Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

[Gilrandir]

Yes, and I the age would be a debate on chronology not something i care to much for. I go with 10,000 as that is usually the max age given by conservative scholars. If you want arguments for those chronologies see here.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/
https://creation.com/journal-of-creation-articles

How come not all modern species were created when older ones were? Or did the creator interfere now and then at a later stage to create something new?

[total relism]

How come not all modern species were created when older ones were? Or did the creator interfere now and then at a later stage to create something new?

post 39- General information about creation and science such as noahs flood, natural selection, mutations etc
post 40- predictions based on creation

[Gilrandir]

We believe Noah's flood was global killing all land dwelling life at that time. We believe this is confirmed by the fact that there are trillions of dead plants and animals laid down by water in massive graves all over the earth.

In other words, all existing species were saved by one single person from the flood and all dinosaurs and mammoths weren't and died and fossilized?
This version still doesn't answer why modern species aren't found fossilized together with dinosaurs and how extinct species which science claims to belong to different ages are not found together (e.g. mammoths and dinosaurs).

[total relism]

In other words, all existing species were saved by one single person from the flood and all dinosaurs and mammoths weren't and died and fossilized?
This version still doesn't answer why modern species aren't found fossilized together with dinosaurs and how extinct species which science claims to belong to different ages are not found together (e.g. mammoths and dinosaurs).

Thanks for taking the time to read on creation and sorry if this is confusing. Noah and his family built an ark that all land dwelling air breathing kinds of animals were saved on and this includes the 40 or so dinosaur kinds and elephant kind [mammoth]. They have since gone extinct with their ancestors of some still around such as the modern elephant.


So according to creation we would not find modern species with dinosaurs but only kinds [often family] with dinosaurs. Evolution [not science] claims these are different ages and i can see why you would see that as a logical explanation, as it would be. But as my op showed it does follow circular reasoning and their are multiple reasons to reject this interpretation.


So your valid question is are not modern kinds found with dinosaurs if they lived at the same time. I would say many have been found and more all the time and often when an animals is found in the wrong layer, it is exspalined away see my post on dating fossils.

animals alive today found with dinosaurs fossils

“We found fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today including: arthropods (insects, crustaceans etc.), shellfish, echinoderms (starfish, crinoids, brittle stars, etc.), corals, sponges, and segmented worms (earthworms, marine worms).
“The vertebrates—animals with backbones such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals—show this same pattern.”“Cartilaginous fish (sharks and rays), boney fish (such as sturgeon, paddlefish, salmon, herring, flounder and bowfin) and jawless fish (hagfish and lamprey) have been found in the dinosaur layers and they look the same as modern forms.“Modern-looking frogs and salamanders have been found in dinosaur dig sites.“All of today’s reptile groups have been found in the dinosaur layers and they look the same or similar to modern forms: Snakes (boa constrictor), lizards (ground lizards and gliding lizards), turtles (box turtles, soft-shelled turtles), and crocodilians (alligators, crocodiles and gavials).”“Contrary to popular belief, modern types of birds have been found, including: parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, flamigos etc. At the dinosaur dig sites, scientists have found many unusual extinct mammal forms such as the multituberculates2 but they have also found fossilized mammals that look like squirrels, possums, Tasmanian devils, hedgehogs, shrews, beavers, primates, and duck-billed platypus. “Few are aware of the great number of mammal species found with dinosaurs. Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers
- Kielan-Jaworowska, Z., Kielan, Cifelli, R.L. and Luo, Z.X., Mammals from the Age of Dinosaurs: Origins, Evolution, and Structure, Columbia University Press, NY, 2004

almost as many as the number of dinosaur species. These include nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons. But where are these fossils? We visited 60 museums but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur layers displayed at any of these museums. This is amazing. Also, we saw only a few dozen incomplete skeletons/single bones of the 432 mammal species found so far. Why don’t the museums display these mammal fossils and also the bird fossils?”
“In the dinosaur rock layers, we found fossils from every major plant division living today including: flowering plants, ginkgos, cone trees, moss, vascular mosses, cycads, and ferns. Again, if you look at these fossils and compare them to modern forms, you will quickly conclude that the plants have not changed. Fossil sequoias, magnolias, dogwoods, poplars and redwoods, lily pads, cycads, ferns, horsetails etc. have been found at the dinosaur digs.” Along with dinosaurs, the finds included an extinct bird named Rahonavis, a short-bodied crocodile-like creature called Simosuchus, and a toad that Krause and his colleagues named Beelzebufo.
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic....sil-by-fossil/

Many people are surprised when they hear of these creatures being buried together and wonder why they never heard of it before. Below is one evolutionary paleontologist’s explanation.

