Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

[Gilrandir]

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,

So dinosaurs, together with mammoths, were saved from the deluge and after they disembarked they just went extinct for no reason? In matters of hundreds of years? While other animals keep living till today?

[Pannonian]

So dinosaurs, together with mammoths, were saved from the deluge and after they disembarked they just went extinct for no reason? In matters of hundreds of years? While other animals keep living till today?

Of course. Dinosaurs were hunted into extinction by humans. The KT boundary marks the point where humans roasted their dinosaur prey and left their mark on the landscape. It's all there in the science.

[total relism]

Yes, note how that totally includes most insects.

“For the life [Hebrew: nep̄eš] of the flesh is in the blood [Hebrew: dām]” (Leviticus 17:11, 14; cf. Genesis 9:4; Deuteronomy 12:23). Insects do not have blood;

“in which is the breath of life,” (Hebrew: ’ăšer-bô rûaḥ ḥayyîm; Genesis 7:15, 22; cf. Job 7:7). Like bāśār, this additional phrase is never conclusively used of invertebrates. Additionally, in Genesis 7:22 the statement is made that “all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died.” The Hebrew word ’ap̄ refers literally to the nose or nostrils. Insects do not have nostrils (or lungs), and do not intake air the same way as most other land animals.

[total relism]

So dinosaurs, together with mammoths, were saved from the deluge and after they disembarked they just went extinct for no reason? In matters of hundreds of years? While other animals keep living till today?

Today they are probable all extinct [like many other organisms] likely due to climate change after the flood during the ice age as so many species did from diet change or perhaps human hunting of larger animals. Like tigers and elephants in many area went extinct due to human hunting until laws protected them. However there are many stories/ paintings/ recorded history of dinosaurs that suggest they lived at least in small numbers for long periods after the flood.

[total relism]

Of course. Dinosaurs were hunted into extinction by humans. The KT boundary marks the point where humans roasted their dinosaur prey and left their mark on the landscape. It's all there in the science.

Did a comet kill the dinosaurs?

Some scientists blame comets for the lack of dinosaurs on earth today. They hypothesize that a large comet collided with our planet long ago. This resulted in great clouds of dust in the air, which shielded the sun and cooled the earth's climate for many years. Since dinosaurs could not adjust to the colder weather, they perished. This is just one of many theories about the demise of the dinosaurs. The list of suggested catastrophes, both on the earth and in the sky, is considerable. Some of the other astronomical events used to explain the death of dinosaurs are:

The sun became either too hot or too cold for dinosaurs.
The world's climate became either too dry or too wet.
A supernova exploded nearby, spraying the earth with radiation.
Earth 's magnetic field reversed, and incoming radiation killed most life.
A passing comet poisoned the earth with chemicals.
A giant meteorite crashed into the sea, and a tidal wave then swept the land and drowned life.
There is a lack of supporting evidence for any of these events! Instead, creationists suggest that most dinosaurs died as a result of the great flood described in Genesis 6-8. Dinosaur types which were preserved on the ark probably faced severe climate changes following the flood. Creation research continues to demonstrate the importance of the worldwide flood in explaining earth's history


Mammals eating dinosaur eggs.
New narcotic plants evolved.
Global cooling/global warming.
Loss of plants causing herbivores to starve, which in turn caused the carnivores to starve.
Lowering of oxygen partial pressure in the atmosphere.
Great impact theory
The current ‘glamour’ theory was proposed by the geologist Walter Alvarez in about 1980, that a meteor strike 66.4 million years ago caused dramatic climatic changes much like ‘nuclear winter’. This caused the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other species. His evidence was his discovery of an allegedly world-wide layer of clay with a high iridium content. His father Luis, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1968 for work on subatomic particles, helped him publicize the theory. It is now accepted as ‘proven fact’ in many circles, and popularized in ‘documentaries’ such as Walking with Dinosaurs.
Problems with the ‘great impact’ theory
The secular book The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy exposes the way that the meteor explanation for the dinosaur extinction has become a new dogma that has way outstripped the evidence (see review by Carl Wieland in Journal of Creation 12(2):154–158, 1998). Some of the reasons are:
The extinction was not that sudden (using evolutionary/long age interpretations of the geological record). But the spread in the geological record makes sense if much of the sedimentary deposits were formed in Noah’s Flood.
Light-sensitive species survived.
Extinctions don’t correlate with crater dates.
Modern volcanic eruptions don’t cause global extinction patterns, even if they cause a temporary temperature drop.
The iridium enrichment, supposedly a key proof of meteor impact, is not nearly as clearly defined as claimed.
Drill cores of the apparent ‘smoking gun’ Chicxulub Crater on the Yucatán peninsula in south-east Mexico do not support the idea that it is an impact crater.
It seems that some scientists didn’t speak out against the idea for fear of undermining the ‘nuclear winter’ idea, and being grouped with ‘nuclear warmongers’.
http://creation.com/book-review-the-...on-controversy

