The calibration method also assumes that the temporal variation in 14C level is global, such that a small number of samples from a specific year are sufficient for calibration.[18] However, since Libby's early work was published (1950 to 1958), latitudinal and continental variations in the carbon exchange reservoir have been observed by Hessel de Vries (1958; as reviewed by Lerman et al., 1959, 1960). Subsequently, methods have been developed that allow the correction of these so-called reservoir effects, including:

• When CO2 is transferred from the atmosphere to the oceans, it initially shares the 14C concentration of the atmosphere. However, turnaround times of CO2 in the ocean are similar to the half-life of 14C (making 14C also a dating tool for ocean water).[19] Marine organisms feed on this "old" carbon, and thus their radiocarbon age reflects the time of CO2 uptake by the ocean rather than the time of death of the organism. This marine reservoir effect is partly handled by a special marine calibration curve,[20] but local deviations of several hundred years exist.

• Erosion and immersion of carbonate rocks (which are generally older than 80,000 years and so shouldn't contain measurable 14C) causes an increase in 12C and 13C in the exchange reservoir, which depends on local weather conditions and can vary the ratio of carbon that living organisms incorporate. This is believed negligible for the atmosphere and atmosphere-derived carbon since most erosion will flow into the sea.[21] The atmospheric 14C concentration may differ substantially from the concentration in local water reservoirs. Eroded from CaCO3 or organic deposits, old carbon may be assimilated easily and provide diluted 14C carbon into trophic chains. So the method is less reliable for such materials as well as for samples derived from animals with such plants in their food chain.

• Volcanic eruptions eject large amount of carbon into the air, causing an increase in 12C and 13C in the exchange reservoir and can vary the exchange ratio locally. This explains the often irregular dating achieved in volcanic areas.[21]

• The earth is not affected evenly by cosmic radiation, the magnitude of the radiation depends on land altitude and earth's magnetic field strength at any given location, causing minor variation in the local 14C production. This is accounted for by having calibration curves for different locations of the globe. However this could not always be performed, as tree rings for calibration were only recoverable from certain locations in 1958.[22] The rebuttals by Münnich et al.[23] and by Barker[24] both maintain that while variations of carbon-14 exist, they are about an order of magnitude smaller than those implied by Crowe's calculations.

These effects were first confirmed when samples of wood from around the world, which all had the same age (based on tree ring analysis), showed deviations from the dendrochronological age. Calibration techniques based on tree-ring samples have contributed to increase the accuracy since 1962, when they were accurate to 700 years at worst.[25]

Go to Wiki and see all the formulas researchers need to use to adjust for it all. Hey..researchers couldn't even get the neanderthal sketch right with all their bones and data. Embarassing or what?? Initially he was a real ape looking doode then suddenly he was sketched as a human like you and me. Only God knows what the researchers will make him look like now. Would creationists like to guess? That's about as scientific as ToE gets.

Quote;In that case I strongly suggest that the Creationists sit their butts down, clamp their mouths shut and let the actual scientists get on with finding out how. They have done a pretty good job so far.
No actually they have not! They have made a mess of it and change their minds like the wind. Can you see the stupidity of your comment?

 

[evolved yet?]

Why the hell do you keep posting huge blocks of text?

Text that is utterly irrelevant to the topic of the tread no less...

And even IF we were discussing the validity of various types of evidence and methods, which we are not; since you apparently do not take into account the refutations posted in relation to your arguments it seems rather pointless to go through the trouble.

In other words, this is just spam.

If we went by your strict definition of spam, there would be no creationists on this forum.

 

[jarofthoughts]

If we went by your strict definition of spam, there would be no creationists on this forum.

Why do all Creationists give me the impression of someone who has their hands firmly clamped over their ears while singing "LALALALALA" at the top of their lungs?

But really, we have made the topic of this tread clear so many times now, it shouldn't be hard to grasp. I'm all for discussing the Theory of Evolution, but then preferably in a tread for that purpose and with someone who actually takes into account what the other side of the discussion is saying...

 

[Venatoris]

Rubbish... get your head out of that old biology book! Carbon variations have been observed...and I get really bored with having to refute what should be common knowledge even for the 'undeducated' (not a typo).

If that isn't a typo, you're clearly illiterate. I can't tell whether you were going for uneducated(lacking education) or undedicated(lacking dedication). "Undeducated" is not a word, never has been, never will be. I would have let it slide, had you not clearly stated that it wasn't a typo. Why should anyone take you seriously when you speak with conviction but can't use a dictionary?