“We find mammals in almost all of our [dinosaur dig] sites. These were not noticed years ago … . We have about 20,000 pounds of bentonite clay that has mammal fossils that we are trying to give away to some researcher. It’s not that they are not important, it’s just that you only live once and I specialized in something other than mammals. I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs.”
Interview with Dr Donald Burge, curator of vertebrate paleontology, College of Eastern Utah Prehistoric Museum by Dr Carl Werner, 13 February 2001, in Living Fossils—Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 2, New Leaf Press, 2009, p. 173

squirls, beavers, tasmanian devils, racoon tracks, mamel skin, 20 ponund rodent found with dinasurs. They are found with oak trees, willow trees, magnolia, firs and wollemi pine.
Consider how many more tens of thousands of fossil mammals in ‘dinosaur rock’ are likely being similarly ignored in other parts of the world, with the likelihood of finding even more representatives of the same kinds as modern-day mammals.9
Interviewed in Creation magazine,10 Dr Carl Werner pointed out that already over 432 mammal species have been identified in ‘dinosaur rock’, including nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons. Yet in his extensive travels to 60 museums across the world researching his documentary series, only a few dozen of these species were featured in displays, with not one complete skeleton.
As for the ‘Age of Dinosaurs’, another evolutionary paleontologist explains;
“In a sense, ‘The Age of Dinosaurs’ … is a misnomer … Mammals are just one such important group that lived with the dinosaurs, coexisted with the dinosaurs, and survived the dinosaurs.
Interview with Dr Zhe-Xi Luo, curator of vertebrate paleontology and associate director of research and collections at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, by Dr Carl Werner, 17 May 2004, in Ref. 8
squires,platypus,beaver badger found with dinos
35–37 The so-called ‘age of dinosaurs’
by Calvin Smith creation mag Volume 33, Issue 3July 2011

Large Groundhog
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=133092
Dog like animal with dinosaur remains in its stomach
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosau...rd-to-swallow/

Dinosaur Fossil Found in Mammal's Stomach


robably is the first proof that mammals hunted small dinosaurs some 130 million years ago. It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles.

http://www.livescience.com/3794-dino...l-stomach.html




“If paleontologist would take a more empirical approach absent the assumption of evolution, the fossil record might appear quite different”
-Micheal Oard Fossil Range extensions continues JOC 27 # 2013

Creationist do not say every species has been around since the beginning. We say each kind has been around since the beginning. The biblical kind is usually at the level of family. So we say a dog, coyote, fox and wolf were not all around from the beginning but shared a common ancestor. So "Canadian geese" would not have been around but its ancestor a similar kind would have. As of 1968 Romer did a study in Vertebrate Paleontology and found 98% of vertebrates families 79.1%, of living families of terrestrial vertebrates and 87.7% of birds have been found in column so far. Along with practically all insects. Time can only raise those numbers.


The argument assumes the circular reasoning and index fossil system built upon evolutionary assumptions to even create a supposed "geological column" and timescales. Add to that The fossil record is always expanding. Organisms are consistently found millions and hundreds of millions of years "earlier and "later" within the evolutionary framework.

“Fossils give a minimum rather than maximum age of a taxon
-Rosen 1985 p 636 geological hierarchies and bibliographic congruence in the carabian annals of the Missouri botanical garden 72:636-659

Further fossils are found out of place all the time extending there range by new finds but evolutionist just keep changing there story. Fossils are reclassified as a separate “species” even though identical or near identical [same kind] when they are found “out of place” to save the idea of a geological column. The evolutionist also employ rescuing devices.


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


MIXED-UP FOSSILS—(*#14/27*) Have you ever noticed that, on the standard strata time charts, certain fossils will always be in certain strata? That is another generalization in the evolutionary theory that does not prove to be correct. In reality, fossils are frequently found in the wrong place,—especially far below the strata where they are first supposed to have "evolved" into existence.
There are three ways that the experts deal with this problem: (1) Ignore the evidence. (2) When large numbers of fossils are found in solid rock below their proper strata, they are said to have been "downwashed" through the solid rock into lower strata. (3) When they are found above their theoretical strata, they are said to have "reworked" themselves into a higher strata. That is, they slipped, slid, or fell up through solid rock into higher levels. REWORKING AND DOWNWASH—As noted in the above paragraph, "Reworking" and "downwash" are used to explain fossils which, by their location, disprove the theory.
-Vance Ferrell Science vs evolution



Next the fossil record is not full, evolutionist would say this even more so saying very few animals have been preserved though earths history. Thus many organisms lived alongside others that were preserved while they were not.


Mammals tend to "float and bloat" and avoid fossilization. That is why the fossil record is almost entirely hard shell deep sea organisms. 95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms like corals and shellfish. Algae and plants make up 95% of the reaming fossils. Than 95% are invertebrates and insects. .0125% are vertebrates most of them fish. So the chance of finding any number of living species with any fossilized land organism is slim.


Creationist agree with a certain amount of fossil "sorting" but not based on evolutionary assumptions.

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils...vor-long-ages/

Lets say everything today drooped dead and became a fossil. How many people would be buried with panda bears? How many with lions with jaguars? how many cows with dear? any humans with turkeys? it would be hard to find. But that does not mean they did not live at the same time. In the fossil record you will not find coelacanth fish with whales or human, yet today we all live together just in different ecological systems so we are not buried together. Also evolution has many problems like these themselves like fossils being in the fossil record than disappearing for hundreds of millions of years but then being found alive today. They are called living fossils. One example with Dino's they say no grass was around as it had not yet evolved. Yet they found all the grass family's in Dino stomachs and Dino droppings. How can this be according to evolution? Dino's eating grass that hasn't evolved yet.


What Do We Find in the Fossil Record?
The first issue to consider is what we actually find in the fossil record.
~95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.
~95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants.
~95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects.
The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. (95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age after the Flood.)1
The number of dinosaur fossils is actually relatively small, compared to other types of creatures. Since the Flood was a marine catastrophe, we would expect marine fossils to be dominant in the fossil record. And that is the case.Vertebrates are not as common as other types of life-forms. This makes sense of these percentages and helps us understand why vertebrates, including dinosaurs, are so rare and even overwhelmed by marine organisms in the record.