There are serious problems with the evidence proposed for any of these events. Take the large asteroid impact theory, for example. Why would that event only wipe out the dinosaurs and not the ducks, squirrels, beavers, etc. that co-existed with them as mentioned above? Not to mention lizards and crocodiles, supposedly their close cousins? Some evolutionists dispute the evidence of this impact as causing dino extinction
http://creation.com/dino-impact-theory-takes-a-hit

dino extinction circular reasoning
http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-233

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n4 anwsers v vol 4 sites journal of the geological society [166] 393-411 that shows problems with the theory of a comet destroying the dinos.

dino teeth found above kt boundary and a few other dino remains p371
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,6438,226.aspx


climate change killed the dinosaurs problems with this idea
p116 In the beginning walt brown 2008
problems for asteroid killing the dinasours
p116-117 In the beginning walt brown p116-117

mass extinctions
volcanic dust has similar chemical signature to a asteroid
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,5697,224.aspx

[Pannonian]

climate change killed the dinosaurs problems with this idea
p116 In the beginning walt brown 2008
problems for asteroid killing the dinasours
p116-117 In the beginning walt brown p116-117

Why is it that most of the "authorities" you cite tend to be engineers, rather than biologists commenting on biology, geologists commenting on geology, astronomists commenting on astronomy, etc.? Oh hang on, I missed your citation of a medical doctor commenting on geology.

[Husar]

“For the life [Hebrew: nep̄eš] of the flesh is in the blood [Hebrew: dām]” (Leviticus 17:11, 14; cf. Genesis 9:4; Deuteronomy 12:23). Insects do not have blood;

“in which is the breath of life,” (Hebrew: ’ăšer-bô rûaḥ ḥayyîm; Genesis 7:15, 22; cf. Job 7:7). Like bāśār, this additional phrase is never conclusively used of invertebrates. Additionally, in Genesis 7:22 the statement is made that “all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died.” The Hebrew word ’ap̄ refers literally to the nose or nostrils. Insects do not have nostrils (or lungs), and do not intake air the same way as most other land animals.

So why aren't they dead then?

[total relism]

So why aren't they dead then?

Some do argue insects were on the ark [still plenty of room] some argue some insects, if not as a category, were taken as pollinator, composted, plant caretakers, as food or came along for the ride on various animals. However while the flood was a year long, the whole earth was not covered a that long an the tallest trees [where insects could avoid the flood] could have been covered only weeks in some places.

https://www.howitworksdaily.com/white-water-rapids/


but where they most likely survived was on the vast vegetation mats that would [and are] produced by massive floods.


Start under Mats could last decades
https://creation.com/post-flood-log-...imal-migration

[Husar]

So insects survived on floating stuff but there wasn't a single other human with a boat to survive on?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So insects survived on floating stuff but there wasn't a single other human with a boat to survive on?

Too busy in our pre-diluvian iniquities too worry about personal safety no doubt.

[total relism]

So insects survived on floating stuff but there wasn't a single other human with a boat to survive on?

In those conditions would you agree insects can survive much better? they could have avoided the effects of the flood much longer and humans need food. How would we eat after the first few months assuming we could stay on the giant rafts we are much bigger. Not sure we could find enough fresh water either.

[Husar]

In those conditions would you agree insects can survive much better? they could have avoided the effects of the flood much longer and humans need food. How would we eat after the first few months assuming we could stay on the giant rafts we are much bigger. Not sure we could find enough fresh water either.

Insects need both food and fresh water as well. Plenty of them would get eaten by the others on those rafts. By far not all insects alive today are predators though. Some of them would also need nests for their offspring since they die in winter, etc.
https://www.reference.com/pets-anima...d1cae68812af2#

You can't just expect them to sit on a floating branch for weeks and wait.

[total relism]

Insects need both food and fresh water as well. Plenty of them would get eaten by the others on those rafts. By far not all insects alive today are predators though. Some of them would also need nests for their offspring since they die in winter, etc.
https://www.reference.com/pets-anima...d1cae68812af2#

You can't just expect them to sit on a floating branch for weeks and wait.

