Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

[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

[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.

[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?

[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]

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/

[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?