positive evidence of creationism

Well i also want to state Kyle Deming is gay and a homom who has his mom call and start for him!

"Thanks for posting, truecreation. I have read your response in the flood thread, so we'll try to avoid going over the same ground."
--Thats good, but if emphesis is needed on a various aspect, I would be happy to return to it."Lets start with my first question: What is the positive scientific evidence that all plant and animal "kinds"(including humans) appeared on earth at the same time within the past 10,000 years?"
--If you are looking in the fossil record, your in a dead end, because you would be to assume that the fossil record was layed down over millions/billions of years. So we must look at another level, genetics and variation, ie 'e'volution. evolution on a micro scale, mutation and natural selection. Speciation is the process that drives this mechenism, thought to take emense periods of time for speciation to occur noticably, it is evident that it is otherwize, for instance on the celluar level, bacteria, variations are extreamly abundant in bacteria, hundreds of thousands of Bacteria are depicted from change. This abundance would have started at the fall or at the beginning of creation when they were created, and would have continued mutating and producing variation and would move rapidly in bacteria because it can reproduce in about 20 minutes. This would be simmilar to the variation of insects we see today, as there are hundreds of thousands of species. Insects, like bacteria would have been producing variation since the fall/creation because they were not needed to be preserved on Noah's ark. Variation is also the reason we see variant beak preferences in Finches as Darwin observed. Moving to a direct answer to your question of what the evidence is that it was all created at once, we cannot use the biblical portrayal of a date to say anything is this because this says so, this cannot be proven, but it can be shown feasable as is all we can show by evidence, in furthering the discussion, is there a problem with todays variation that would combat the theory, as taking place in 4500 years? If not that is direct evidence of feasability, thus it is logical to say that this is the way it could have happend as opposed to a single common ancestor for all life.------------------

"The "scientific evidence" is in the historical evidence of the Old Testament. Every civilazation mentioned is dating 10,000 to 15,000 yrs. old. Now you may say the Old Testament is a story book. Well, is has stories but it has been proven to be correct through the DEAD SEE SCROLLS."
--You should try to follow along with the previously presented literature in these forums, as I have already concluded, creation science has not a basis on the historical evidence as read in the Bible, it is purely science, if you would like to use a more convincing argument, withdraw is suggested.------------------

"Well i also want to state Kyle Deming is gay and a homom who has his mom call and start for him!"
--Im sure anyone would agree they would be embarassed to have little Andrew Jackson arguing in defense of your belief/theory, whether creation or evolution.
--There isn't a rule regarding the allowence of 9 year olds a valid participant in the discussions?
--We need to try and attempt not to embarass ourselves here. Your first impression to the real world was vastly amusing, Andrew.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Thanks for posting, truecreation. I have read your response in the flood thread, so we'll try to avoid going over the same ground."
--Thats good, but if emphesis is needed on a various aspect, I would be happy to return to it.

​

"Lets start with my first question: What is the positive scientific evidence that all plant and animal "kinds"(including humans) appeared on earth at the same time within the past 10,000 years?"
--If you are looking in the fossil record, your in a dead end, because you would be to assume that the fossil record was layed down over millions/billions of years. So we must look at another level, genetics and variation, ie 'e'volution. evolution on a micro scale, mutation and natural selection. Speciation is the process that drives this mechenism, thought to take emense periods of time for speciation to occur noticably, it is evident that it is otherwize, for instance on the celluar level, bacteria, variations are extreamly abundant in bacteria, hundreds of thousands of Bacteria are depicted from change. This abundance would have started at the fall or at the beginning of creation when they were created, and would have continued mutating and producing variation and would move rapidly in bacteria because it can reproduce in about 20 minutes. This would be simmilar to the variation of insects we see today, as there are hundreds of thousands of species. Insects, like bacteria would have been producing variation since the fall/creation because they were not needed to be preserved on Noah's ark. Variation is also the reason we see variant beak preferences in Finches as Darwin observed. Moving to a direct answer to your question of what the evidence is that it was all created at once, we cannot use the biblical portrayal of a date to say anything is this because this says so, this cannot be proven, but it can be shown feasable as is all we can show by evidence, in furthering the discussion, is there a problem with todays variation that would combat the theory, as taking place in 4500 years? If not that is direct evidence of feasability, thus it is logical to say that this is the way it could have happend as opposed to a single common ancestor for all life.

