Evolution and Creationism: because ...

[Brian Schuh]

Could you please provide a link to this supposed Ireland situation? You might also provide a link to the "dragons" which you refer to.

BTW, I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught about how "evilution" was anti-Bible, did the studying over years and found that I was simply not being told the truth. I left that church for one that wasn't anti-science and didn't teach such nonsensical "theology", and then went on to get a graduate degree in anthropology whereas I taught it for roughly 30 years.

No religious institution that teaches falsehood can be valid, so let me recommend that you find a church that actually teaches the truth.

Why do you equate evolution with science? Evolution is just a theory. The evidence and case for creationism is not being made by theologians, it is being made by scientists. Are you not aware that there are scientists who believe in creationism? Anti-evolution doesn't mean anti-science.

I don't believe in creationism because of the Bible or religious dogma or because anybody tells me to believe it. I passed all my biology exams in evolution in school with A's. Right, I wrote on top of the exams, "I don't believe any of this" and then I proceeded to write down all the answers that the teacher wanted to hear. Creationists don't believe in creationism because they fail to understand evolution.

You have just bought into the myth that anyone who challenges evolution must be igorant or stupid. It is part of the modern educational "creed" that you must believe in evolution and you cannot doubt it, or you will be discredited. No one is telling me I have to believe in creationism, but many say that if I am to be intelligent, then I must believe in evolution.

 

[Brian Schuh]

As an oceanographer let me assure you that you are quite wrong. This old, crusty and well-falsified piece of creationist clap trap continues to raise it's mouldy head and serves as an object lesson in how gullible, illogical and science-ignorant creationists are.

Claim CD221.1:
Known processes to remove sodium from the oceans account for only 27 percent of the sodium that is added. Given the accumulation of sodium this implies, the oceans could not be more than 62 million years old.
Source:
Austin, S. A. and D. R. Humphreys, 1990. The sea's missing salt: A dilemma for evolutionists. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, 2: 17-33. http://tccsa.tc/articles/ocean_sodium.html
Response:

1. Austin and Humphreys greatly underestimate the amount of sodium lost in the alteration of basalt. They omit sodium lost in the formation of diatomaceous earth, and they omit numerous others mechanisms which are minor individually but collectively account for a significant fraction of salt.
   
   A detailed analysis of sodium shows that 35.6 x 1010 kg/yr come into the ocean, and 38.1 x 1010 kg/yr are removed (Morton 1996). Within measurement error, the amount of sodium added matches the amount removed.

References:

1. Morton, Glenn R., 1996. Salt in the sea. http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html

Further Reading:
Burton, J. D. and D. Wright, 1981. Sea water and its evolution. In: The Evolving Earth, ed. L. R. M. Cocks. London: British Museum, 89-101.
How does one "create" a rock in the laboratory? I'd need to know more about this, but I suspect that the "testing" revealed the age of the material the rock creator used.
This is an idiotic claim, there is no groundswell toward this denier view of human ancestry, quite the opposite. In any case, it is quite impossible to translate such a vacuous claim "a scientist" (who?), "so-called prehistoric man" (Homo erectus?), "skull of an ape" (all humans are, in fact apes), etc.
II hate to even respond to such claims. First of all, no one would confuse a Tyrannosaur and a dragon. Dragons are not represented with stubby reduced forelimbs, though they often represented as breathing fire and having wings 9making them six-limbed (and the impossibility of dragon flight is another issue), attributes that Tyrannosaurs lacked. If you need a for dragon legends, try this: The record marine crocodile was 30 feet long, 13.5 feet in girth and stood the height of a draft horse at the shoulder. This animal was collected in the Bay of Bengal in 1851 and the skeleton is in the British Museum.
Again, a bizarre, ill-defined and undocumented claim. Who is the "scientist," where is the film, does it show what Brian purports that it does.
Please do, only in the future please use names, places, citations, links, etc. , so that your claims can be properly laid to rest.

