Evidence of age - 1. Ice Cores

[duordi]

Do you see what I'm trying to say? There is NO other way for man to interpret the age of the universe other than by looking at the furthest lights and assuming that is the tell-all of age. When in reality, God could've created it a few thousand years ago for the purpose of helping mankind.

I agree God could have, but did he?

God made Adam with the appearance of age. That is to say “if” Adam was created full grown (and I do not know you can make a case for this from the text) than he would have had the appearance of being, say 20 years old even though he was created the day before.

On the other hand the text does not say Adam started full grown but may have started as a Baby and was raised by God who was “walking in the garden”.

In the same way we can say God has the ability to create the universe in motion. That means the light from distant stars is created in transit which give the appearance that the universe has age. After all we are living in Gods imagination and He can imagine whatever He chooses to.

You have to ask yourself if God would create a universe which is deceiving. ( I am not saying this is an absolute, just a question to consider.)

But we must be careful not say the Bible says something that it does not say. I do not know anywhere that the Bible says the cosmos is young.

We can’t criticize someone for not considering alternate interpretation of the scientific data and be dogmatic about the Bible text.

This site has a lot of discussion about science but little discussion about the Bible text.

I have always wondered why that is.

Duordi

 

[Papias]

Saucy wrote:

I haven't seen anything on the scale of the ice cores from Antarctica. Are you kidding me? Have you studied the cores yourself also? If you haven't, then you don't have the right to point this out to me as if because I haven't seen and studied it for myself then I have nothing to go by.

Yes, he does have exactly that right, because he is only pointing out what the experts, who have studied all of this in depth, and who include many Christians, are saying. He has as much "right" to say that as you do to take medication prescibed by a doctor or for a high school science teacher to say that atoms exist.

In all cases they are relying on the fact that the experts have critically tested the evidence, and know it well. Similarly, though unicorns are mentioned in the Bible, a reader can reasonably choose an interpretation that doesn't claim them to exist, based on the fact that the experts (biologiests) say they don't exist. After all, neither you nor I has actually looked for them, remember. As I pointed out in another thread:

It's OK to be completely ignorant of a whole field of study - each of us is similarly ignorant of many fields, because a single person cannot possible know all of them well - research and learning have given us so much information that it's difficult to be an expert in even two fields today.

What is unreasonable, however, is for someone who is so ignorant of the findings and evidence in a field, to disagree with those who know the evidence well, as you, and all evolution deniers, have been doing.


You yourself haven't tested that unicorns don't exist (nor have I). You haven't searched for them, and you have no more basis in personal experience to disbelieve in unicorns than you do to disbelieve in atoms, neither of which you've seen yourself. In both cases, we are relying on the evidence and analysis of experts to determine that unicorns don't exist and atoms do. It would be preposterous for you or I to claim that unicorns exist or that atoms don't exist because that's what my interpretation of the Bible says to me, in disagreement of the experts.

​

On this thread we've seen that those who deny ice ice core data have no clue about how it is actually done, and still don't understand it now.

We've also seen that the arguments against the ice cores from creationist sources show blatant deception - by claiming that the buried airplanes are relevant, while not telling the reader that those planes are near the edge of the continent, where snowfall is heavy, and they planes were expected to be buried deeply. The depth of snow on the airplanes isn't some "mystery" it was the obvious result of where they were, and scientists knew that. Yet, the creationist sites portray that as if they are somehow relevant, and so many good Christians are tricked by this.

Then, as this and many other cases of deception are exposed, some continue to be fooled by the creationist sites.

Philadiddle and others have been very generous explaining many of the details of the ice core data. It's too bad this doesn't seem to have been appreciated.

duordi wrote:

My expectation would be if there is a question about the method used to collect the information than we should check it.

duordi, do you really think that checking by many different ways isn't being done? You clearly haven't worked in science, where everyone is desperately hoping to find unexpected evidence, because that is what is rewarded in science. Every finding is subject to a withering degree of skepticism, and any scientist who disproved the ice core method would be given fame, forture, and tenure. The reason that hasn't happened is because they have stood up to every test, and in science, it is the evidence that rules the day. The same goes for the planes - known weather patterns show why they were buried to that depth, and they were ignored because their burial depth only confirmed the known weather patterns, in accordance with the known science.

