What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Paul James]

I can make also cave drawings, showing for example people with Klingons (Star Trek).

Correct. Anyone can. It all depends on whether the existing evidence is real or faked.

 

[solid_core]

Correct. Anyone can. It all depends on whether the existing evidence is real or faked.

Exactly. So far all such "humans with dinosaurs" evidence was proven fake.

Its simply not possible for them to live together, they need different ecosystems, different oxygen level in atmosphere etc. We cannot find them together in fossils, either.

So, some "painting" is not a sufficient proof. Ancient people found many dinosaur skeletons, thats where all myths about dragons come from. And they were able to draw how the creature could look like, similarly like our scientists today do it.

 

[Paul James]

Exactly. So far all such "humans with dinosaurs" evidence was proven fake.

Its simply not possible for them to live together, they need different ecosystems, different oxygen level in atmosphere etc. We cannot find them together in fossils, either.

So, some "painting" is not a sufficient proof. Ancient people found many dinosaur skeletons, thats where all myths about dragons come from. And they were able to draw how the creature could look like, similarly like our scientists today do it.

That's why they died out. The ones that Noah took on the ark with him did not have the genetic diversity to survive long term. I suspect that you have never viewed any cave drawings directly and have been told that all of them are fake. I can't really comment because I haven't viewed them either, because they are very rare in New Zealand. But I don't happen to believe that they are all take, because I am not an atheist who would want them to be fake so would take any fellow athiests' viewpoints at face value without delving further to see if their view point is correct.

I don't have to provide evidence for anyone. I believe that most are real and that is good enough for me.

 

[solid_core]

That's why they died out. The ones that Noah took on the ark with him did not have the genetic diversity to survive long term. I suspect that you have never viewed any cave drawings directly and have been told that all of them are fake. I can't really comment because I haven't viewed them either, because they are very rare in New Zealand. But I don't happen to believe that they are all take, because I am not an atheist who would want them to be fake so would take any fellow athiests' viewpoints at face value without delving further to see if their view point is correct.

I don't have to provide evidence for anyone. I believe that most are real and that is good enough for me.

Why to take all kinds of dinosaurs into ark when they could not survive after the flood?

Nothing about atheism, atheism is blindness. Its simply about history. What you describe could not happen, all evidence and logic is against it. Its also foreign to the story in the Bible. Bible describes a world-wide flood, not a planetary flood.

 

[Paul James]

Why to take all kinds of dinosaurs into ark when they could not survive after the flood?

Nothing about atheism, atheism is blindness. Its simply about history. What you describe could not happen, all evidence and logic is against it. Its also foreign to the story in the Bible. Bible describes a world-wide flood, not a planetary flood.

Noah didn't have to take all the dinosaurs into the ark. Most of them were just too big. He took a pair of small ones probably juveniles. After all they are of the same animal family and had all the genetic information to breed genetic variations of dinosaurs. Noah would not have know whether they were going to survive long-term or not. Also, the Scripture says that God "brought the animals to the ark". So the animals that God wanted in it were the ones taken on board.

 

[solid_core]

Noah didn't have to take all the dinosaurs into the ark. Most of them were just too big. He took a pair of small ones probably juveniles. After all they are of the same animal family and had all the genetic information to breed genetic variations of dinosaurs. Noah would not have know whether they were going to survive long-term or not. Also, the Scripture says that God "brought the animals to the ark". So the animals that God wanted in it were the ones taken on board.

Bible does not say that Noah took any dinosaurs. So its just your insertion into the story.

He took from any animal living under the sky (idiom for all you can see), no other.

 

[Paul James]

Bible does not say that Noah took any dinosaurs. So its just your insertion into the story.

He took from any animal living under "his" skies, no other.

I understand that you would believe that. There are different points of view about it, and I just happen to believe what I believe because the accounts of it make sense to me.

 

[solid_core]

I understand that you would believe that. There are different points of view about it, and I just happen to believe what I believe because the accounts of it make sense to me.

I have no idea how it can make sense to you. Its not in the text, its against science, against fossil record.... but as you wish.

 

[Paul James]

I have no idea how it can make sense to you. Its not in the text, its against science, against fossil record.... but as you wish.

Yep. I do wish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"The idea of millions of years was seriously undermined in my postgraduate years when some conservative Roman Catholic pro-life friends invited me to a screening of the then new Evolution: Fact or Belief, made by European Catholic creationists. This included the work by French sedimentologist Guy Berthault. His experiments, sometimes working with non-creationists, have shown that fine layers do not need to be formed one at a time, over many years. Rather, many layers can form all at once by a self-sorting mechanism during the settling of differently sized particles, as long as there is horizontal flow. Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures In one of Berthault’s experiments, finely layered sandstone and diatomite rocks were broken into their constituent particles, and allowed to settle under running water at various speeds. It was found that the same layer thicknesses were reproduced, regardless of flow rate. This suggests that the original rock was produced by a similar self-sorting mechanism, followed by cementing of the particles together—not over millions of years. Experiments on lamination of sediments The prestigious journal Nature reported similar experiments by evolutionists a decade after Berthault’s first experiments.