​

---

Did i read you right? Are you really making the assertion that every forms of insects not present on the ark would have survived a global flood?

"Did i read you right? Are you really making the assertion that every forms of insects not present on the ark would have survived a global flood?"
--Ofcourse not every, but only many are needed, in which there would have been countless billions+ of insects to survive the earth, plenty to produce such variation.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Did i read you right? Are you really making the assertion that every forms of insects not present on the ark would have survived a global flood?"
--Ofcourse not every, but only many are needed, in which there would have been countless billions+ of insects to survive the earth, plenty to produce such variation.

​

---

And i can assure you that 99.9999% of all those insects require solid ground...the vast majority of them would have perished in a world covered by water for 6 months after 40 days of violent rain. the only insects who could have survived would have had to be in this miraculous ark

"And i can assure you that 99.9999% of all those insects require solid ground...the vast majority of them would have perished in a world covered by water for 6 months after 40 days of violent rain. the only insects who could have survived would have had to be in this miraculous ark"
--And I can assure you that you have it backwords, is your assertion based on your conjector or evidence? Do an experiment for me, stack a pile of vegetation in a big lake whatever size you like, atleast 10square feet would be good, don't cheat now. These vegetation mats would consist of logs and leaves, many leaves of enormous size, and other assorted twigs and angiosperms, flowers would have been abundant from their composition and factors in being deposited on these mats in their characteristics and ability to float, though pollen would have been released in the beginnings of the flood. Now pour enormous quantities of various insects on these vegetation mats, come back and look weeks later, they will still be abundant there. Exactly what insects would have done in a flood as you see in any flooding situation they pile on top of each other and on vegetation mats and in trees.------------------

but the premise of your experiment is missing certain key elements. First,according to creationist models,there never was any rain before the flood and so,insects during the deluge would have found themselves in a completely new environement that was changing by the second over a period of 40 days,clearly not enough tome for specialised insects to adapt themselves. second,for the experiment to be accurate,i would have to throw those leaves and twigs you mention on a patch of land of a given size completely cut off from the surounding environement. Then,i would have to introduce scores of insects within that patch of land. Then,i would have to fill that patch of land with deluvian water in a manner in which at least every square inch of that land patch is being bombarded with water for a period of 40x24 hour periods until the whole patch of land is at least 15 feet under water. Then,i would have to leave that enclosed environement alone for 6 months before removing the water. Then,i would have to see A: How many leaves and twigs actually remained on the surface of the water and B: how many insects actually survived the downpoor of water to make it to the leaves and twigs and C: How many insects actually survived 6 months of this limited environement. Have you,or anyone performed such an experiment?