Yes but insects eat different than we do dont they. I bet rain and pockets of still fresh water provided them enough as they did not need much. I also agree many would be eaten and be a food supply for others. What makes you think their was a winter during a global flood? and if so, it was not everywhere. The floating mass of trees/derbies etc is a bit more than a stick.

[Husar]

Yes but insects eat different than we do dont they. I bet rain and pockets of still fresh water provided them enough as they did not need much. I also agree many would be eaten and be a food supply for others. What makes you think their was a winter during a global flood? and if so, it was not everywhere. The floating mass of trees/derbies etc is a bit more than a stick.

Yes, they eat from blossoms for example. How many blossoms still producing nectar for the insects would you expect in the floating debris?
And if there were enough, why was there no food for humans or rodents so that they needed to be on the ark?
If predators were hunting the insects while quite a few of them likely couldn't reproduce, how many species of insects would you think went extinct? Where did they get fresh water to drink?

As for the winter, 370 days is a bit more than a year, one would expect that to include two winters, one in the southern half and one in the northern half of the earth disc.

[Gilrandir]

Insects need both food and fresh water as well. Plenty of them would get eaten by the others on those rafts.

It is also true about animals. Perhaps dinosaurs didn't survive because they were eaten on the ark.

[total relism]

Yes, they eat from blossoms for example. How many blossoms still producing nectar for the insects would you expect in the floating debris?
And if there were enough, why was there no food for humans or rodents so that they needed to be on the ark?
If predators were hunting the insects while quite a few of them likely couldn't reproduce, how many species of insects would you think went extinct? Where did they get fresh water to drink?

As for the winter, 370 days is a bit more than a year, one would expect that to include two winters, one in the southern half and one in the northern half of the earth disc.

I would suggest they eat more than blossoms. I would also say some live vegetation and large amounts of dead vegetation existed on these mats, as well and other insects , decaying carcasses etc and that many did indeed die. Also they would have best avoided the flood for the longest time period and likely not have had to be on the mats long. Humans of course eat different and have different needs to survive. Insects can live on those mats a long time. People would have found it very hard. Further, who survived when the large flood came in the area?

https://www.howitworksdaily.com/how-...urvive-floods/

its almost like asking why cant humans survive underground like burrowing animals. As for how many went extinct i have no idea, likely allot. They got water likely from plants, rain, small pools of fresh water on the vegetation mats [they dont need much] and pockets of fresh water in the ocean [It was not as salty today and many creationist think originally fresh water] and i am not sure if a winter happens in that sort of climate during a global flood. Besides the pre flood world was vastly different so that is an assumption. Further the whole world was not flooded that long and insects in many places would have avoided much of it. It is likely some areas on the top of some trees were only under water weeks.

[Husar]

I would suggest they eat more than blossoms. I would also say some live vegetation and large amounts of dead vegetation existed on these mats, as well and other insects , decaying carcasses etc and that many did indeed die. Also they would have best avoided the flood for the longest time period and likely not have had to be on the mats long. Humans of course eat different and have different needs to survive. Insects can live on those mats a long time. People would have found it very hard. Further, who survived when the large flood came in the area?

This is getting silly, your only explanation appear to be magical insect rescue mats of debris. Bees need nectar and pollen, both of which (especially the former) would be quite rare after 40 days of rain and flooding, yet somehow we still have bees because magical man-eating mat-biotopes saved them somehow? Without their nests of course since those would be flooded. I guess all the insects and other animals that live off of blood just swarmed around the ark and sucked everyone and everything dry.

The point about the top of the Himalayas not having been under water for long is not helpful, because how much food can be found on the top of mountains? If there was so much food on mountains, humans could have survived on floats with food for a month or two. Humans living near mountains would have seen the water levels rising anyway.

[Gilrandir]

This is getting silly, your only explanation appear to be magical insect rescue mats of debris. Bees need nectar and pollen, both of which (especially the former) would be quite rare after 40 days of rain and flooding, yet somehow we still have bees because magical man-eating mat-biotopes saved them somehow?

I can't say anything about other insects, but I do know something about bees as my late uncle has kept them for forty years.

Bees can survive without nectar for quite a time (during winter, for example) if either:
1) you don't confiscate ALL of the honey they have sealed with wax in their combs against such an occasion as winter;
2) you feed them. Syrop is usually used for it.

So I don't doubt Noah or one of his numerous family were experienced bee keepers and knew how to help the insects survive.