[Gilrandir]

Thanks for taking the time to read on creation and sorry if this is confusing. Noah and his family built an ark that all land dwelling air breathing kinds of animals were saved on and this includes the 40 or so dinosaur kinds and elephant kind [mammoth]. They have since gone extinct with their ancestors of some still around such as the modern elephant.


So according to creation we would not find modern species with dinosaurs but only kinds [often family] with dinosaurs. Evolution [not science] claims these are different ages and i can see why you would see that as a logical explanation, as it would be. But as my op showed it does follow circular reasoning and their are multiple reasons to reject this interpretation.


So your valid question is are not modern kinds found with dinosaurs if they lived at the same time. I would say many have been found and more all the time and often when an animals is found in the wrong layer, it is exspalined away see my post on dating fossils.

animals alive today found with dinosaurs fossils

“We found fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today including: arthropods (insects, crustaceans etc.), shellfish, echinoderms (starfish, crinoids, brittle stars, etc.), corals, sponges, and segmented worms (earthworms, marine worms).
“The vertebrates—animals with backbones such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals—show this same pattern.”“Cartilaginous fish (sharks and rays), boney fish (such as sturgeon, paddlefish, salmon, herring, flounder and bowfin) and jawless fish (hagfish and lamprey) have been found in the dinosaur layers and they look the same as modern forms.“Modern-looking frogs and salamanders have been found in dinosaur dig sites.“All of today’s reptile groups have been found in the dinosaur layers and they look the same or similar to modern forms: Snakes (boa constrictor), lizards (ground lizards and gliding lizards), turtles (box turtles, soft-shelled turtles), and crocodilians (alligators, crocodiles and gavials).”“Contrary to popular belief, modern types of birds have been found, including: parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, flamigos etc. At the dinosaur dig sites, scientists have found many unusual extinct mammal forms such as the multituberculates2 but they have also found fossilized mammals that look like squirrels, possums, Tasmanian devils, hedgehogs, shrews, beavers, primates, and duck-billed platypus. “Few are aware of the great number of mammal species found with dinosaurs. Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers
- Kielan-Jaworowska, Z., Kielan, Cifelli, R.L. and Luo, Z.X., Mammals from the Age of Dinosaurs: Origins, Evolution, and Structure, Columbia University Press, NY, 2004

almost as many as the number of dinosaur species. These include nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons. But where are these fossils? We visited 60 museums but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur layers displayed at any of these museums. This is amazing. Also, we saw only a few dozen incomplete skeletons/single bones of the 432 mammal species found so far. Why don’t the museums display these mammal fossils and also the bird fossils?”
“In the dinosaur rock layers, we found fossils from every major plant division living today including: flowering plants, ginkgos, cone trees, moss, vascular mosses, cycads, and ferns. Again, if you look at these fossils and compare them to modern forms, you will quickly conclude that the plants have not changed. Fossil sequoias, magnolias, dogwoods, poplars and redwoods, lily pads, cycads, ferns, horsetails etc. have been found at the dinosaur digs.” Along with dinosaurs, the finds included an extinct bird named Rahonavis, a short-bodied crocodile-like creature called Simosuchus, and a toad that Krause and his colleagues named Beelzebufo.
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic....sil-by-fossil/

Many people are surprised when they hear of these creatures being buried together and wonder why they never heard of it before. Below is one evolutionary paleontologist’s explanation.

“We find mammals in almost all of our [dinosaur dig] sites. These were not noticed years ago … . We have about 20,000 pounds of bentonite clay that has mammal fossils that we are trying to give away to some researcher. It’s not that they are not important, it’s just that you only live once and I specialized in something other than mammals. I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs.”
Interview with Dr Donald Burge, curator of vertebrate paleontology, College of Eastern Utah Prehistoric Museum by Dr Carl Werner, 13 February 2001, in Living Fossils—Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 2, New Leaf Press, 2009, p. 173

squirls, beavers, tasmanian devils, racoon tracks, mamel skin, 20 ponund rodent found with dinasurs. They are found with oak trees, willow trees, magnolia, firs and wollemi pine.
Consider how many more tens of thousands of fossil mammals in ‘dinosaur rock’ are likely being similarly ignored in other parts of the world, with the likelihood of finding even more representatives of the same kinds as modern-day mammals.9
Interviewed in Creation magazine,10 Dr Carl Werner pointed out that already over 432 mammal species have been identified in ‘dinosaur rock’, including nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons. Yet in his extensive travels to 60 museums across the world researching his documentary series, only a few dozen of these species were featured in displays, with not one complete skeleton.
As for the ‘Age of Dinosaurs’, another evolutionary paleontologist explains;
“In a sense, ‘The Age of Dinosaurs’ … is a misnomer … Mammals are just one such important group that lived with the dinosaurs, coexisted with the dinosaurs, and survived the dinosaurs.
Interview with Dr Zhe-Xi Luo, curator of vertebrate paleontology and associate director of research and collections at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, by Dr Carl Werner, 17 May 2004, in Ref. 8
squires,platypus,beaver badger found with dinos
35–37 The so-called ‘age of dinosaurs’
by Calvin Smith creation mag Volume 33, Issue 3July 2011

Large Groundhog
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=133092
Dog like animal with dinosaur remains in its stomach
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosau...rd-to-swallow/

Dinosaur Fossil Found in Mammal's Stomach


robably is the first proof that mammals hunted small dinosaurs some 130 million years ago. It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles.

http://www.livescience.com/3794-dino...l-stomach.html




“If paleontologist would take a more empirical approach absent the assumption of evolution, the fossil record might appear quite different”
-Micheal Oard Fossil Range extensions continues JOC 27 # 2013

Creationist do not say every species has been around since the beginning. We say each kind has been around since the beginning. The biblical kind is usually at the level of family. So we say a dog, coyote, fox and wolf were not all around from the beginning but shared a common ancestor. So "Canadian geese" would not have been around but its ancestor a similar kind would have. As of 1968 Romer did a study in Vertebrate Paleontology and found 98% of vertebrates families 79.1%, of living families of terrestrial vertebrates and 87.7% of birds have been found in column so far. Along with practically all insects. Time can only raise those numbers.


