i’ve told you what would disprove evolution to me: finding a large number of large mammal fossils in dinosaur bone layers… the greater the number, the more convincing…
But if there is only ONE or TWO … the odds are very high that some unusual geological process is the cause … because the odds of that process happening is HIGHER than only finding just ONE OR TWO mammal bones
out of the many thousands of mammal bones we find in the right places.
George
hi tim.
“I think what people mean by “out of place” is a fossil find that’s extremely out of place — a rabbit in the Precambrian. Or a multitude of fossil finds that severely challenges the evolutionary thought process — large mammal bones mixed in with dinosaur bones.”-
ok. so lets say that we will find a human bone with dino. the evolution scientists will just push back the human origin to about 70-80 my. no problem to the evolution here. a lot of apecies push back again and again. actually- according to the evolution primats origin is about 80 my. and human is a primate by evolution terms.
“How did dinosaurs (those extremely large reptiles) go extinct according to your theory? First, were they or were they not on board the Ark?”-
i dont know actually.
“Most people who study the fossil record come to the conclusion that MOST species that ever live become extinct. That 99.9% of species that lived is now extinct.”-
here is an intenresting fact: the number of living species is about 8 milion. the number of fossils species is about less then 500000. its mean that even if most of the species in the fossil record was extinct- its mean that most of the species that ever lived are still alive!
have a nice day
not true. Let’s say you found human bones inside the stomach of a t-rex. All of evolution would be in doubt. How did humans get below the KT boundary? How did dinosaurs get above it. Is the KT boundary really deposited 66 millions years ago? All would be in doubt.
this would even be a problem if we found carpulite of herbavore dinosaur that contained modern grasses in them.
[quote=“dcscccc, post:42, topic:3204”]
“How did dinosaurs (those extremely large reptiles) go extinct according to your theory? First, were they or were they not on board the Ark?” [/quote]
That’s a pretty important question …
Good catch, Beagle. I’m not sure if insects would be classified as “birds” or not, according to Ancient Hebrews. Their does seem evidence that insects would be called “creeping things”, but creeping things extends much farther than insects, too, implying small creatures. I’m not sure if the Hebrews had a distinct category for insects or not.
Pterodactyls or penguins definitely don’t appear in the Hebrew text.
-Tim
Most YEC organizations demand that dinosaurs be on the ark, even expressing their discontent that most Children’s Books don’t include dinosaurs on the ark, in their cartoon depictions.
The problem is, that if Guy’s and Schroeder’s proposition is correction and Taninem Gedoblin really is a category of animals (big reptiles) then there’s a problem.
There is no “Teninem Gedoblin” listed on the Ark’s occupants. While that might solve a temporary scientific problem (dinosaurs weren’t on the ark so they didn’t have to become extinct sometime later) it creates a theological problem.
Why weren’t dinosaurs on the ark? Were they not on God’s list for salvageable creatures? Or could it be because dinosaurs weren’t on the ark because they were extinct?
Which gives justification to the fossil record and eons of time… Which YECs don’t wanna go down that road.
-Tim
I do not think Ken Ham has real answers and no fossil genuinely out of place has been uncovered. Thus failed to directly address Nye’s claims pointing to deep time and the likelihood of evolution and the improbability of a recent literally global flood. So instead he went on about how radiometric dating is ‘unreliable’ and so forth. Ham realised he could not get away with claims as made on the AiG website - which are mostly read by people who already believe in young earth creationism (or people like me) not the wider world that was also listening to the debate.
Agree. (Apparently posts of just seven characters are ‘too short’.)
Patrick has a good point here Guy. If human fossils were found with dinosaur fossils, then evolutionary theory would encounter some serious problems — both with the theory itself and Meteor Theory.
Dinosaur and human cohabitation is the theory that many evolutionists (and old earth creationists) poke fun at. If they were found in the same sedimentary layers, then it could no longer be argued (from an evidentiary standpoint) that they did NOT live together.
-Tim
You wrote, “I do not think Ken Ham has real answers and no fossil genuinely out of place has been uncovered. Thus failed to directly address Nye’s claims pointing to deep time and the likelihood of evolution and the improbability of a recent literally global flood. So instead he went on about how radiometric dating is ‘unreliable’ and so forth. Ham realised he could not get away with claims as made on the AiG website - which are mostly read by people who already believe in young earth creationism (or people like me) not the wider world that was also listening to the debate.”
Does Ken Ham not trust his own claims, made by his own organization, enough to use them as evidence during the debate? That baffles me. I wonder if that’s why most of the debate was spent discussing theology, and starting points, rather than specific instances that would prove troubling for the theory?