[Husar]

I can't say anything about other insects, but I do know something about bees as my late uncle has kept them for forty years.

Bees can survive without nectar for quite a time (during winter, for example) if either:
1) you don't confiscate ALL of the honey they have sealed with wax in their combs against such an occasion as winter;
2) you feed them. Syrop is usually used for it.

So I don't doubt Noah or one of his numerous family were experienced bee keepers and knew how to help the insects survive.

But that would mean they were kept on the ark, total relism said insects weren't kept on the ark...

[Gilrandir]

But that would mean they were kept on the ark, total relism said insects weren't kept on the ark...

1.It doesn't matter who said what. It is what is written in the Bible that matters (to total relism, at least).
2. Ark could have towed a caravel or two in its wake or (alternatively) insects kept buzzing over the ark but didn't land on it.

[Husar]

1.It doesn't matter who said what. It is what is written in the Bible that matters (to total relism, at least).
2. Ark could have towed a caravel or two in its wake or (alternatively) insects kept buzzing over the ark but didn't land on it.

1. Humans could have hidden on that caravel.
2. Caravels weren't invented yet.
3. The ark could have towed a second ark, which could have towed a third ark, which could have towed a fourth ark, which could have twoed a fifth ark, which could have towed a sicth ark, which could have towed a seventh ark, which could have towed an eigth ark, which could have towed a ninth ark, which could have towed a tenth ark and then we suddenly have so much space to save everything!
4. So could birds.
5. That's like a lawyer's argument "technically, if they don't touch it, they're not on it, mimimi!". How many flies in your home buzz around without ever touching anything?
6. If it doesn't matter who said what, then talk to the hand...

[Gilrandir]

1. Humans could have hidden on that caravel.
2. Caravels weren't invented yet.
3. The ark could have towed a second ark, which could have towed a third ark, which could have towed a fourth ark, which could have twoed a fifth ark, which could have towed a sicth ark, which could have towed a seventh ark, which could have towed an eigth ark, which could have towed a ninth ark, which could have towed a tenth ark and then we suddenly have so much space to save everything!
4. So could birds.
5. That's like a lawyer's argument "technically, if they don't touch it, they're not on it, mimimi!". How many flies in your home buzz around without ever touching anything?
6. If it doesn't matter who said what, then talk to the hand...

You are losing your touch. A second time you didn't detect trolling on my part. BTW, I was also trollong when I said Noah was an experienced bee keeper.

[Elmetiacos]

Once again, the whole thing boils down to, "It's magic!"

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Once again, the whole thing boils down to, "It's magic!"

Of course. Nothing is more magical than existence itself.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Once again, the whole thing boils down to, "It's magic!"

Of course. Nothing is more magical than existence itself.

[total relism]

Once again, the whole thing boils down to, "It's magic!"

Agreed, but i think they generally dont call it magic but time.

"It is no secret that evolutionists worship at the shrine of time. There is little difference between the evolutionist saying ‘time did it’ and the Creationist saying ‘God did it.’ Time and chance is a two-headed deity. Much scientific effort has been expended in an attempt to show that eons of time are available for evolution."
—Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), p. 137.