Obviously, a dragon and a T Rex don't look alike. That proves my point. Traditionally, pictures made in modern times to illustrate the reptiles in Ireland pictured them as dragons, until a historian found an old manuscript made by one of the actual Irish settlers with sketches of the T Rex. Modern people want to illustrate these old books with pictures of mythological dragons, what modern people believe a dragon should look like. When in actuality, what these early people saw were actual animals, and in this case of an old Irish manusript, it was obviously a T Rex.

Now how is it you missed my point on this before?

 

[Brian Schuh]

As an oceanographer let me assure you that you are quite wrong. This old, crusty and well-falsified piece of creationist clap trap continues to raise it's mouldy head and serves as an object lesson in how gullible, illogical and science-ignorant creationists are.

Claim CD221.1:
Known processes to remove sodium from the oceans account for only 27 percent of the sodium that is added. Given the accumulation of sodium this implies, the oceans could not be more than 62 million years old.
Source:
Austin, S. A. and D. R. Humphreys, 1990. The sea's missing salt: A dilemma for evolutionists. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, 2: 17-33. http://tccsa.tc/articles/ocean_sodium.html
Response:

1. Austin and Humphreys greatly underestimate the amount of sodium lost in the alteration of basalt. They omit sodium lost in the formation of diatomaceous earth, and they omit numerous others mechanisms which are minor individually but collectively account for a significant fraction of salt.
   
   A detailed analysis of sodium shows that 35.6 x 1010 kg/yr come into the ocean, and 38.1 x 1010 kg/yr are removed (Morton 1996). Within measurement error, the amount of sodium added matches the amount removed.

References:

1. Morton, Glenn R., 1996. Salt in the sea. http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html

Further Reading:
Burton, J. D. and D. Wright, 1981. Sea water and its evolution. In: The Evolving Earth, ed. L. R. M. Cocks. London: British Museum, 89-101.
How does one "create" a rock in the laboratory? I'd need to know more about this, but I suspect that the "testing" revealed the age of the material the rock creator used.
This is an idiotic claim, there is no groundswell toward this denier view of human ancestry, quite the opposite. In any case, it is quite impossible to translate such a vacuous claim "a scientist" (who?), "so-called prehistoric man" (Homo erectus?), "skull of an ape" (all humans are, in fact apes), etc.
II hate to even respond to such claims. First of all, no one would confuse a Tyrannosaur and a dragon. Dragons are not represented with stubby reduced forelimbs, though they often represented as breathing fire and having wings 9making them six-limbed (and the impossibility of dragon flight is another issue), attributes that Tyrannosaurs lacked. If you need a for dragon legends, try this: The record marine crocodile was 30 feet long, 13.5 feet in girth and stood the height of a draft horse at the shoulder. This animal was collected in the Bay of Bengal in 1851 and the skeleton is in the British Museum.
Again, a bizarre, ill-defined and undocumented claim. Who is the "scientist," where is the film, does it show what Brian purports that it does.
Please do, only in the future please use names, places, citations, links, etc. , so that your claims can be properly laid to rest.

I am not a scientist and not a historian either. If you want to see all the scientific and historical evidence, do what I did, read it. Creationists take the time to learn evolutionary theory, but evolutionists don't bother learn creationism, but that doesn't stop them from showing contempt for it. For starters, read "Not by Accident.' written by a creationist scientist.

"Nothing can keep a man in perpetual ignorance, like contempt prior to investigation."

 

[Brian Schuh]

Could you please provide a link to this supposed Ireland situation? You might also provide a link to the "dragons" which you refer to.

BTW, I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught about how "evilution" was anti-Bible, did the studying over years and found that I was simply not being told the truth. I left that church for one that wasn't anti-science and didn't teach such nonsensical "theology", and then went on to get a graduate degree in anthropology whereas I taught it for roughly 30 years.

No religious institution that teaches falsehood can be valid, so let me recommend that you find a church that actually teaches the truth.