Also, recent catastrophes show that violent events like the Flood described in Genesis could form many rock layers very quickly. The Mt St Helens eruption in Washington State produced 7.6 metres (25 feet) of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon!

Another problem for the millions of years scenario was ‘flat gaps’ or ‘paraconformities’. To explain, think of the jagged surface of most landscapes, due to erosion. Streams and rivers keep cutting deeper gullies, canyons, and valleys. But often the layers below them are completely smooth. Yet they are often claimed to have been deposited millions of years apart. But if the top of each layer had been exposed for millions of years, it should be as jagged as the surface.

A more obvious problem was the fossils. We simply don’t see fish fossilizing at the bottom of rivers and oceans. Nor are sheep and cattle farms filled with fossils. Why not? Because most dead animals are scavenged and disintegrate quickly. So the fact that we have fossils at all shows that they must have been buried rapidly." (from this article: Now a Creationist - creation.com)

The flood would have provided horizontal flow so the self sorting mechanism would apply.

LOL! Yes there can be exceptions. But those exceptions are easily detected. And not very common. Misapplied science does not refute science. And the man was still wrong. The global flood story does not predict that sort of deposition. He was dishonestly grasping at straws with the knowledge that the ignorant would swallow it whole.

 

[Subduction Zone]

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_2/j20_2_104-112.pdf
Your claim that 'the entire fossil record is evidence for evolution' seems hyperbolic, to say the least. This fossil certainly isn't: Kamikaze ichthyosaur? - creation.com

Unfortunately that is a lying source. You would need the original peer reviewed articles on it. How many times must you be told that a source that requires their employees to swear to not use the scientific method is worthless in a scientific debate?

I did check out the article a bit and saw that it had that old canard that marine life floats when it dies. Most does not. Only if the death is in shallow water and the corpse is buoyed be the gases of bacterial decay will this occur. Most sink and stay sunk. It is one reason why whale carcasses on beaches are very very rare.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cave drawings indicate otherwise. It shows humans hunting dinosaurs.

No, they don't. But a good laugh was had by all when a creationist posted such an image a few days ago. It had an amateurish change added to a photo of a cave drawing from a very bad source that lied about where it came from. It was not that hard to find the original unaltered photo. And its origin.

Be careful. Quite a few creationists seem to think that it is okay to "Lie for Jesus".

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Noah didn't have to take all the dinosaurs into the ark. Most of them were just too big. He took a pair of small ones probably juveniles.

Only animals old enough to breed were brought onto the ark; no juveniles.

The flood that wiped out the dinosaurs was likely the one just before Noah's flood.

 

[Speedwell]

Only animals old enough to breed were brought onto the ark; no juveniles.

It's the same error all creationists fall into at one time or another. "If the story is literally true then this must have happened or that must have happened, therefore this or that must be what the Bible teaches."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's the same error all creationists fall into at one time or another. "If the story is literally true then this must have happened or that must have happened, therefore this or that must be what the Bible teaches."

I wouldn't come to that conclusion. How this or that was accomplished is mostly speculation. For example, the location of the ark building site can be 'determined' by looking for the best place to build it based on information available. However it would still be speculation. That said there are mountains of valid information to be gathered from the narrative, as brief as it is.

 

[RDKirk]

In that case maybe Christians shouldn't make a literal interpretation of Genesis a deal-breaker.

Right. It should not be a "deal-breaker."

Look at where the Church started with evangelizing Jews. Jews already believed in Genesis, and yet Christianity largely failed to convince them that Jesus was their Messiah. If we are able to convince anyone that Genesis is accurate, at best that only makes them Jews. That tells us the creation argument is nearly irrelevant in the evangelistic mission.

There are plenty of questions that could just as well be "deal-breakers" for people who want the deal broken. Even winning the creation argument doesn't get the Christian where Christ wants the Christian to be.

The Philippian jailer didn't need all that.

 

[RDKirk]

God gave his theory of creation already. If a person doesn't accept that, then they're not going to accept that Jesus died for them.

It would work the other way around.

Plenty of gentiles accepted Jesus first and changed their pagan creation viewpoints afterward. And most Jews--who already had accepted Genesis--still refused to accept Jesus.

 

[RDKirk]

Well, the scriptures tell you how He made it

Not really. The Genesis view of creation is rather like observing an automobile factory from the outside. We can see the end production, but we don't know how cars are produced.

 

[RDKirk]

.

 

[MIDutch]

Yep. I do wish.

Have you ever seen the Alvis Delk artefact?

What do you think of it?