This site has a lot of discussion about science but little discussion about the Bible text.

I have always wondered why that is.

Duordi

Good question. There are threads like that - plus you are always welcome to start new ones yourself.


some are: http://www.christianforums.com/t7486494/

http://www.christianforums.com/t7590838-2/ see post #16 and #19

etc. (I'm sure others could come up with better ones too).

Papias

 

[duordi]

We have found many interesting facts.

1. The ice varves are only disernable in the top portion of a deep ice sheet. The rest of the age is based on assumptions.

2. Multiple ice varves can be created in an ice sheet in a year. I could find no data which sets a limit on how many.

3. The ice at the site of the planes moves. So does any glasher, some move faster then others. It would be interesting to compare the ice movement of the plane location in 50 years and a polar area in 100,000 years to see which moved more. They may have had similar movement distances.

Duordi

 

[Calminian]

....Similarly, though unicorns are mentioned in the Bible, ....

LOL!! People are still using this? It's been debunked so many times I can't count anymore.

I get so many laughs here. Thank you for yet another.

 

[Saucy]

Unicorns are actually references to Rhinos.

Why Does the Bible Mention Unicorns? - YouTube

 

[Calminian]

Unicorns are actually references to Rhinos.

Why Does the Bible Mention Unicorns? - YouTube

Wow I had never seen that animal before, the wholly one. That thing is amazing!

Great video. Going into my archives.

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

LOL!! People are still using this? It's been debunked so many times I can't count anymore.

Of course it has, Calminian. That's my point - that we can use a deeper analysis to see that the text doesn't literally mean unicorns, and as such apply other knowledge to the reading of scripture. Anyone who does that, as you and Saucy just did, show that you are able to get beyond a literal reading, at least at that point.

Papias

 

[shernren]

No I don't think Creationist information trumps science at all. Creationist information only makes me doubt a scientist's bias and that the information can be interpreted in more than one way. I've also mentioned in this debate that creationists are biased as well. So I never said one side is and the other isn't.

Yes, you've said that creationists are biased. But I suspect that you don't actually believe it.

Why is it that every time you compare Larry Vardiman's view of the evidence and my view of the evidence, you immediately take what Vardiman is saying and use it to question me, and never once take what I am saying and use it to question Vardiman? If you really believed that creationists can be biased, you would at least once wonder if maybe I know the ice core data better than Vardiman.

But it also means that God could've spoken the stars into existence at one moment in time and the light appeared for that purpose. At the same time, a scientist will look at the stars, their vast distances and say, "Wow. Light travels at such and such a speed and that star is so many billions of light years away, which means that that star must have existed for billions and billions of years!"

Do you see what I'm trying to say? There is NO other way for man to interpret the age of the universe other than by looking at the furthest lights and assuming that is the tell-all of age. When in reality, God could've created it a few thousand years ago for the purpose of helping mankind.

Did you know that no serious astronomer believes that you can divide the distance to the stars by the speed of light and come up with an accurate estimate of the age of the universe?

For that matter, did you know that many creationists believe that it would be dreadful for God to have created the universe with starlight in transit? See, for example, Danny Faulkner's 1998 paper here.