The argument assumes the circular reasoning and index fossil system built upon evolutionary assumptions to even create a supposed "geological column" and timescales. Add to that The fossil record is always expanding. Organisms are consistently found millions and hundreds of millions of years "earlier and "later" within the evolutionary framework.

“Fossils give a minimum rather than maximum age of a taxon
-Rosen 1985 p 636 geological hierarchies and bibliographic congruence in the carabian annals of the Missouri botanical garden 72:636-659

Further fossils are found out of place all the time extending there range by new finds but evolutionist just keep changing there story. Fossils are reclassified as a separate “species” even though identical or near identical [same kind] when they are found “out of place” to save the idea of a geological column. The evolutionist also employ rescuing devices.


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


MIXED-UP FOSSILS—(*#14/27*) Have you ever noticed that, on the standard strata time charts, certain fossils will always be in certain strata? That is another generalization in the evolutionary theory that does not prove to be correct. In reality, fossils are frequently found in the wrong place,—especially far below the strata where they are first supposed to have "evolved" into existence.
There are three ways that the experts deal with this problem: (1) Ignore the evidence. (2) When large numbers of fossils are found in solid rock below their proper strata, they are said to have been "downwashed" through the solid rock into lower strata. (3) When they are found above their theoretical strata, they are said to have "reworked" themselves into a higher strata. That is, they slipped, slid, or fell up through solid rock into higher levels. REWORKING AND DOWNWASH—As noted in the above paragraph, "Reworking" and "downwash" are used to explain fossils which, by their location, disprove the theory.
-Vance Ferrell Science vs evolution



Next the fossil record is not full, evolutionist would say this even more so saying very few animals have been preserved though earths history. Thus many organisms lived alongside others that were preserved while they were not.


Mammals tend to "float and bloat" and avoid fossilization. That is why the fossil record is almost entirely hard shell deep sea organisms. 95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms like corals and shellfish. Algae and plants make up 95% of the reaming fossils. Than 95% are invertebrates and insects. .0125% are vertebrates most of them fish. So the chance of finding any number of living species with any fossilized land organism is slim.


Creationist agree with a certain amount of fossil "sorting" but not based on evolutionary assumptions.

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils...vor-long-ages/

Lets say everything today drooped dead and became a fossil. How many people would be buried with panda bears? How many with lions with jaguars? how many cows with dear? any humans with turkeys? it would be hard to find. But that does not mean they did not live at the same time. In the fossil record you will not find coelacanth fish with whales or human, yet today we all live together just in different ecological systems so we are not buried together. Also evolution has many problems like these themselves like fossils being in the fossil record than disappearing for hundreds of millions of years but then being found alive today. They are called living fossils. One example with Dino's they say no grass was around as it had not yet evolved. Yet they found all the grass family's in Dino stomachs and Dino droppings. How can this be according to evolution? Dino's eating grass that hasn't evolved yet.


What Do We Find in the Fossil Record?
The first issue to consider is what we actually find in the fossil record.
~95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.
~95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants.
~95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects.
The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. (95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age after the Flood.)1
The number of dinosaur fossils is actually relatively small, compared to other types of creatures. Since the Flood was a marine catastrophe, we would expect marine fossils to be dominant in the fossil record. And that is the case.Vertebrates are not as common as other types of life-forms. This makes sense of these percentages and helps us understand why vertebrates, including dinosaurs, are so rare and even overwhelmed by marine organisms in the record.

I don't see how this supports your claim of all antediluvian creatures living at the same time. It was well known before that small mammals appeared in the time of dinosaurs. Since dinosaurs varied in size it well could be that small mammals hunted even smaller dinosaurs.

You still didn't provide any proofs of mammoths being fossilized together with dinosaurs. And you seem to have overlooked the issue of dating in your post. The only date I saw was 130 million years ago which overthrows your 7000 year dating claim.

To draw the line: even if there are inconsistencies in the current evolution theory none of them are serious enough to doubt a much older life of the Universe (to say nothing of the Earth) than the Bible suggests.

[Pannonian]

To draw the line: even if there are inconsistencies in the current evolution theory none of them are serious enough to doubt a much older life of the Universe (to say nothing of the Earth) than the Bible suggests.

We haven't finalised the value of pi. We are still finding ever more accurate approximations.

Ergo God did it.

[total relism]

I don't see how this supports your claim of all antediluvian creatures living at the same time. It was well known before that small mammals appeared in the time of dinosaurs. Since dinosaurs varied in size it well could be that small mammals hunted even smaller dinosaurs.

You still didn't provide any proofs of mammoths being fossilized together with dinosaurs. And you seem to have overlooked the issue of dating in your post. The only date I saw was 130 million years ago which overthrows your 7000 year dating claim.