"First,according to creationist models,there never was any rain before the flood and so,insects during the deluge would have found themselves in a completely new environement that was changing by the second over a period of 40 days,clearly not enough tome for specialised insects to adapt themselves."
--The bible, nor am I knowledgable to any creationist that portrays this argument, as I find it simply an eroneus claim."second,for the experiment to be accurate,i would have to throw those leaves and twigs you mention on a patch of land of a given size completely cut off from the surounding environement. Then,i would have to introduce scores of insects within that patch of land. Then,i would have to fill that patch of land with deluvian water in a manner in which at least every square inch of that land patch is being bombarded with water for a period of 40x24 hour periods until the whole patch of land is at least 15 feet under water."
--Ok I wanna know where you getting this stuff? As the bible says it rained, the bible doesn't say it was a hurricane with 200 mph winds and billions of gallons of water hitting the earth at supersonic speeds."Then,i would have to leave that enclosed environement alone for 6 months before removing the water. Then,i would have to see A: How many leaves and twigs actually remained on the surface of the water and B: how many insects actually survived the downpoor of water to make it to the leaves and twigs and C: How many insects actually survived 6 months of this limited environement. Have you,or anyone performed such an experiment?"
--Actually I have, a small one, but I did it in my pool (I got in some trouble but I did it anyways). First I took some logs and put them in the pool, along with many leaves and flowering plants and grasses, and various plant life to make these vegetation mats. and i took a hose with a nozel that sprays a shower and showered on it, they separated slightly, and leveled more in the pool, this would have been abundantly less of a problem, as my experiment is very limited in the quantity of vegetation that would have enocountered these effects. I had insects and a couple spiders on there, some centipedes, and many ants and the like. Practically all servived after a day, in which I showered the mat for about a half hour and stoped and came back the next morning.------------------

Dear Stone,
Do you know WHy creationists and I will speak for my self as there are undoubtedly some who think I am an evo, spend so much effort 'one-sidely' as you say with the error confidence in evolutionary theory? There has been even beyond what Price revealed about the geological column a dearth of needed teaching WITHOUT the comparision of a creationist and a Lysenkoist that will decline on society as more and more effort in solid state studies proceeds with economic speculation. Evolution as a linguistic tradition is so flawed that challeges from within are not even properly adujdicated. You may think only of Punc Eq of Gould and Eldridge but when I was at CU I was appalled to find the actual scientists with no knowledge of the juggernaut 10000 pages in many languages that Croizat had produced. One can say the same thing for scholarhip on Sewall Wright for instance. There can not be more evolution thinking than this yet by overvalueing replication and Creationists like Lammerts have years ago tried to make mention of this problem in the information the anti-Soveit attitude has made questions like life on mars more serious than they warrent for the untrained eyes.The reason I spend less time with creative efforts than demolision jobs is that JOB had it right and there is much contiunity in science that the statistical foundations of genetics assert is mere determinism . There is quite a difference here between connection and spirit that would need to exist for any transmission of information and with the communication of the same you ought note that morally or not Newton was well aware of this (he did kill someone over the money thing in his power).

the part about the rain is a common argument from creationists i've spoken to. As for the rain,it filled the WHOLE world in 40 days...that implies extremely violent downpooring rain to fill the world with water in such a short time. Furthermore,in your pool experiment,was it empty when you placed the twigs and leaves and the insects? Did you fill it for 40 days making sure that water was falling on every part of that space at once? did you leave the environement as such for 6 months?

"the part about the rain is a common argument from creationists i've spoken to. As for the rain,it filled the WHOLE world in 40 days...that implies extremely violent downpooring rain to fill the world with water in such a short time."
--I surelly hope you are not implying that the rain was the source of the flood water, as this is a misunderstanding of the Flood. It simply 'rained', it does not have to be anything that you say it was, and correct me if I am wrong."Furthermore,in your pool experiment,was it empty when you placed the twigs and leaves and the insects?"
--No it had water in it. what relevance does it make?"Did you fill it for 40 days making sure that water was falling on every part of that space at once? did you leave the environement as such for 6 months?"
--Like I said this was a minimal experiment to explain to you that insects can live on vegetation mats, and they do, unless you can tell me why I am wrong. As also what is the relevance of 'filling it for 40 days making sure that water was falling on every part of the space at once'.------------------

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:Actually, not. The fossil record was recognized as a relative time scale long before absolute dates and ages were assigned. This aspect of the fossil record has never been addressed by creationists.

"Actually, not. The fossil record was recognized as a relative time scale long before absolute dates and ages were assigned. This aspect of the fossil record has never been addressed by creationists."
--I would beg to differ, though emphesize on exactly what you are asking a creationist to address and I will attempt.------------------