Try reading a man named Bill Cooper. There is more than one Bill Cooper on the internet. The one I'm talking about is a historian, he is not a scientist. He likes to look at all the historical accounts of Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales. When evolution became popular, many of these books were lost to us and buried somewhere deep in libraries and they were forgotten. Many of the geneologies of the Irish that go all the way back to Noah were shelved and forgotten. In fact, any history of England before the Angl Saxons conquered it, became considered myth and shelved. So Bil Cooper takes the time to publish this stuff because he believes these old histories are important to the United Kingdom. He translated a book showing the first settlers in England had escaped the Trojan War and this book mentions King Arthur and Merlin and King Lear who had three beautiful daughters. You see that much of England's mythology was based on historical fact. But there are others besides Bill Cooper. Try starting with him.

What do you mean "the Truth"? What is-- "the Truth"? No, I'm not trying to sound like Pontius Pilate.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why do you equate evolution with science? Evolution is just a theory.

"Theory" is the highest standard in science. Gravity is also "just a theory". As is "germ theory" or "the theory of relativity", and yet these are things we have so much evidence for and understanding of that we accept them completely. "Just a theory" is a misnomer, since theories never become anything else. Theories are frameworks that we use to explain observable phenomenon. Gravity is a force that we observe - the theory of gravity explains how it functions. Germs are organisms that we observe - germ theory explains how they function. We observed living populations of organisms diversify and evolve over time - the theory of evolution explains how this occurs.

The very first red flag about anyone in any kind of scientific debate is when they refer to ANY theory as "just a theory". It shows a complete lack of understanding of basic scientific terminology and a total misunderstanding (often wilfully so) of the scientific process.

The evidence and case for creationism is not being made by theologians, it is being made by scientists.

Then please present some evidence.

Are you not aware that there are scientists who believe in creationism? Anti-evolution doesn't mean anti-science.

Sure there are. Unfortunately, not a single one has ever presented any evidence - or even a testable hypothesis - that lends any credibility to creationism as a scientific field. If we are wrong, please present some evidence. Until then, we have no reason to assume that creationism is anything other than a desperate attempt to force theology into science. It has already been determined in court that creationism (under the guise of intelligent design) fails to meet scientific standards to be taught or considered any kind of real scientific field.

[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision ]

I don't believe in creationism because of the Bible or religious dogma or because anybody tells me to believe it. I passed all my biology exams in evolution in school with A's. Right, I wrote on top of the exams, "I don't believe any of this" and then I proceeded to write down all the answers that the teacher wanted to hear. Creationists don't believe in creationism because they fail to understand evolution.

And yet the very first thing you said in this post is that "evolution is just a theory". If you truly were knowledgeable about science, you would understand why such a statement is patently absurd. I simply don't trust your claims here.

You have just bought into the myth that anyone who challenges evolution must be igorant or stupid.

What would you think of anyone that challenges gravity, or that the world is round?

It is part of the modern educational "creed" that you must believe in evolution and you cannot doubt it, or you will be discredited. No one is telling me I have to believe in creationism, but many say that if I am to be intelligent, then I must believe in evolution.

See the above. It's no less wrong than saying "Anyone who doesn't accept gravity is most likely not intelligent".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Obviously, a dragon and a T Rex don't look alike. That proves my point. Traditionally, pictures made in modern times to illustrate the reptiles in Ireland pictured them as dragons, until a historian found an old manuscript made by one of the actual Irish settlers with sketches of the T Rex.

I would like to see the evidence of this, please.

 

[Sapiens]

Obviously, a dragon and a T Rex don't look alike. That proves my point. Traditionally, pictures made in modern times to illustrate the reptiles in Ireland pictured them as dragons, until a historian found an old manuscript made by one of the actual Irish settlers with sketches of the T Rex. Modern people want to illustrate these old books with pictures of mythological dragons, what modern people believe a dragon should look like. When in actuality, what these early people saw were actual animals, and in this case of an old Irish manusript, it was obviously a T Rex.

Now how is it you missed my point on this before?