To draw the line: even if there are inconsistencies in the current evolution theory none of them are serious enough to doubt a much older life of the Universe (to say nothing of the Earth) than the Bible suggests.

I am not sure it cannot. My point is many modern species are found with dinosaurs, the fossil record is expanding, it is adjusted to "fit" the standard view, it is based on circular reasoning, and the chances of finding any one kind with a dinosaur is very, very,very low such as a mammoth with a dino. And if they are found tomorrow, you would just pick another kind not found with dinos. Most important, just because animals are not buried together does not mean they did not live at the same time.

As for the dating it was an evolutionist source and used the standard dating, of course i reject it for the reasons i gave in my op. I think of course there is good reason to doubt an old earth and not much to the evidence for an old earth. But this area is not what makes me a creationist as i think both sides have indicators in their favor, but all are based on bad assumptions and unproven. That is why other areas more to observation/demonstration such as biology hold more weight imo.

[total relism]

We haven't finalised the value of pi. We are still finding ever more accurate approximations.

Ergo God did it.

evolution is refuted by science in many ways, thus we should not allow our personal bias to not explore other options that make more sense.

“Our claim that nature’s design is produced by a real designer can be tested by observation and is mathematically quantifiable. Furthermore, compared to the legacy of evolutionary thinking, it liberates minds to pursue more rational approaches toward scientific research.”
-Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. 2011

[Gilrandir]

My point is many modern species are found with dinosaurs,

It is not news. Paleontology has claimed for years that many modern species appeared before dinosaurs so they lived for some time together until the latter were exti... oops, until they couldn't pay their fare on the arc. For example, crocodiles, sharks, a number of insects.

Moreover, we seem to forget that evolution could move at different pace in different part of the world. Like Australia abounds in marsupials not found anywhere else and doesn't have indigenous higher mammals and primates.

the fossil record is expanding, it is adjusted to "fit" the standard view,

Don't you call it "development of the theory"? Any theory is liable to change when new discoveries are made. It is only religion that desires to keep everything as it was a thousand years before. Perhaps because at that time the church was a virtual ruler of the world and clerics were among the richest potentates of the time?

it is based on circular reasoning,

At least there IS reasoning, not just reiterating "modern science can't explain it, so the universal answer is God created it in such a way."

both sides have indicators in their favor, but all are based on bad assumptions and unproven.

After that statement I would call it a day and admit there was no call to start the thread at all.

[total relism]

It is not news. Paleontology has claimed for years that many modern species appeared before dinosaurs so they lived for some time together until the latter were exti... oops, until they couldn't pay their fare on the arc. For example, crocodiles, sharks, a number of insects.

Moreover, we seem to forget that evolution could move at different pace in different part of the world. Like Australia abounds in marsupials not found anywhere else and doesn't have indigenous higher mammals and primates.



Don't you call it "development of the theory"? Any theory is liable to change when new discoveries are made. It is only religion that desires to keep everything as it was a thousand years before. Perhaps because at that time the church was a virtual ruler of the world and clerics were among the richest potentates of the time?



At least there IS reasoning, not just reiterating "modern science can't explain it, so the universal answer is God created it in such a way."





After that statement I would call it a day and admit there was no call to start the thread at all.

Proving my point. BTW dinosaurs were on the ark.


"A theory loses credibility if it must be repeatedly modified over years of testing or if it requires excuses being continually made for why its predictions are not consistent with new discoveries of data. It is not a propitious attribute for a theory to have required numerous secondary modifications. Some evolutionists misunderstand this and attempt to point to the continuous string of modifications to evolution theory as a justification for classifying it as the exclusive respectable scientific theory on origins. They often make the strange claim that creation theory could not be scientific because it fits the evidence so perfectly that it never has required any modification. That line of reasoning is like saying that the law of gravity is not scientific since it fits the facts so perfectly that it never needs modification."
—Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 31.



Very true,only the religion of the day that seeks to fight change is evolution.


"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit with it. . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." —*H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980) [emphasis his].


"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."
—*L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).



Trust me it is the creationist seeking major changes. Perhaps the evoutionist hates change for the same reaons today, Perhaps because at that time evolutionist was a virtual ruler of the world and scientist among the richest in grants and respected potentates of the time?




I would rather go with reasoning than illogical reasoning. You might disagree with creation reasoning of fossil sorting, but at least its logical.




“People dont believe lies because they have to, but because they want to”
-Malcolm Muggeridge

[Pannonian]

evolution is refuted by science in many ways, thus we should not allow our personal bias to not explore other options that make more sense.

“Our claim that nature’s design is produced by a real designer can be tested by observation and is mathematically quantifiable. Furthermore, compared to the legacy of evolutionary thinking, it liberates minds to pursue more rational approaches toward scientific research.”
-Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. 2011

This bit shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what science is.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Positivist science is supposed to be self-correcting over time. The scientific method is about proving what can be proved and then basing reasonable conclusions as to understanding a phenomenon based on what can be confirmed through research. It is SUPPOSED to alter when it encounters either contradictory results or the state of the art allows for a newer and fuller understanding based on the use of an improved research methodology. The theory of evolution has been tested and re-tested and yes, some of the data collected by research does not fit with the current explanation as promulgated in that theory. This becomes the tool for enhancing that theory and making it a more accurate explanation/predictor, as new research is used to explain and resolve the anomalies. If the anomalies come to outnumber the provable facts, we end up with what Kuhn labeled a 'paradigm shift' as the prior central theory is discarded and a new one takes its place.