As a matter of fact, here is a paper written at the start of this year by a creationist himself acknowledging many scientific phenomena which creationists cannot explain:

The question of how distant starlight can be seen in a young Universe has received much attention within creationist research. But creationist cosmological models need to explain much else in addition to the passage of light across vast distances. On both large and small cosmic scales there is a diverse range of trends, patterns, and phenomena that beckon some kind of explanation. Many of these can be understood plausibly within the framework of the standard “big bang” cosmology. But few attempts have been made to integrate them into a model for a young Universe. After surveying the astronomical evidence I discuss various avenues that creationist cosmology could profitably pursue in facing this challenge.​

I also wanted to say, that if the weight of the top layers is so heavy and it compresses the layers and some are pushed outward at the bottom, then you really don't have an accurate telling of years because at some point, the weight of the ice (which is heavy enough to compress the actual rock under it) would look like one big layer rather than multiple layers.

Can you see that this would be fatal to your position? If each of the 100,000+ layers in the GISP2 core represents say 3 years instead of one year, you suddenly have 300,000 "years" to explain away instead of 100,000 years.

I'm really not sure what this "debate" has come to when you consciously introduce ideas that favor my position rather than yours.

And you stated that the area where the planes are have much more precipitation thus more layers can form to look like two hundred years in fifty years time? But where the ice was taken there is less precipitation? Well you just confirmed it for me! If fifty years worth of melting and refreezing and more snowfall can look like two hundred years, then what about the flood event that was ALL over the world and heavy precipitation that would occur for the thousands of years afterward???

(emphasis added) You're just not getting it. Fifty years' worth of "melting and refreezing and more snowfall" would not look like "two hundred years". It would look like two hundred layers, but it would not look like two hundred yearly layers.

Open your freezer and find something that hasn't been touched for a while - it should be covered with a layer of fine white flaky stuff. (Ice frost. Not mold, hopefully.) Then take out your ice tray.

Put then on your kitchen table, stare at them (until they melt if you must), and convince yourself that you would never confuse the hard transparent stuff in your ice tray for the white flaky stuff on the other object. And yet that's exactly what you would be doing if you thought the two hundred layers on top of the plane were yearly layers.

You see, ice can form on the surface of the ground in two different ways. One is when liquid water freezes. You are familiar with this as solid ice. It is hard and near-transparent and contains precious little trapped air. The other is when water vapor freezes. You are also familiar with this as frost or snowflakes. It is soft and white and traps a lot of air (which is why it looks white).

When snow melts and re-freezes after a storm, it forms melt-freeze snow (think ice tray).
When snow evaporates under sub-zero temperatures, it forms surface hoar covering depth hoar (think frosty powder).

What would the heavy precipitation that occurred for the hundreds of years afterwards look like? (Not thousands. Genesis 11:10-26 and 12:4, taken literally, suggest that Abram was traipsing around less than four hundred years after the Flood.) It would look like a gazillion layers of melt-freeze snow. It would not look like hundreds of thousands of layers of surface hoar covering depth hoar. And yet the latter is what we see.

Here are some animations to help you appreciate how different these are:

Melt-freeze snow
Depth hoar (note that in permafrost areas, the temperature gradient would be opposite - the ground would be far below sub-zero, and the surface where light is shining would be nearer to zero)
Surface hoar (it says "humid air" is required, and the humidity in this case would come from the vapor being released by the depth hoar forming underneath)

Do you get it yet?

 

[Calminian]

Cal wrote:


Of course it has, Calminian. That's my point - that we can use a deeper analysis to see that the text doesn't literally mean unicorns,

But it does literally mean unicorns! That's the point. The issue is not metaphorical vs. literal, it is modern vs. ancient nomenclature. It's a simple matter of hermeneutics. What did the original author mean by single horned animal?

 

[Saucy]

I'm really not sure what this "debate" has come to when you consciously introduce ideas that favor my position rather than yours.

 

[Saucy]

What would the heavy precipitation that occurred for the hundreds of years afterwards look like? (Not thousands. Genesis 11:10-26 and 12:4, taken literally, suggest that Abram was traipsing around less than four hundred years after the Flood.) It would look like a gazillion layers of melt-freeze snow. It would not look like hundreds of thousands of layers of surface hoar covering depth hoar. And yet the latter is what we see.