What clap-trap. You get caught and then claim the beartrap your foot is in as your own. I am truly amazed.

I am not a scientist and not a historian either. If you want to see all the scientific and historical evidence, do what I did, read it. Creationists take the time to learn evolutionary theory, but evolutionists don't bother learn creationism, but that doesn't stop them from showing contempt for it. For starters, read "Not by Accident.' written by a creationist scientist.

"Nothing can keep a man in perpetual ignorance, like contempt prior to investigation."

Not a scientist. Not a historian. I am so surprised. What is your expertise in? I have probably read more creationist literature and watched more creationist videos than you have.

Try reading a man named Bill Cooper. There is more than one Bill Cooper on the internet. The one I'm talking about is a historian, he is not a scientist. He likes to look at all the historical accounts of Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales. When evolution became popular, many of these books were lost to us and buried somewhere deep in libraries and they were forgotten. Many of the geneologies of the Irish that go all the way back to Noah were shelved and forgotten. In fact, any history of England before the Angl Saxons conquered it, became considered myth and shelved. So Bil Cooper takes the time to publish this stuff because he believes these old histories are important to the United Kingdom. He translated a book showing the first settlers in England had escaped the Trojan War and this book mentions King Arthur and Merlin and King Lear who had three beautiful daughters. You see that much of England's mythology was based on historical fact. But there are others besides Bill Cooper. Try starting with him.

What do you mean "the Truth"? What is-- "the Truth"? No, I'm not trying to sound like Pontius Pilate.

I read Cooper's book, "After the Flood" some years ago, the man is a complete fool. Here is a link for anyone who whats to judge for themselves: http://ldolphin.org/cooper/ (puts the lie to your, "evolutionists don't bother learn creationism", eh?) Do note that I'm intimately familiar with creationism, and that causes me to hold it in contempt. BTW: there is no such thing as a "creationist scientist".

Cooper is so obviously off his nut I'm not going to waste any time on him, here a clear and concise debunking: http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Cooper's_Pseudo-History_of_Dinosaurs

"... first settlers in England had escaped the Trojan War" - Genome analysis show this to be false.

 

[Shad]

Obviously, a dragon and a T Rex don't look alike. That proves my point. Traditionally, pictures made in modern times to illustrate the reptiles in Ireland pictured them as dragons, until a historian found an old manuscript made by one of the actual Irish settlers with sketches of the T Rex. Modern people want to illustrate these old books with pictures of mythological dragons, what modern people believe a dragon should look like. When in actuality, what these early people saw were actual animals, and in this case of an old Irish manusript, it was obviously a T Rex.

Now how is it you missed my point on this before?

Who? Lets see names not some "someone said blah" Anyone can do that

I am not a scientist and not a historian either. If you want to see all the scientific and historical evidence, do what I did, read it. Creationists take the time to learn evolutionary theory, but evolutionists don't bother learn creationism, but that doesn't stop them from showing contempt for it. For starters, read "Not by Accident.' written by a creationist scientist.

"Nothing can keep a man in perpetual ignorance, like contempt prior to investigation."

Name the author.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am not a scientist and not a historian either. If you want to see all the scientific and historical evidence, do what I did, read it.

Have you read these forums before? Creationists constantly ask for the evidence of evolution, and the vast majority of the time we provide it - usually in great detail, often in our own words, often with thorough and credible sources and links, and it is almost always ignored completely. Why is it that when you make a claim such as "there is evidence for creationism", the typical response to provide this evidence is simply "go and read it yourself". Does that seem fair?

Fact is, when the supposed evidence IS presented it is normally one of the very small number that most creationists present - evidence which is then thoroughly rebuked and found to be either utterly false, fraudulent, not based on any actual science or just fantasy. We have looked for the evidence - and it is all nonsense. If you have evidence which is not nonsense, or at the very least is different to the vast majority of supposed evidence creationists present on these forums, then present it.

Creationists take the time to learn evolutionary theory, but evolutionists don't bother learn creationism, but that doesn't stop them from showing contempt for it.