 

[Meow Mix]

If that isn't a typo, you're clearly illiterate. I can't tell whether you were going for uneducated(lacking education) or undedicated(lacking dedication). "Undeducated" is not a word, never has been, never will be. I would have let it slide, had you not clearly stated that it wasn't a typo. Why should anyone take you seriously when you speak with conviction but can't use a dictionary?

I got a pun on the word "undead" from it. i.e., zombies. Perhaps the implication is that people who get educated are zombies to the system?

 

[Atomist]

"Undeducated" is not a word, never has been, never will be. I would have let it slide, had you not clearly stated that it wasn't a typo.

What if we define undeducated right now and it catches on and becomes a word?

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

As I am a lay person I can rely on educated researchers to provide my evidence for creation and against ToE.

Oh, so, as a lay person you only rely on researchers who agree with you, right? I would have expected you, as a lay person, to listen to the vast majority of scientists who say that evolution is a fact and that the theory of evolution explains this fact very well.

You say you are a layman in this matter, yet you are ready to completely ignore every piece of evidence that exists for evolution. :ignore:

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I got a pun on the word "undead" from it. i.e., zombies. Perhaps the implication is that people who get educated are zombies to the system?

Seems the best interpretation. Although, "undeaducated" would have been better.

 

[newhope101]

VenatorisQuote:
Originally Posted by newhope101
Rubbish... get your head out of that old biology book! Carbon variations have been observed...and I get really bored with having to refute what should be common knowledge even for the 'undeducated' (not a typo).
If that isn't a typo, you're clearly illiterate. I can't tell whether you were going for uneducated(lacking education) or undedicated(lacking dedication). "Undeducated" is not a word, never has been, never will be. I would have let it slide, had you not clearly stated that it wasn't a typo. Why should anyone take you seriously when you speak with conviction but can't use a dictionary?
Venataris:If that isn't a typo, you're clearly illiterate. I can't tell whether you were going for uneducated(lacking education) or undedicated(lacking dedication). "Undeducated" is not a word, never has been, never will be. I would have let it slide, had you not clearly stated that it wasn't a typo. Why should anyone take you seriously when you speak with conviction but can't use a dictionary?

Jarofstupidity quote: "Why do all Creationists give me the impression of someone who has their hands firmly clamped over their ears while singing "LALALALALA" at the top of their lungs?

I don't debate with fruitloops I eat em up! These are not refutes, rather just a self appraisal of your cognitive challenges and total lack of emotional intelligence.

So far no one has offered any serious refute to my original proposal for a creation style theory. All you've manged to do is ridicule. Is this your idea of scientifically refuting my assertions?? Sad but then again, I did not expect anything more from any of you.

The earth formed as indicated in the bible, from a watery deep, which appears a satifactory explanation of the plasma like description of the earth in its' initial stages. God created various organisms required for an ecological niche in the seas and plants on the earth as staed in the bible. Then God created animal life, that is major kinds, then humans, in a geographical area. God doesn't say when he created bacteria and bugs and things like that, researchers need to clarify much, not unlike ToE.

Life spread and adapted. Biblical days refer to time peiods and the only one that is locked in is humans.

When I posted previously there were alot of Darwin jokes. Yet, the bible, clearly speaks to the garden of Eden and the command to multiply and fill the earth. If that appears Darwinian, that's Darwins fault for copying a biblical concept. No sensible reply to this assertion either.

So basically there should be many points whereToE and biblical creation theories agree. However I assert current genomic data supports creation of kinds rather than the evolution of one kinds into a totally different kind. The question is how many kinds were created initially. Recent genomic data informs God created many kinds in pairs or individually and left little to evolve into anything else. Perhaps no organism needed to change that much. This is a question for researchers that are asking the right questions.

The bible states God made the various kinds. It does not say more about it than that. It doesn't even say that one kind cannot morph into another really. All that matters is that Humans are created, as you say magically, or instantly, in one generation, around 6,000ya. Magic is often the assertion of the less informed. Space ships were magic once, just like all the universes matter being crushed into the size of an atom or smaller. That all sounds like magic until one understands the concept and the science.

Apart from fossil evidence do you have anythig else to refute me, that's intelligent???? I asked for this on my previous post so, I doubt it!