See, now you're getting to what confuses me the most. While I can support an old earth if I come across the right information, it kind of goes against my creationist roots, if you get what I mean. I want to know how Christians don't believe in the literal Genesis stories or don't take it literal. How do you make it work. That's what I want to know. If I could make science and the bible work, I would be more inclined to not lean towards creationist bias than science.

 

[Calminian]

See, now you're getting to what confuses me the most. While I can support an old earth if I come across the right information, it kind of goes against my creationist roots, if you get what I mean. I want to know how Christians don't believe in the literal Genesis stories or don't take it literal. How do you make it work. That's what I want to know. If I could make science and the bible work, I would be more inclined to not lean towards creationist bias than science.

The age issue per se, is not the issue for biblical christians. The only way I could accept modern scientific theories as being compatible with the biblical account would be if you could someone maintain the death after sin teaching. The Gap Theory is the only one that does this, but it requires a whole lot of imagination. Others have solved it by spiritualizing the first 11 chapters of Genesis, but it's arbitrary at best, being that they want to keep the Abrahamic portions literal. I just go by the text. Plus, on an evidential level, the flood and diaspora myths found in all cultures of the world, fit very well with the Genesis account. That's very compelling extra biblical evidence for the Genesis account.

What is more, science has a built in bias of methodological uniformitarianism. It must explain everything within the confines of naturalism and uniformity. It can't do otherwise without destroying the entire process. So it makes sense that it would reject a supernatural non-uniform explanation of the universe such as found in Genesis. But science itself, unfortunately runs into a dead end called the Big Bang—a very illogical uncaused beginning. This is where many theologians find room for God, but I say, what's the point? If you need a miracle to explain the BB, doesn't this cast doubts on the perfection of scientific naturalistic methodology?

 

[Papias]

Saucy wrote:

I want to know how Christians don't believe in the literal Genesis stories or don't take it literal. How do you make it work.

Millions of Christians, most in entire churches, over the decades have "made it work" just fine, just as we Christians, 300 years ago, accepted the science of a round earth, when a literal reading of the Bible suggests a flat earth. In both cases, science showed us which interpretation was the one intended by the Holy Spirit.

An old earth was established by mostly Christians, including ministers like Adam Sedgewick, before Darwin's book. Evolution too was established mostly by Christians, and today, most of the support for evolution comes from Christians. "How it works" is just recognizing metaphor, just as we recognize metaphor in the passages about a flat earth or in the Song of Solomon.

For instance:

The Garden: The Garden of Eden can be a metaphor for the natural world before humans became fully conscious/able to think. It need not have happened as a literal, single location “garden”, just as Ezekiel’s army of bones (37) is a metaphor that never happened as a literal army of zombies.

The Fall: The fall of man can be what happened when man evolved enough mental capacity to make rational decisions, and decided to rebel against God. The consequence was alienation from God.

Adam: Note that many theistic evolution supporters (including apparently the Pope) believe in a literal, real, single human Adam, the father of us all, who was the first transitional ape-human to cross the line to being human, who sinned and brought about original sin (not the first death). This fits with the above mention of the Fall. You can see from this thread: that there is little support for the "no death before the fall of humans" position. http://www.christianforums.com/t7519515/

The Flood: The flood can be a metaphor describing God’s sovereignty over humans and the earth, and still shows those same messages either way. It need not have happened as a literal flood, just as Ezekiel’s army of bones is a metaphor that never happened as a literal army of zombies.

Jesus: Jesus was a real human who was both God and Man. He often spoke in parables (metaphors) while on earth, just as he did when he, as part of the trinity, inspired Genesis. Because Genesis is the word of the same God who spoke parables while on earth as Jesus, it should come as no surprise that he starts off the Bible speaking the parables of the creation, fall and flood.

Atonement: The Atonement of Jesus is the same in either a literalist or a modern Christian’s view. Jesus needed to atone for the sin of the fall, which was rebellion against God.