-Tim
That is true. The Flintstones is not a documentary!
So does that mean that pelican washing machine isn’t real? 
You raise a valid point here Guy. Perhaps I am mistaken. Maybe the estimates for total number of species that lived are based on mathematics, compiled with the presumption of billions of years, rather than an actual account of fossils+living creatures.
I think the other problem is there’s an assumption on the part of those who don’t buy into sedimentary layers laid down over the course of aeons, that the fossil record SHOULD show a complete museum of our history. But there are gaps in the record.
-Tim
I suspect he either does not fully trust the usefulness of the claims or possibly he thinks they would take too long to describe verbally in a debate situation (but Nye presented ‘old Earth’ examples quite succinctly).
patrick and tim. so there is no way to push back a species about 70 milion years into the past? its actually very easy. here is a genus of spider that push back more then 130 milion years:
“The new species extends the fossil record of the family by approximately 35 Ma and of the genus Nephila by approximately 130 Ma, making it the longest ranging spider genus known”
again- if there is no problem to push back genus more then 100 my, why there is a problem to push back the human genus?
patrick. you said that : “this would even be a problem if we found carpulite of herbavore dinosaur that contained modern grasses in them”-
here is some kind of surprize:
“Textbooks have long taught that grasses did not become common until long after the dinosaurs died at the end of the Cretaceous period, 65 million years ago. Depicting dinosaurs munching on grass was considered by experts to be as foolish as showing prehistoric humans hunting dinosaurs with spears.”
so what now? the evolution disproved?
Why did you switch from “species” to “genus” while quoting something that extends the fossil record of the family back in time? Do you realize that extending the record of the family back does absolutely nothing to extend the record of the individual species?
Ham is a great example where beliefs cloud reasoning. His beliefs are steadfast that the Bible printed in 1967 is word for word literally true. That is his frim stance and he even said nothing could change that stance. He is 100% certain that it is absolutely true. And I am fairly certain that he will go to his grave with that belief. The question is, does anybody have to listen to him, fund him, or follow him. I would say no, but am amazed that he still sells a lot of terrible lies to children. And there are parents and grandparents who buys that stuff.
If you highlight what someone said that you agree with, and then click the quote option that will appear, and then type “agree,” the computer overlords will be satisfied, with the added bonus of all of us knowing if you agree with a particular thing Patrick said, or just agree with Patrick in general. (The responses aren’t nested, so sometimes it’s hard to follow without a quote.)
Here is what Ken Ham posted today. I think it is pathetic. Poor kid.
Dear Mr. Ham,
My name is Esther [last name withheld]. I’m 14 years old. I am in a writing class and this I have an assignment to write a letter to someone I admire. You are the person I wanted to write to.
A year and a half ago, I was adopted from China. At that time, I did not believe that the Bible was truth. Evolution is what I was taught in China. But God did not let me go. God started showing me that He was real.
Once my family went to the Creation Museum, all the things I saw, I clearly heard God speaking to me and saying “this is the way to go.” My parents bought the Creation ministry DVDs in Chinese. I began watching the DVDs and started to believe that God created the world in six days and that we all are made by God’s hand. We are not from the Single-celled organisms I had been taught about. I began to read the Bible, and study God’s Word. Now, I am a believer in Jesus Christ. He is my Messiah.
Furthermore, I want to say thank you for your ministry. I learned so much and it has changed my thinking about Science and God’s world that He created.
I agree and disagree.
I think it’s wonderful that Esther found Christ, no matter what methodology she found Him. What I think is unfortunate is how (like Ham) she now has to equate Young Earth with the Gospel, as if the two doctrines were super-glued to each other. They are either both right or both wrong.
I wish that Ken Ham would give a more concrete opinion (or definition?) of what he truly thinks of Christians that don’t agree with his literalism. In public debates where it’s more condusive and fits his purpose, he gives Christian evolutionists a slap on the wrist: “You can believe in evolution and still be a Christian, but you’ll have to deal with biblical inconsistencies.” … Where on the other hand, whether it’s on his Facebook account or AiG website he puts Christian evolutionists, with Christian in quotation marks. He says, “so-called”, clearly expressing his true belief that one can’t be a Christian and hold to non-young-earth doctrines … That’s heresy.
I don’t know why he perpetuates two clearly different opinions here. Does he say Christians can be evolutionists to the world at large, because it puts him under a nicer light? And say that the two can’t mix on his website to ellevate the importance of his young-earth mission?
-Tim
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.