Newton's discussion of gravity and energy were not "wrong" even though they fell short at explaining some phenomena. intellectual progress and new ways of learning information demonstrated that his theories were limited because even though they worked pretty well to describe terrestrial conditions, they fell short past the atmosphere. So F=ma becomes E=mc² becomes something else a couple centuries from now. Communication is about the accurate transmission of a message and message fidelity is everything, becomes communication is about how that message is understood by the receiver so interpretation is everything becomes communication is a simultaneous symbol exchange that is inevitably imperfect by we develop rules in the moment to let us negotiate meaning between us becomes who the heck knows what a few decades from now.

Science is not static, "si muove."

[Pannonian]

Ie. scientific theories are revised, not refuted. Newton stood on the shoulders of giants. He didn't crap all over them by showing his superiority and ineffable correctness.

[Gilrandir]

Proving my point. BTW dinosaurs were on the ark.

The proof, please.

"A theory loses credibility if it must be repeatedly modified over years of testing or if it requires excuses being continually made for why its predictions are not consistent with new discoveries of data. It is not a propitious attribute for a theory to have required numerous secondary modifications. Some evolutionists misunderstand this and attempt to point to the continuous string of modifications to evolution theory as a justification for classifying it as the exclusive respectable scientific theory on origins. They often make the strange claim that creation theory could not be scientific because it fits the evidence so perfectly that it never has required any modification. That line of reasoning is like saying that the law of gravity is not scientific since it fits the facts so perfectly that it never needs modification."
—Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 31.

Perfectly answered by Seamus.

What I want to add is that modification of theory leads to changing scholarly paradigm, not to disappearing of science. For instance, it was first believed that likeness between languages can be only attributed to their common ancestor, later it turned out that languages can deeply borrow from one another as a result of their speakers' prolonged coexistence.

Trust me it is the creationist seeking major changes.

That's the best argument ever.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Ie. scientific theories are revised, not refuted. Newton stood on the shoulders of giants. He didn't crap all over them by showing his superiority and ineffable correctness.

Well, later on he did go off on the whole astrology thing....

[total relism]

This bit shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what science is.

Science is based on repeatable observation and demonstration and knowledge gained from it. Evolution contradicts what we observe in many ways, thus is refuted by science.

[total relism]

Positivist science is supposed to be self-correcting over time. The scientific method is about proving what can be proved and then basing reasonable conclusions as to understanding a phenomenon based on what can be confirmed through research. It is SUPPOSED to alter when it encounters either contradictory results or the state of the art allows for a newer and fuller understanding based on the use of an improved research methodology.

Agreed.

The theory of evolution has been tested and re-tested and yes, some of the data collected by research does not fit with the current explanation as promulgated in that theory. This becomes the tool for enhancing that theory and making it a more accurate explanation/predictor, as new research is used to explain and resolve the anomalies. If the anomalies come to outnumber the provable facts, we end up with what Kuhn labeled a 'paradigm shift' as the prior central theory is discarded and a new one takes its place.

Once more this is how it is suppose to work, and the rise of modern creation and ID likely are the beginnings of this. However you have left out the politics of it all. If not for the politics the shift would have came but the evolutionary gatekeepers as of known are preventing it.

Newton's discussion of gravity and energy were not "wrong" even though they fell short at explaining some phenomena. intellectual progress and new ways of learning information demonstrated that his theories were limited because even though they worked pretty well to describe terrestrial conditions, they fell short past the atmosphere. So F=ma becomes E=mc² becomes something else a couple centuries from now. Communication is about the accurate transmission of a message and message fidelity is everything, becomes communication is about how that message is understood by the receiver so interpretation is everything becomes communication is a simultaneous symbol exchange that is inevitably imperfect by we develop rules in the moment to let us negotiate meaning between us becomes who the heck knows what a few decades from now.

Science is not static, "si muove."

Agreed. However when a theory increasing has to be altered and increasing is at ods with observation, when can we let science win? and give up the faith?


"Fundamental truths about evolution have so far eluded us all, and that uncritical acceptance of Darwinism may be counterproductive as well as expedient. Far from ignoring or ridiculing the ground-swell of opposition to Darwinism that is growing, for example, in the United States, we should welcome it as an opportunity to reexamine our sacred cow more closely." —*B. Storehouse, "Introduction," in *Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 12.


"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."
—*L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

"A theory loses credibility if it must be repeatedly modified over years of testing or if it requires excuses being continually made for why its predictions are not consistent with new discoveries of data. It is not a propitious attribute for a theory to have required numerous secondary modifications. Some evolutionists misunderstand this and attempt to point to the continuous string of modifications to evolution theory as a justification for classifying it as the exclusive respectable scientific theory on origins. They often make the strange claim that creation theory could not be scientific because it fits the evidence so perfectly that it never has required any modification. That line of reasoning is like saying that the law of gravity is not scientific since it fits the facts so perfectly that it never needs modification."
—Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 31.

[total relism]

Ie. scientific theories are revised, not refuted. Newton stood on the shoulders of giants. He didn't crap all over them by showing his superiority and ineffable correctness.

And overturn those witch contradict science such as evolution.



"Fundamental truths about evolution have so far eluded us all, and that uncritical acceptance of Darwinism may be counterproductive as well as expedient. Far from ignoring or ridiculing the ground-swell of opposition to Darwinism that is growing, for example, in the United States, we should welcome it as an opportunity to reexamine our sacred cow more closely." —*B. Storehouse, "Introduction," in *Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 12.


