Yes I think science has next to nothing to say about origins. Quoting creation science questions for me is simply to point out there is not unanimity on how the scientists speculate about this question.
That's fine, and speculation is fine as long as everyone recognizes it as such.
I believe that micro evolution is demonstrable but is not the same thing as macroevolution.
The only difference between the two is time scale.
There were not 43 species of sparrow on the ark but no sparrow ever evolved into a swan or an eagle. The flexibility of Gods design is demonstrated by microevolution within a type.
That argument kinda assumes that biblical flood happened, doesn't it? Also, I am not claiming that a swan evolved into an eagle, though they do share a common ancestor.
Also, show the limit of how different an organism can become via microevolution, then. It should be easy.
Again that is just speculation since you have no idea how this unanalogous event worked out in practice.
Give a reason actually in the bible for the difference in radiation... oh wait, the bible never mentions radiation or rock layers laid down by the flood, does it.
You are taking advantage of the idea that this event in no way has to be realistic as an excuse for why actual observations don't fit with it. So why don't you just say "I know the evidence doesn't seem to fit with the biblical account, but I believe anyway"? You might as well, considering that you shot yourself in the foot by manipulating the situation such that evidence for your position and evidence against it would be indistinguishable to you. That is, if the biblical flood wouldn't have left behind any normal evidence of a flood, that not only says that there isn't clear evidence that the flood happened, but that the very nature of the event prevents it from leaving behind clear evidence. That's quite an unscientific way of going about things, but feel free to keep at your evidence-less position if you want.
Stunning fossils: Mother giving birth
There could well be a variety of ways within a catastrophist model in which fossils would form. As previously posted anoxic zones generated by the turmoil of the flood could well complement rapid burials.
Sure... but you need to demonstrate that all of these fossils were buried the same way. It doesn't matter that some fossils obviously need rapid burial to form, because my position doesn't deny that possibility at all. Your position, on the other hand, makes it a necessity for all fossils you think formed due to the flood... which becomes a huge problem when they demonstrably didn't form that way. For example, the mosquitoes preserved in amber. What happens when those date equally old to fossils you claim had to form during the biblical flood? The answer is, you can't explain how bugs could be encased in amber, which forms from tree resin allowed to set undisturbed. One of the things that destroys this resin before it can form amber is rain, of which there was plenty on a global scale according to the biblical flood. So, how do you explain the fact that we find plenty of amber?
Also, hilarious that you didn't realize that you just posted the exact same fossil as the one I posted earlier, mentioning that it's not a fish. Heck, even your source says it's not a fish, why did you call it a fish?
Why if they were all deposited at the same time by the same global event? The question from your point of view is surely why I think all these layers formed in so short a time span and why certain types of fossil seem to congregate in one layer as opposed to another. The answer to that being no one knows and yes I can live with that rather than having to fill the void with empty rationalisations based on analogies with things that are demonstrable like macroevolutionists do.
I wouldn't actually have to be an evolution supporter at all to take issue with all of these organisms living at the same time. The principle of ecological niches makes it impossible for all of these organisms to exist at the same time; they would have competed with each other for resources too much.
But you know, it is very easy to demonstrate that denser substances settle to lower layers; just put some mud in a water bottle that's half full, and violently shake it. Let it settle, and observe the layers it forms at the bottom.
Not sure you are really reading what I am writing and you seem ignorant of the biblical account.
I am reading what you are writing, and I am not ignorant of what the biblical account is. Not only have I read the bible, but I have been on this site for 4 years and this is one of the only subforums I am active in. Do you honestly think I could have gone this long without hearing the flood story dozens upon dozens of times?
There was torrential rain from the skies, the deeps opened up and water came up from beneath the earth, the flood waters rose and rose to cover the whole earth, which would have completely destroyed the weighting of all the tectonic plates and caused world wide earthquakes, tsunamis etc of unimaginable power.
Not sure what you mean by "destroyed the weighting of all the tectonic plates" considering that they operate on the simple principle of "lightest materials end up on top". Shaking up the ground wouldn't stop that from being the case, especially since you can only get so deep underground before it becomes too hot for liquid water to be there.
In fact the biggest miracle here is that the ark indeed life itself survived such a catastrophe. So stuff was coming up as well as falling down, stuff was moving sideways at hundreds/thousands of miles an hour in currents of unprecedented power. Whatever was there before would have been stripmined out by such a flood.
Other people have actually done the energy equations necessary for the flood to, say, carve out the Grand Canyon. It's actually too much energy for water to take; it'd have all evaporated.