“Consider (1) Deep Time has characteristics and powers that belong to God alone. In fact, the parallels are truly amazing! For example, Deep Time has the power of creation. According to His followers, he has made stars, planets, and galaxies. He has made canyons, and mountains. Deep Time separated the continents and oceans. He has made all living creatures through his servant – Evolution. Indeed, Deep Time took the elements of this world, and from that dust he made man. These are all powers and actions that are rightly reserved for God alone (Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 33:6, Job 38:4, Psalm 104:5-8, Genesis 1:9-10, Genesis 1:20-25, Genesis 2:7).But it doesn’t end there. Deep Time is also said to have tremendous power to direct the course of events in the universe. Deep Time creates and destroys species and civilizations at a whim. He gives life and takes it away. He continually shapes the earth as he sees fit – changing deserts to lush gardens, and gardens to deserts. Deep Time existed long before man, and will continue long after man, or so we are told. Again, these are characteristics that are rightly attributed only to God (Acts 17:26, Job 42:2, Isaiah 46:10, Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, Acts 17:25, 1 Timothy 6:13, Job 1:21, Isaiah 51:3, 43:19-20, Genesis 13:10, Deuteronomy 29:23, Genesis 17:1, Deuteronomy 33:27, Isaiah 43:10, Revelation 22:13).But according to his disciples, nothing is too difficult for Deep Time! He is able to do any miracle! Consider this famous quote from Dr. George Wald, “Time is the hero of the plot. … Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, the probable becomes virtually certain. One only has to wait; time itself performs the miracles.” Yes, the gradual evolution of dust into people may seem impossible. But with Deep Time, all things are possible! He is the “hero of the plot!” Compare this with the characteristics associated with the biblical God (Matthew 19:26, Jeremiah 32:17).(2) Disciples of Deep Time worship him with reverence and awe. They may deny this with their words, but their actions indicate that they do cherish this god above all others. This makes sense: if indeed Deep Time does have the powers and abilities that his disciples attribute to him, then he should be worshiped. Such worship takes place in the schools and universities, where Deep Time’s wonderful works are praised all the day long.The worship of Deep Time is found in many a science textbook too. Sandwiched in between the discussions of science will be stories about the amazing feats of Deep Time. A little science here, and an amazing story there. Although Deep Time has nothing to do with science, often the science and the stories are interleaved such that it can be difficult to tell where one begins and the other ends! The mixture makes for an entertaining, though deceptive read.Devotees take their religion very seriously. Deep Time must not be questioned. That would be sacrilege! Those who fail to worship at the altar of Deep Time are ridiculed, and face being expelled from the classroom. Textbooks that fail to acknowledge the supreme lordship of Deep Time are not likely to be used, or even published. Those who wish to work as professors must swear allegiance to Deep Time and His servant Evolution if they want to be hired.Deep Time is not the Living God. Nor is Deep Time an aspect of God, a creation of God, or an ally of God. Deep Time exists only as a concept, created by the mind of men. He has no literal existence. Although his disciples ascribe to him many of the characteristics of the biblical God, it is clear that Deep Time is fundamentally different than the God of the Bible.”
http://www.jasonlisle.com/2012/11/09...od-of-our-age/

[Fragony]

a very interesting thread

Yep. In anyway, if the Noah story is real every creature on the planet is inbred, the consequences of inbreeding are well known.

Nice job god, flood something else willya

Question for creativists, if a random mutation is vastly superior, what are the odds of the others surviving. Random mutations should happen daily. Narrows down really quik.

kthxbye

[total relism]

Yep. In anyway, if the Noah story is real every creature on the planet is inbred, the consequences of inbreeding are well known.

Indeed.

http://www.creationicc.org/2018_pape...me%20final.pdf
http://www.creationicc.org/2018_pape...ve%20final.pdf
https://creationsuperstore.com/produ...-noah-dvd-cmi/

Nice job god, flood something else willya

Next time its fire.

Question for creativists, if a random mutation is vastly superior, what are the odds of the others surviving. Random mutations should happen daily. Narrows down really quik.

kthxbye

Not just sure what you are asking here. Random mutations are harmful, a few are beneficial [through still a loss] in select environments. Natural selection is true and happens. Darwinian evolution is falsified by science and natural selection does not equal Darwinian evolution.

[Gilrandir]

Indeed.

http://www.creationicc.org/2018_pape...me%20final.pdf

I'm no specialist in genetics (I believe neither are you). But what I CAN understand is figures. This article features two tables (4 and 5) which estimate the age of mutations. In no table the figure of circa 7 000 years is used. The average of the first is 53 000 years, of the second - 24 500 years. Somehow different from what you claim as far as the age of universe is concerned.

Next time its fire.

You mean as a part of Fire and Fury?

[Fragony]

Indeed.

http://www.creationicc.org/2018_pape...me%20final.pdf
http://www.creationicc.org/2018_pape...ve%20final.pdf
https://creationsuperstore.com/produ...-noah-dvd-cmi/






Next time its fire.



Not just sure what you are asking here. Random mutations are harmful, a few are beneficial [through still a loss] in select environments. Natural selection is true and happens. Darwinian evolution is falsified by science and natural selection does not equal Darwinian evolution.

Outsourcing means something different usually. Thing is, there is no such thing as a believe in Darwinian evolution. Believe is something you believe in, no need for doubt anymore but things just aren't like that. They aren't to people who believe the evolution-theory is a good place to start. Not that you are saying it but people who call themselve atheists, flying spaghetti monster and all that was a bit funny at the moment, they are jerks imho, why harm what doesn't hurt

Question for atheists as well, why do you care that much about what people believe? Even need a word for rejecting religion the joke's on you if you consider yourself to be one, what's there to reject? I am not going to call myself an atheist because I'm not religious, that's all