"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."
—*L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

"A theory loses credibility if it must be repeatedly modified over years of testing or if it requires excuses being continually made for why its predictions are not consistent with new discoveries of data. It is not a propitious attribute for a theory to have required numerous secondary modifications. Some evolutionists misunderstand this and attempt to point to the continuous string of modifications to evolution theory as a justification for classifying it as the exclusive respectable scientific theory on origins. They often make the strange claim that creation theory could not be scientific because it fits the evidence so perfectly that it never has required any modification. That line of reasoning is like saying that the law of gravity is not scientific since it fits the facts so perfectly that it never needs modification."
—Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 31.

[total relism]

The proof, please.


Perfectly answered by Seamus.

What I want to add is that modification of theory leads to changing scholarly paradigm, not to disappearing of science. For instance, it was first believed that likeness between languages can be only attributed to their common ancestor, later it turned out that languages can deeply borrow from one another as a result of their speakers' prolonged coexistence.


That's the best argument ever.

The bible. If you do not believe without scientific proof, how can you than say you believe in evolution? in the biblical model dinosaurs were on the ark, since science deals with observation we cannot do that today just as you cannot disprove it. If you reject gods word than it is outside of testing just like so much of evolution. I never said anything about the disappearance of science, I said maybe the disappearance of evolution as it is contrary to science.



So are you suggesting those in power [evolutionist] in fact want what change and them removed from power?

[Pannonian]

Science is based on repeatable observation and demonstration and knowledge gained from it. Evolution contradicts what we observe in many ways, thus is refuted by science.

So how does creationism follow this method? Where are the experiments showing positive proof of a creator?

[Husar]

The bible. If you do not believe without scientific proof, how can you than say you believe in evolution? in the biblical model dinosaurs were on the ark, since science deals with observation we cannot do that today just as you cannot disprove it. If you reject gods word than it is outside of testing just like so much of evolution. I never said anything about the disappearance of science, I said maybe the disappearance of evolution as it is contrary to science.

https://www.thoughtco.com/dinosaurs-...hs-ark-4061665

To date, paleontologists have named nearly 1,000 genera of dinosaurs, many of which embrace multiple species.
[...]
But Ken Ham goes still further; he insists that there were really only 50 or so different "kinds" of dinosaurs and that two of each could easily have fit on the Ark. By the same token, he manages to whittle down the 10 million or so animal species that we know existed, even during biblical times, into a "worst case scenario" of 7,000, simply, it seems, by waving his arms.

[total relism]

So how does creationism follow this method? Where are the experiments showing positive proof of a creator?

I would rather say where has the bible been tested by science and shown constant with science.

post 39- General information about creation and science such as noahs flood, natural selection, mutations etc
post 40- predictions based on creation
post 41 and 43- the fossil record. Lies evolutionist use to claim missing links and how the fossil record supports creation.
post 1 and 2- Age of the earth
also post 38- why i dont have enough faith to be an evolutionist

[total relism]

https://www.thoughtco.com/dinosaurs-...hs-ark-4061665

I would like to point out this articles author knows nothing of creation or he is lying multiple times in a short article. But that left aside, he said "To date, paleontologists have named nearly 1,000 genera of dinosaurs, many of which embrace multiple species." Nobody said noah took all the species, he took all the land dwelling kinds [family level usually] and even if it were species, he still had the room.

https://www.amazon.com/Noahs-Ark-Fea.../dp/0932766412

the smallest suggested size for the ark could hold 125,000 sheep sized animals only 25,000 known species of mammals birds reptiles amphibians living or extinct avg size much smaller than sheep Noah would have taken babies or adolescent for many reasons suggested creationist kinds around 10,000 to 16,000 there was plenty of room

largest dinosaur egg is the size of a football, noah would have taken 2 smaller and younger animals to reproduce after flood not full grown adults.Size of young t-rex
http://www.icr.org/article/6130/



Dinosaur species continue to fall, many species are just younger versions of adult dinos.
Tiny dinosaur creates paleontology puzzle discovery.com 4 jan 2010 journal of vertebrate paleontology 30 [4] 1157-1168 2010
new scientist 207 [2771] 6-7 2010
journal of vertebrate paleontology 29[1] 291-294 2009
news national geographic .com/news2009/10/091009-dinosaur species never existed.html oct 2009
Also species incorrectly named because of incomplete fossils


dinosaur species incorrectly named because of incomplete fossils
dalton fossil quality and naming dinosaur biology letters 4 [6] 729-732 dec 2008

there are errors in almost half the names given to dinosaurs
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/0809...s2008.111.html 17 sep 2008

reducing numbers of dinos
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dino...ye-anatotitan/

[Pannonian]

I would rather say where has the bible been tested by science and shown constant with science.

post 39- General information about creation and science such as noahs flood, natural selection, mutations etc
post 40- predictions based on creation
post 41 and 43- the fossil record. Lies evolutionist use to claim missing links and how the fossil record supports creation.
post 1 and 2- Age of the earth
also post 38- why i dont have enough faith to be an evolutionist

What were the tests? Explain each test in a paragraph of plain English.

Eg. Plate tectonics describes plates of solid rock floating on seas of molten rock. The areas between plates are called faultlines, where molten rock flows out to form new solid rock. An example of a faultline is the mid-Atlantic rift that separates the Eurasian and American plates, with the rift emerging above sea level in Iceland.