A brief look on these forums will demonstrate that this is utterly false. Creationists routinely show a complete lack of understanding of science and evolutionary theory specifically, and never seem to adequately acknowledge or respond to any kind of evidence - nor present evidence of their own.

"Nothing can keep a man in perpetual ignorance, like contempt prior to investigation."

See above.

 

[Sapiens]

Have you read these forums before? Creationists constantly ask for the evidence of evolution, and the vast majority of the time we provide it - usually in great detail, often in our own words, often with thorough and credible sources and links, and it is almost always ignored completely. Why is it that when you make a claim such as "there is evidence for creationism", the typical response to provide this evidence is simply "go and read it yourself". Does that seem fair?

Fact is, when the supposed evidence IS presented it is normally one of the very small number that most creationists present - evidence which is then thoroughly rebuked and found to be either utterly false, fraudulent, not based on any actual science or just fantasy. We have looked for the evidence - and it is all nonsense. If you have evidence which is not nonsense, or at the very least is different to the vast majority of supposed evidence creationists present on these forums, then present it.


A brief look on these forums will demonstrate that this is utterly false. Creationists routinely show a complete lack of understanding of science and evolutionary theory specifically, and never seem to adequately acknowledge or respond to any kind of evidence - nor present evidence of their own.


See above.

I am really getting to the point that I think all that should be provided to creationists is: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

 

[Brian Schuh]

What clap-trap. You get caught and then claim the beartrap your foot is in as your own. I am truly amazed.

Not a scientist. Not a historian. I am so surprised. What is your expertise in? I have probably read more creationist literature and watched more creationist videos than you have.

I read Cooper's book, "After the Flood" some years ago, the man is a complete fool. Here is a link for anyone who whats to judge for themselves: http://ldolphin.org/cooper/ (puts the lie to your, "evolutionists don't bother learn creationism", eh?) Do note that I'm intimately familiar with creationism, and that causes me to hold it in contempt. BTW: there is no such thing as a "creationist scientist".

Cooper is so obviously off his nut I'm not going to waste any time on him, here a clear and concise debunking: http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Cooper's_Pseudo-History_of_Dinosaurs

"... first settlers in England had escaped the Trojan War" - Genome analysis show this to be false.

Second, Bill Cooper is used to being called a lot of things. One of his books, he could not find one publisher for it. I don't see what is so foolish about digging old books out of old libraries and publishing them. "After the Flood" is not his best book. But I still don't see what is wrong with it. What is wrong with publishing the geneaology of the Queen of England, which goes back to Noah? Just because you don't believe these things to be geuine, doesn't mean they don't have value.

My expertise is not science or history, I already said that. My expertise is in one small part of Torah law. Once in a while, if I'm hard-up for money, I'll publish an essay. Well I don't, my publisher does.

As for genomes, I have counted at least five ethnic groups that settled in what is now the United Kingdom. Forget what you call myths, like there were a very large people (they called giants) and a very little people (they called Leprechauns) forget about them, Bill Cooper would probably believe it and then go find evidence for them. I'm talking about five ethnic groups that are recognized by the world. Like Angles, Saxons, Picts, Scots and Welsh and there were others. So let me ask you, was this DNA testing on a diverse segment of the population? And also consider there were a few different ethnic groups coming out of Troy as well. Do you have DNA testing on all the different ethnic groups of ancient Troy? This is as ridiculous as people claiming to be of the lost tribes of Israel based on a DNA test. There really are people demanding citizenship in Israel based on a DNA test. Absolutely absurd.

Alright, I want you to demonstrate or find someone who has demonstrated that an animal has become more able to survive because of a mutation. Find one animal born with a mutation that is smarter, faster, stronger or whatever makes it a better animal. If you do that, then evolution will be more than a theory, it will be a theory which has been observed, like the theory of gravity. And genetic engineering is cheating. Where is your evidence?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Alright, I want you to demonstrate or find someone who has demonstrated that an animal has become more able to survive because of a mutation.