The geneologies in Genesis: These can be figurative, like Ezekiel’s army of zombies. They pretty much have to be for a number of reasons – not just the massive evidence of an old earth, but also internal inconsistencies, like growing a handful of people from (coat) Joseph’s time to the ~2 million Jews at the Exodus in a short number of years, or the demonstration by the Holy Spirit that these geneologies are figurative, by making them contradictory between Cr and Mt.


Papias

 

[Saucy]

I agree. I can't get past the Adam and death issue. I can't get past the fact that there are flood legends all over the world and they are all very similar involving a man and a big boat. There are legends all over the world of dragons (the pre-1800's word for dinosaurs) including accounts from Alexander the Great and others who have encountered massive beasts and flying reptiles. Native Americans even have legends down about raptors all the way to cave paintings of dinosaurs, the Ica Stones, T-Rex bones found in soft sand or gravel, living material found in dino bones, and much, much more. The evidence seems to be overwhelming to me that there is something going on here.

Science refuses to take a look, even a small one at any of the creationist evidence. They judge it immediately absurd. I think evolution is as much of an answer to creationism for atheistic scientists who don't want to accept that there is a God. They'll do everything within their power to keep evolution front and center and shut everything else down.

Also, Jesus' genealogy goes all the way back to Adam. If Adam wasn't a real person, then His genealogy is wrong. Adam and Noah were mentioned in the New Testament as if they were real people. It was through Adam that sin came into the world. If sin and death had existed before Adam, then there is no need for Jesus.

Evolution is a way to make that issue less important, to make the need of a savior less relevant, to have an atheistic answer to creation and I fully believe could be guided by the devil to lessen the need for a Savior in people's eyes.

 

[Saucy]

At the same time, there are a few things that make me wonder if the earth is old. Like the earth being form and void, as if he was there for a long time before God decided to do anything with it. Also, there is some evidence of earth being used by angels and such before it was wiped clean and used by God.

Did Lucifer's fall come before or after creation? If it came before, then he fell to earth before mankind and the creation.

And then where did Cain's wife come from out of nowhere? And a city's worth of inhabitants?

 

[Calminian]

At the same time, there are a few things that make me wonder if the earth is old. Like the earth being form and void, as if he was there for a long time before God decided to do anything with it. Also, there is some evidence of earth being used by angels and such before it was wiped clean and used by God.

Did Lucifer's fall come before or after creation? If it came before, then he fell to earth before mankind and the creation.

And then where did Cain's wife come from out of nowhere? And a city's worth of inhabitants?

I've looked into the gap theory, and while I think it's wrong, it does at least preserve basic christian theology—very good, sin, curse, death.

For Cain's wife you can check out this video.

Lucifer is actually not a proper name found in the Bible. Satan's name was likely always Satan. Lucifer is a transliteration of a latin word meaning "shining one." Only the KJV versions translate it as a proper noun. That said, there are problems with the Gap Theory. It's basically a recreation story, rather than a creation story. AiG has a good article on it you can read here.

The biggest problem I have with it is the coherence of looking all created passages as recreated. For instance,

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.

This creation includes the heavens, with all of its luminaries. Where they all destroyed and recreated? If so, seems where back to the same issue of science saying those recreated stars are very old. IOW, the gapist still has to dismiss BB cosmology.

 

[Calminian]

Science refuses to take a look, even a small one at any of the creationist evidence. They judge it immediately absurd. I think evolution is as much of an answer to creationism for atheistic scientists who don't want to accept that there is a God. They'll do everything within their power to keep evolution front and center and shut everything else down.

This may seem odd, me saying this, but in some ways, creationist have to cut scientists some slack. For science is a limited epistemology, and must confine its conclusions to natural ones.

