Nonsense. The most recent geological evidence only has the most recent species fossilized in them. This is a basic principle of stratigraphy, which goes back to the late 18th century.
Yes, so tell us about the geology of the Chinese province I raised. Tell us about what was above and below, and how it is placed in the stratigraphic levels there. Or are you just talking?
You almost seem to insinuate that you could, without belief based dating of decay, show that the little dinos were in a certain place in the strata? Let's see you. No need to argue about it, either you can, or can't.
Where is Eden now? Where are the remains of the original "kinds?" You cannot tell us.
To know where the kinds are, one must know what they were. With hyper evolution, the waters are less than clear. However, there are some clues on some kinds. I assume that if a creature is mentioned in the bible, it is a kind. For example, the wolf, lion and lamb. Another issue to factor in, when looking at the record, is where in real time it was. If a kind evolved one way before the flood, in the different world of the day, it would likely evolve another way after the flood! That means that the same kind, in many different adaptions, woulld be looked at by you as coming from each other! When science misses the different state past forest, for the present state trees, he is totally lost, and clueless. He lacks the key. The resulting dreamt up scenariios are therefore, literally absolutely foolish. And that is a compliment, they are much worse than that. As the big bang, and absurd explanation attempts at where life came from illustrate.
We do not "prove" in science. Only religious fanatics who believe their interpretation of old holy books is inerrant "prove" things. Like many Christian Fundamentalists/ Evangelicals who post here.
No, you sure don't. But you sure claim stuff that ain't proven. Fancy that. Real knowledge and science of the present state, applies only in this state. The issue becomes, not how long we assume and feel, and believe that this universe fabric exited, but how far ahead, and back, it can be proven. The working knowledge within this fishbowl of the temporary state (science) needs no proof, really. Just the ususal scientific method stuff. The foundational beliefs it is built upon, and rests solely on, for claims of the past, however require hard proofs. Concrete evidence. Absolute validity. So far, they forgot to check, and raced off to dreamland on the fuel of assumption only.
It will have to be demonstrated that the vehicles they use can travel to the future and far past universe, and observe, and test, and know what the state of that time was or will be. Until then, it is only graphed onto what is called science by epoxy glue! It is not in the realm of observation, and touching, and testing, and knowing in the least way at all! I therefore cannot include the ungodly, unbiblical, insane dreams and baseless beliefs and speculations as a real part of science. That would be fraud.
True, man did not evovle everywhere at once. We evolved in Africa, and migrated from there. As far as the rest of the planet being "unihabitable" this is complete speculation on your part with no backing even from scripture.
False, I am happy to report with 100% authority. Look in Prov 8. A gal that was there watching God create says that she was with man in the habitable part of the earth. That means that a part was habitable, not all. It is also logical that God made a garden for life, precisely for that reason.
About your claim on Africa. I have no problem if Eden was near what is now Africa. But I would ask you for proof. Presisely how do you know? Genetics?
In the past, when looking at where Eden was, I guessed west Africa. Not too far from Gabon area, coincidentally. But of course I am not certain, and that is subject to evidence.
Then why do all the dating methods agree?? I wish one of you creationists would explain that!
They do not agree, save with themselves. They are at odds with God. They are merely concocted from a present state, and how things now work. There is no agreement anywhere at all, but off in the invented and fabricated dreamland of the future or past, millions or billions of imaginary years away! None. Even there, they had to hammer things into place, sometimes tossing tens of millions of years around.
How did "hyper evolution" work?
Real fast. With the cellular differences, and different light, etc, fast changes were possible, and even the order of the day, the evidence seems to indicate. I am not sure if the offspring changed, or the actual creature itself, even. There were a lot, lot, lot of changes in a fairly short time. One period pre flood of 1600 years, or whatever it was, and a tad over a century after the flood, if I deduce the times correctly.
Why is it "illogical" that dinos were a created "kind?" Who says they were not on the ark? If they existed in Eden, as they must have according to a literalist interpretation of scripture, then they must have been on the ark, becayse Noah was commanded to put pairs of all creatures with the "breathe of life" on the ark.
No!!! God put the KINDS in there! Not every tom dick, and harry adaption, and evolved creature from that kind. After all, with hyper evolution after the flood also for a bit, there was no need. Besides there were major differences in the planet weather, climate, surface, etc after the flood. Even in the hundred year period. For example I suspect that was what brought on the ice age, and allowed it to get like it got in a hurry. That nullifies the ice core dating stuff, unless a same state is first proven, of course.
Nonsense. We "KNOW" no such thing. Genesis is clearly poetic allegory, and the fact that birds are mentioned before or after anything else is irrelevant.
It is relevent to a bible believer. And to the facts of what went down. If science hadn't tossed it out, but took it seriously, they may have actually gotten somewhere. As it is they stuff the wuhole universe into an imaginary speck. How clever.
It could have been written the opposite way, without changing what was important to the story, and that is the theological message. I really wish the writers could be here to read the stuff you guys say about their work. I don't know if they would laugh, cry, or be outraged by how you have made their work look silly, while claiming it is "God's Word."
Impossible. Jesus referred to it. So does much of the New Testament, and the old testament. Can't be waved away.