Here is a list of beneficial mutations that have developed in the human genome:

http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans

Here is a list of other observed beneficial mutations observed in a variety of organisms:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

Find one animal born with a mutation that is smarter, faster, stronger or whatever makes it a better animal. If you do that, then evolution will be more than a theory, it will be a theory which has been observed, like the theory of gravity.

You don't understand what a theory is. Nobody "observed" the theory of gravity. Gravity is the observation, the theory of gravity is the explanation. In the case of evolution, evolution itself is the observation - the theory of evolution explains it.

And genetic engineering is cheating.

Why, exactly? Genetic engineering doesn't "add" anything different to the process - it's exactly the same process we observed in nature, just sped up and directed by humans. What you're saying here is akin to asking for "evidence of gravity" but saying "but anything being dropped to the earth by humans is cheating".

Where is your evidence?

Done.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Who? Lets see names not some "someone said blah" Anyone can do that



Name the author.

I would love to go to the United Kingdom and look at these old books. Where did I read about an ancient sketch of a T Rex? From a person who believes in something called Creation History, as opposed to Creation Science. I can't produce the manuscript with the sketch of T Rex. There aren't a whole lot of people who pay any attention to Creation History. And the ones who do can't find publishers. All these books and ancient manuscripts are considered myth, fable and fantasy and they collect dust in these old libraries. Compare that to all the ancient New Testament manuscripts in old libraries. There are many people working day and night digitalizing all these and publishing them, like somehow mythology about Jesus is more important than the mythology of the Welsh and the Irish. Creation historians just believe that many old histories are true and they try to make a case for them. I can't prove there is an old Irish manuscript with a sketch of the T Rex. What do you want me to do? Go to the United Kingdom and look it up? Anyway who the hell would publish it once I found it? It would be considered a hoax from the get go, even if it wasn't. I don't remember the man's name, but it might have been Ken Johnson or Bill Cooper or one of those guys who spend a lot of time in the old libraries of the United Kingdom.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I would love to go to the United Kingdom and look at these old books. Where did I read about an ancient sketch of a T Rex? From a person who believes in something called Creation History, as opposed to Creation Science. I can't produce the manuscript with the sketch of T Rex.

Have you seen it yourself? Have you seen images of it? Are there any images of it available on the internet?

There aren't a whole lot of people who pay any attention to Creation History. And the ones who do can't find publishers.

Are you kidding? Creationists have their own publishing houses. There are numerous foundations supporting "creationist science research". There are at least 22 creationist museums across the globe. Are you seriously suggesting not a single of them would be willing to publish historical evidence of human-dinosaur coexistence?

All these books and ancient manuscripts are considered myth, fable and fantasy and they collect dust in these old libraries.

How do you know these books exist?

I can't prove there is an old Irish manuscript with a sketch of the T Rex.

So you're just going to claim it exists and not present even a single iota of evidence to support it? Why do you believe it exists?

What do you want me to do? Go to the United Kingdom and look it up?

Present an image of it. A reference from a source you find credible. Literally ANYTHING would do.

Anyway who the hell would publish it once I found it?

If it's credible, nearly every historical or archaeological journal on the planet.

It would be considered a hoax from the get go, even if it wasn't.

Then people would determine its authenticity and, if it's authentic, determine it to be so. Nobody ever proved anything by saying "I could present this to people, but they won't believe it anyway so why bother?"

I don't remember the man's name, but it might have been Ken Johnson or Bill Cooper or one of those guys who spend a lot of time in the old libraries of the United Kingdom.

So you don't have any evidence that this thing exists, you don't know where it is, you have never seen it, and you can't even remember who it was who supposedly discovered it?

I'll ask again: Why do you believe it exists?

 

[Brian Schuh]

Alr

Here is a list of beneficial mutations that have developed in the human genome:

http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans

Here is a list of other observed beneficial mutations observed in a variety of organisms:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html


You don't understand what a theory is. Nobody "observed" the theory of gravity. Gravity is the observation, the theory of gravity is the explanation. In the case of evolution, evolution itself is the observation - the theory of evolution explains it.