When we read the Genesis account, we are essentially reading about a numerous miraculous interventions by God over a 6 day period. Miracles and science don't mix. They can't. Miracles could be defined as violations of science. Rather than Genesis reporting a natural evolving world, it describes a special miraculous creation. Science can't ever arrive at such a miracle. It's against the rules!

For instance, when Jesus created wine, He skipped the natural processes and time that it usually takes to make wine. Science can't accept this though. If they were able to examine such miraculous wine, they would have to conclude it was aged and much older than it was. A similar problem comes up with they examine the universe Jesus made.

My favorite article on the subject: Methods of the Creator.

 

[Saucy]

This may seem odd, me saying this, but in some ways, creationist have to cut scientists some slack. For science is a limited epistemology, and must confine its conclusions to natural ones.

This is exactly why I question it. Not because it can't be right, but because they are automatically programmed to HAVE to give naturalistic explanations. They will NEVER find or interpret evidence to support a young earth. So how reliable can it be when they have no choice but to take God out of the equation???

Why I struggle is I have two backgrounds...one in science and one in creationism. Science was before I became a Christian and was an atheist. Creationism came after I got saved and needed to have an answer for why science didn't match up with my new found faith in God.

Now, is all creationism correct? No. But neither is all science. I look at BOTH sides, but no matter what, neither side is going to budge or give in. How can I trust what the truth is?

I believe in God. I believe God interacted with this earth, whether in judgment or creation or in supernatural ways you cannot test. Science keeps trying to find ways to take God out of the equation. They do have this huge question mark on how the universe suddenly exploded out of nothing or how life suddenly emerged out of nothing. Both seem to require a Creator. But Stephen Hawking says science will win over religion. He's going to come up with a theory, by God (forgive the pun), to take God out of the equation. He's willing to believe anything and everything except that God created the universe. How can I trust someone so biased?

 

[Calminian]

This is exactly why I question it. Not because it can't be right, but because they are automatically programmed to HAVE to give naturalistic explanations. They will NEVER find or interpret evidence to support a young earth. So how reliable can it be when they have no choice but to take God out of the equation???

Why I struggle is I have two backgrounds...one in science and one in creationism. Science was before I became a Christian and was an atheist. Creationism came after I got saved and needed to have an answer for why science didn't match up with my new found faith in God.

Now, is all creationism correct? No. But neither is all science. I look at BOTH sides, but no matter what, neither side is going to budge or give in. How can I trust what the truth is?

I believe in God. I believe God interacted with this earth, whether in judgment or creation or in supernatural ways you cannot test. Science keeps trying to find ways to take God out of the equation. They do have this huge question mark on how the universe suddenly exploded out of nothing or how life suddenly emerged out of nothing. Both seem to require a Creator. But Stephen Hawking says science will win over religion. He's going to come up with a theory, by God (forgive the pun), to take God out of the equation. He's willing to believe anything and everything except that God created the universe. How can I trust someone so biased?

Well the fact that you can understand this philosophically puts you in a very good place. I exaggerate not. To most science is a completely objective method of investigating reality. The idea that it is biased (and necessarily so) is blasphemy to many. The idea that it is based in unfalsifiable presuppositions is laughable.

In fact, in my always humble opinion, even some creationists take scientific methodologies a little too far. But it is what it is. We are in the science age, and it reigns supreme, with all its high priests. I'm glad I'm not taken in by it, and I say this as one who adores science.

 

[shernren]

Science refuses to take a look, even a small one at any of the creationist evidence. They judge it immediately absurd. I think evolution is as much of an answer to creationism for atheistic scientists who don't want to accept that there is a God. They'll do everything within their power to keep evolution front and center and shut everything else down.

Do you know how strange and sad your argument sounds to me?

Saucy: But what about the lost planes off the coast of Greenland and the multiple layers covering them?

*shernren runs off and rummages through half a dozen scientific papers to learn the science of glaciology from scratch*

shernren: It's because the layers above the lost planes are melt-refreeze layers, but the layers in the ice core are surface-depth hoar layers.