There ya go, a simplified explanation of plate tectonics in a short paragraph of plain English, complete with example. What are those experiments you talk about that prove creationism? Please explain in similarly concise form. Or does your home schooling not extend to erudite English, and you can only copy and paste?

[Husar]

the smallest suggested size for the ark could hold 125,000 sheep sized animals only 25,000 known species of mammals birds reptiles amphibians living or extinct avg size much smaller than sheep Noah would have taken babies or adolescent for many reasons suggested creationist kinds around 10,000 to 16,000 there was plenty of room

largest dinosaur egg is the size of a football, noah would have taken 2 smaller and younger animals to reproduce after flood not full grown adults.Size of young t-rex

Plus room for them to move around, food and water for all of them for 370 days, room for the small animals to grow larger, teaching them all the things their parents would teach them and/or breeding the eggs every day...
And it is actually not all that big: http://fpcnorthportfl.net/noahs-ark-its-size-etc/

Not to forget that quite a few animals would reproduce several times in 370 days, especially bacteria but also other small animals.
https://video.nationalgeographic.com...n_reproduction

Rat Reproduction
You can't call them lazy. Once a female rat reproduces, she could have 15,000 descendants by the end of just one year!

But I guess that and the much larger size of grown insects back then was also calculated into the food and water needs? How were the food needs of carnivores and parasites satisfied?

And since you put an emphasis on them all having been land animals, how did they get there from multiple different continents?

[total relism]

What were the tests? Explain each test in a paragraph of plain English.

Eg. Plate tectonics describes plates of solid rock floating on seas of molten rock. The areas between plates are called faultlines, where molten rock flows out to form new solid rock. An example of a faultline is the mid-Atlantic rift that separates the Eurasian and American plates, with the rift emerging above sea level in Iceland.

There ya go, a simplified explanation of plate tectonics in a short paragraph of plain English, complete with example. What are those experiments you talk about that prove creationism? Please explain in similarly concise form. Or does your home schooling not extend to erudite English, and you can only copy and paste?

I am trying to avoid large copy paste anymore please see those posts.


Age of earth- many indicators say the earth cannot be millions of years old and there are issues/assumptions with any method that claims otherwise.

Fossil record- The fossil record shows what creation predicts, diverse animal kinds with variation within the kind.


Biological change- All change observed through mutations/ adaptation/natural selection are constant with the biblical mode of separate created kinds with large amounts of built in diversity that now suffer from the fall and as a result mutation lose information and destroy what is already present.

Flood- billions of dead plants and animals rapidly buried around the world confirm a global flood

design- complexity past human ability and design are clear in nature


origin of life- comes from intelligence, supported by science.


non material- evolution cannot account for non material logic, memory, laws of nature, morality, information, intelligence


Science- evolution cannot exspalin the origin of science.




few others but that is the basics.

[total relism]

Plus room for them to move around, food and water for all of them for 370 days, room for the small animals to grow larger, teaching them all the things their parents would teach them and/or breeding the eggs every day...
And it is actually not all that big: http://fpcnorthportfl.net/noahs-ark-its-size-etc/

Not to forget that quite a few animals would reproduce several times in 370 days, especially bacteria but also other small animals.
https://video.nationalgeographic.com...n_reproduction


But I guess that and the much larger size of grown insects back then was also calculated into the food and water needs? How were the food needs of carnivores and parasites satisfied?

And since you put an emphasis on them all having been land animals, how did they get there from multiple different continents?

I would say very large, one was built to dimensions in Kentucky.
https://arkencounter.com/


There was indeed room for them and food with some to spare. There was not much growing larger in the time frame. Neither was thewre likely much

"teaching them all the things their parents would teach them and/or breeding the eggs every day."



On the rats my guess would be bring them at an age before they can reproduce. Or feed them to the bigger animals on the insects, well they were not on the ark so that solves that pretty easy. As for the food needs of carnivores, my guess is they were fed. How did they spread out after the flood? my guess those that walk walked, those that ran, ran, jumped, hopped, swam etc

[Gilrandir]

in the biblical model dinosaurs were on the ark,

Quote, please, Bible where dinosaurs on the ark are mentioned.

Dinosaur species continue to fall, many species are just younger versions of adult dinos.

In fact, there was only one species of dinosaurs. Paleontologists just assembled the found bones in different ways.

Plus room for them to move around, food and water for all of them for 370 days, room for the small animals to grow larger, teaching them all the things their parents would teach them and/or breeding the eggs every day...
And it is actually not all that big: http://fpcnorthportfl.net/noahs-ark-its-size-etc/

Not to forget that quite a few animals would reproduce several times in 370 days, especially bacteria but also other small animals.
https://video.nationalgeographic.com...n_reproduction


But I guess that and the much larger size of grown insects back then was also calculated into the food and water needs? How were the food needs of carnivores and parasites satisfied?

And since you put an emphasis on them all having been land animals, how did they get there from multiple different continents?

You are taking over after me? Keep going. I'm tired.

[total relism]

Quote, please, Bible where dinosaurs on the ark are mentioned.



In fact, there was only one species of dinosaurs. Paleontologists just assembled the found bones in different ways.



You are taking over after me? Keep going. I'm tired.

Dinosaur means 'terrible lizard" and was not used until the 1800's. They were land air breathing dwellers so they fall under the category of animals on the ark.


And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground,...And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground,

[Husar]

Dinosaur means 'terrible lizard" and was not used until the 1800's. They were land air breathing dwellers so they fall under the category of animals on the ark.


And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground,...And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground,

Yes, note how that totally includes most insects.