Why, exactly? Genetic engineering doesn't "add" anything different to the process - it's exactly the same process we observed in nature, just sped up and directed by humans. What you're saying here is akin to asking for "evidence of gravity" but saying "but anything being dropped to the earth by humans is cheating".


Done.

Alright, I'll check it out. I never heard anything like evolution has been obverved. I already accept natural selection and speciation, because they have been observed. Now I'll check out if mutations are improving life, if it has been observed, I'll accept it and then I'll say God created life 5776 years ago, and life has been evolving ever since. You see, if you are right, scientists can "prove" evolution so to speak, but history is outside the realm of science. No one can go back in time to observe the moment of Creation. Our best historical records put Creation 5776 years ago. So even if I accept the science of evolution, I'm taking this out of the realm of science into the realm of history. I haven't looked at it yet, but I am prepared to say, "Yep, all life is evolving and God still created life 5776 years ago." Produce an ancient manuscript written by your mythological Neanderthal that says different.

 

[Shad]

I would love to go to the United Kingdom and look at these old books. Where did I read about an ancient sketch of a T Rex? From a person who believes in something called Creation History, as opposed to Creation Science. I can't produce the manuscript with the sketch of T Rex. There aren't a whole lot of people who pay any attention to Creation History. And the ones who do can't find publishers. All these books and ancient manuscripts are considered myth, fable and fantasy and they collect dust in these old libraries. Compare that to all the ancient New Testament manuscripts in old libraries. There are many people working day and night digitalizing all these and publishing them, like somehow mythology about Jesus is more important than the mythology of the Welsh and the Irish. Creation historians just believe that many old histories are true and they try to make a case for them. I can't prove there is an old Irish manuscript with a sketch of the T Rex. What do you want me to do? Go to the United Kingdom and look it up? Anyway who the hell would publish it once I found it? It would be considered a hoax from the get go, even if it wasn't. I don't remember the man's name, but it might have been Ken Johnson or Bill Cooper or one of those guys who spend a lot of time in the old libraries of the United Kingdom.

So you can not name your source....

Bill Cooper is a hack and irrelevant. His views are so out of align with any credible work that it is just a book from a crackpot you take seriously. He has no education in any relevant field. His opinion is laughable. Ken Johnson is a lawyer thus a layman, at least he is the only one I could find without you naming something he wrote.. He views contradicts those of experts in the field. His views are irrelevant. Again his views are laughable. Both take mythology at face value which is typical of a YEC (Cooper) and someone driven by an ideology (Johnson)

 

[Brian Schuh]

Have you seen it yourself? Have you seen images of it? Are there any images of it available on the internet?


Are you kidding? Creationists have their own publishing houses. There are numerous foundations supporting "creationist science research". There are at least 22 creationist museums across the globe. Are you seriously suggesting not a single of them would be willing to publish historical evidence of human-dinosaur coexistence?


How do you know these books exist?


So you're just going to claim it exists and not present even a single iota of evidence to support it? Why do you believe it exists?


Present an image of it. A reference from a source you find credible. Literally ANYTHING would do.


If it's credible, nearly every historical or archaeological journal on the planet.


Then people would determine its authenticity and, if it's authentic, determine it to be so. Nobody ever proved anything by saying "I could present this to people, but they won't believe it anyway so why bother?"


So you don't have any evidence that this thing exists, you don't know where it is, you have never seen it, and you can't even remember who it was who supposedly discovered it?

I'll ask again: Why do you believe it exists?