Saucy: It's not fairrrrrrr! Science refuses to take a look, even a small one, at any of the creationist evidence!
​

Quite frankly there are a dozen better things I could be doing with my time than looking up scientific papers about a field which I have little interest and no training in. I could be writing assignments, preparing lecture slides, playing video games, praying more. And if you really think I will refuse to take a look, even a small one, at any future creationist evidence you think is noteworthy - if you really think I will judge it immediately absurd - then maybe I should oblige you. It would at the very least be a more profitable use of my time.

But I do actually care about creationist arguments. I do actually want to know if I'm wrong. It's just that every time I check out a creationist argument - which often takes up hours of my time familiarizing myself with new material - it more often than not turns out to be a misunderstanding if not outright deliberate fraud.

When was the last time you spent more than ten minutes trying to understand a scientific argument in favor of evolution?

I can't get past the Adam and death issue.

You have no problems killing a chicken for dinner. But quite frankly I find most chickens cuter and more friendly than some humans I know. Doesn't that suggest to you that there is something intrinsically different about animal death? And don't you find it important that Romans 5 only speaks about death spreading to all humankind, not all life?

I can't get past the fact that there are flood legends all over the world and they are all very similar involving a man and a big boat.

Pre-writing civilizations needed to be near floodplains (or control floodplain territory) so that they could grow enough crops for their people. Because of the large rivers irrigating them, sudden floods were relatively common and utterly devastating. These civilizations also used oral culture to control their civilian population. Is it any surprise that any half-decent oral storyteller, living near a river that frequently swelled its banks, would imagine a tale where a flood wipes out all life?

And what on earth would a flood story without a man and a big boat look like? God rescues all the women and children by giving them wings?

There are legends all over the world of dragons (the pre-1800's word for dinosaurs) including accounts from Alexander the Great and others who have encountered massive beasts and flying reptiles. Native Americans even have legends down about raptors all the way to cave paintings of dinosaurs, the Ica Stones,

Of course there are. There are also legends all over the world of griffins, unicorns, centaurs, sprites, fairies, elves, dwarves, and (especially in my part of the world) animal spirits.

Wonder why creationists haven't spent more money trying to dig up those elusive chimerae. That would certainly be a killer for evolution to explain away.

T-Rex bones found in soft sand or gravel,

I honestly have never heard this claim before. Pics or it didn't happen.

living material found in dino bones,

Not living material, soft material. And the material only got softened after the paleontologists took acid to all the hardened calcium minerals in it.

and much, much more. The evidence seems to be overwhelming to me that there is something going on here.

The evidence seems to be that you are selectively remembering creationist arguments you have heard in the past, and that you are not even remembering them accurately, but sensationalizing their details (as the last two points show).

Also, Jesus' genealogy goes all the way back to Adam. If Adam wasn't a real person, then His genealogy is wrong. It was through Adam that sin came into the world. If sin and death had existed before Adam, then there is no need for Jesus.

Sure, but a lot of evolutionists actually believe that Adam was a real person!

Adam and Noah were mentioned in the New Testament as if they were real people.

So were the prodigal son and Lazarus the beggar.

Evolution is a way to make that issue less important, to make the need of a savior less relevant, to have an atheistic answer to creation and I fully believe could be guided by the devil to lessen the need for a Savior in people's eyes.

Once upon a time Laplace published a scientific publication. Napoleon reviewed it and asked Laplace, "Where in your work does it mention God?" Laplace replied, "Ah, but I have no need of that hypothesis."

Laplace wasn't talking about evolution. He was talking about gravity. People used to believe that angels pushed the planets around on crystalline spheres. They now believe that gravity does it, whatever this gravity might be.

Doesn't that make gravity a way to make that issue (of the vastness of the cosmos) less important? Doesn't it provide an atheistic answer to creation? Maybe it was even guided by the devil! And yet you have never questioned that, o ye creationist of little hindsight.