Also it is disingenuous of you to suggest that radioactivity at the different levels is uniform there is considerable diversity in the reading of the fossils. Because the half life of carbon will only give you dates to about 50000 years you will need the half lives of heavier elements at the deepest level with the oldest fossils.
I meantioned in my post that I was specifically talking about dating methods that use uranium, and specifically stated "not something like carbon-14". It seems to me that you entirely missed why I would emphasize that I wasn't talking about carbon-14; it's a fairly light radioactive isotope, so it wouldn't have sunk as far as heavy ones like uranium.
Also, there isn't considerable diversity in the dating of the same fossil; all the dates fall within the margin of error allowable.
Again you have no idea how inputs in and out the samples you study worked out in practice. You have no idea how much radioactivity was originally present, or indeed how much was a direct result of the unique conditions of the flood.
I don't think you understand how radiation dating works; it sounds like you think that exposing a fossil to, say, the core of a nuclear power plant would make it date way younger.
I would expect higher levels to be more radioactive for a biblical reason. Because God stripped away the water vapour canopy that previously protected the earth from cosmic radiation.
Sigh, cosmic radiation only produces radioactive isotopes of light elements in the atmosphere, such as carbon in the form of CO2. It is not responsible for why heavy elements, such as uranium, are radioactive. Do you not know that every element heavier than lead is radioactive?
I would also expect smaller organisms to be the first to perish in these new conditions of greater levels of radiation and then to be followed by larger more resilient, older or more established organisms which fits the fossil record.
You are kidding me, right? The most resilient organisms on this planet are microscopic. Have you never heard of a tardigrade? It's a microscopic organism that can survive 120 years without water, enough radiation to make a cockroach feel inadequate, extreme temperatures, and even withstand the vacuum of space. Smaller organisms tend to endure much better than larger organisms do, because they don't need as large of a territory and they don't need as much food.
Most of marine life afterall lives towards the surface and near the sun. If the small stuff died first in the turmoil and new levels of radioactivity then it will be these that appear at the lowest levels of the rocks that formed so rapidly beneath the surface. But I say this only to suggest that an alternative to the conventional "wisdom" is possible and without the ridiculous timescales that "wisdom" requires not to posit a theory of how the flood went. Fact is no one knows we can only look at the results and then speculate from there. That mainstream science does this without reference to what has been revealed is why it seems so foolish to me.
Again, do you not know that we can tell if a layer of sediment was laid down by a flood? All sediment layers aren't the same as each other.
It was left a wasteland and deliberately so. Creationists like myself believe that most of life was destroyed by it. what we have now is a faint echo of what there was before the flood. That we are more exposed to radiation from the sun and that the earth as it was has been wiped out and buried is only evidence of the terrible magnitude of Gods judgment on us. That scientists today repeat the sins of Noahs generation by carrying on their investigations without reference to their primary cause is a mark of the foolishness of our times.
-_- the sins of Noah's generation are not described in much detail. But here is a list of some of the reasons why the flood exactly as the bible describes it did not happen:
1. His ark wouldn't float. There weren't even any nails in it holding the wood together.
2. The vast majority of organisms are too genetically diverse for this to have happened.
3. Signs of civilization booming in other parts of the world right after the flood supposedly happened.
4. Not enough food after the destruction; all the organisms on the ark would have starved to death.
5. Not enough water on this planet to cause such a flood.
6. Parasites. There are many obligate parasites that cause their host to die, or require various sequences of events that could not occur on the ark to maintain their life cycle and not die out. Plus, why would Noah want to purposely infect the few animals he was taking with parasites, risking their health? Do you think that he purposely caught malaria just so it wouldn't go extinct?
7. Not enough space. Thanks to the bible, we have the exact dimensions of the ark, and therefore know there wasn't enough space on it for all the animals. Unless you want to get over your aversion towards macroevolution and swing to the other extreme.
With a shallower sea this is possible. A flood of these dimensions would completely reconfigure the planet.
XD hahahahahahahahahahaha, a shallower sea? That would make the problem worse, I think you want to claim that there was somehow less land in the recent past. Ok, so the oceans currently cover about 71% of the surface of this planet. Unaltered, it would take more than 3 times the amount of water currently on this planet to produce a global flood.
Even more problematic for you, Mt. Ararat is mentioned in this biblical story AFTER the flood occurred. So, however the flood influenced the topography of the planet, the end result wasn't much different than it is now, and if the flood somehow added to the land mass, that just makes the area the water had to cover all the same, doesn't it?