I know it would be exciting to see something like that, even if it did turn out to be a hoax- it still could make a lot of news. I trust these guys as credible if for no other reason than that they are honest and well meaning. But even I think their website, I mean, it just doesn't seem professional. It is a lot of good information, I just don't want to look like a joke here, but it's already too late, so here is the website of these creation historians www.annomundi.com. In one of the books I bought from that website is a mention of some of the stuff in those old libraries. I wish there were more credible and more educated scholars who were doing this work instead of these guys. There is just no interest in looking at all these mythological books and manuscripts except from fundamentalist Christians and they are only interested when it supports their theology. But if they said they saw an old manuscript with a T Rex in it, I don't believe they are liars.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Alright! I accept evolution! All life is evolving. And all life has been evolving through all history, going all the way back to when God created life 5776 years ago.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Alright, I'll check it out. I never heard anything like evolution has been obverved.

Then you can't have done any real research, or made any effort to understand, the subject. The fact that allele frequencies change over time in populations in living organisms is not only observed, but it is one of the principle foundations around which all of modern medicine, agriculture and biology are based around.

I already accept natural selection and speciation, because they have been observed. Now I'll check out if mutations are improving life, if it has been observed, I'll accept it and then I'll say God created life 5776 years ago, and life has been evolving ever since.

And why do you believe that?

You see, if you are right, scientists can "prove" evolution so to speak,

Actually, no. Science doesn't "prove" things. Science only provides evidence for and explanatory frameworks which can test certain hypotheses.

but history is outside the realm of science.

Again, no. Science is more than capable of being used to test historical claims. It's not that history is "outside the realm" of science, it's just that the majority of historical claims leave no testable evidence other than written testimony and accounts. However, it is relatively simple for science to test for claims such as the age of the earth and the existence of a global flood. These things WOULD leave scientifically verifiable evidence behind.

No one can go back in time to observe the moment of Creation.

We also have only known about Pluto for less than 90 years, and yet we know it takes around 200 years to orbit the Sun. How, if nobody has observed it that long? Simple. We have the mathematics, the observations and the ability to make accurate predictions based on those facts. We don't have to have direct, eye-witness testimony if we have solid facts in the world around us now that indicate something to us.

Our best historical records put Creation 5776 years ago.

Then how can ancient civilizations exist that pre-date the supposed creation of the Universe? There are flutes that are at least seven times older than that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_flutes

So even if I accept the science of evolution, I'm taking this out of the realm of science into the realm of history. I haven't looked at it yet, but I am prepared to say, "Yep, all life is evolving and God still created life 5776 years ago." Produce an ancient manuscript written by your mythological Neanderthal that says different.

Do you honestly think the only evidence that means anything is writing? Well, nevertheless, I think these stone tablets that were written between 7 and 9 thousand years ago would definitely disagree with you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tărtăria_tablets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispilio_Tablet

 

[Shad]

I know it would be exciting to see something like that, even if it did turn out to be a hoax- it still could make a lot of news. I trust these guys as credible if for no other reason than that they are honest and well meaning.

One can believe something that is false and still be honest and well meaning. Neither has any merit for an argument. Appeals to emotion, nothing more.

But even I think their website, I mean, it just doesn't seem professional. It is a lot of good information, I just don't want to look like a joke here, but it's already too late, so here is the website of these creation historians www.annomundi.com. In one of the books I bought from that website is a mention of some of the stuff in those old libraries. I wish there were more credible and more educated scholars who were doing this work instead of these guys. There is just no interest in looking at all these mythological books and manuscripts except from fundamentalist Christians and they are only interested when it supports their theology. But if they said they saw an old manuscript with a T Rex in it, I don't believe they are liars.

Typical ideological slant. Every other flood mythology must confirm the one that the author believes in. This is nothing more than parallelism along with omission of accounts in which the stories vary greatly. In some of the Chinese flood mythology the flood was stopped by a human. However lets not let such a details conflict with the ideology... Mike Gascoigne has zero formal training which is not only evident from his CV but also his conclusion. More so the opening of the page includes a fallacy as a premise.

"I have always believed that the order and complexity of the natural world is a consequence of design, and it could not have developed of its own accord from a primeval chaos, purely as a matter of chance."

Argument from incredulity. I can not imagine X thus my presupposition is true.

More so a lot of his work in based on the hack Cooper.