positive evidence of creationism

Before I would respond to any of these, many of the Flood depictions and associated variant arguments on the subject of refuting not the Global Flood but Noah and his boat I have adiquately refuted in the Flood Discussion by an unsuspecting 'oponnent' if I should use the word as I do not see fit that discussions should be one against the other but a discussion to bring about conslusive ideas using reason and logicality. Here is where you would turn for some of the refutations stonetool has used: in reply to keenanvin : http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=29&p=7 Post #100Also, I know people will squock about the assumption of uniformitarian properties in the way things have happend throughout history and pre-history (need there be a pre-history). So it should be avoided unless there is reason to use it so.I'm glad we can get something like this in here, as it seems it is needed from the so many rebutals to my posts emphesising that I have given '0' evidence for a Young earth, or a Global Flood. Though I would emphesize that anything that comes against it and is refuted itself is evidence for it, likewize the Old Earthers.------------------

Note that, to give a theory, it has to be logical for the reason we see things Geologically, astronomically, oceanographically, etc. A theory is not absolute and according to the OE's here, neither is a fact, thus we move into speculation, a speculation of feasability, is it feasible? What I have brought about in the Global Flood Discussio forum is a discussion on the feasability. If nothing is against it, then we move on to what is for it. As I do think my one flaw in these forums is moving all forward in this tactic and now I have many many numerous posts I must reply to, and in reply would continue this tactic of discussion as they are in some places continueing it themselves, and in other places urging me to provide the evidence.------------------

"stonetool: Try this site for projects creationists could use to prove their theory."
--OMG, though I totally and utterly excuse this person (the author of the site) from the real world and should confine him to a padded room, pick out an aspect of this straw man material and we can move into a more intelligent discussion than the site provides...the rib...Define kinds...------------------

"squock?????"
--....probley the wrong word to use even if spelled right, but I think we can get the idea and procede ------------------

"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.------------------

"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 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.------------------

"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.------------------

"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'.------------------

"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.------------------

"Well,the Bible says that it rained all over the world for 40 days and 40 nights until the world was covered with water...what am i supposed to conclude from this?"
--This is correct, but your missunderstanded conclusion of since it says that water rained on the earth for this time and thus you conclude that that was the source of the water is incorrect, the bible says that the fountains of the deep broke open, and in theory from the magmatic activity, water would boil and water vapor would be the cause of the rain, some theory 10 years ago suggested that this water was from the vapor canopy, which is not correct and up-to-date."If your pool was already full when you placed the insects on the leaves,you installed them on the environement yourself,thus negating the obvious fact that during the alledged flood,the insects would have had to locate a shelter themselves,according to their respective motricity."
--If you have ever noticed in floods, and even small lake floods after a good rain such as in my back yard, you will notice that insects definantly do not sink very well, I am not sure of the scientific reasoning, but it is because of the almost bubble that it encloses itself in and attaches to their body, this is why insects can float, and they will float untill they find something to get onto such as these vegetation mats, in my experiment as I believe I explained, all the insects did not stay on there, many were struggling to stay on from the rain, but they were easilly able to latch on to leaves and stay in there, and I also noticed they run for shelter inside the vegetation towards to top where they are less likely to be misplaced. these vegetation mats, contrary to my 3square foot 6inch high mat, would have been many feet high, 10-20ft+ and would have covered very large amounts of space."As for the relevence of filling the pool for a duration of 40 days with water falling on every area at once(raining all over the earth for 40 days),this creates a specific environement and threat to the insects. Many insects are killed outright if they are hit by heavy drops of rain and many more insects will drown if they are wet,even on dry land. And there is a stark difference between 1 day and 6 months+."
--for one, this would only be a problem for 40 days, not 6 months, after the 40 days, survival would have been absolutely no problem."For starter,most insects dont even live 6 months and require specific environement for reproduction. Also,all insects require food,which coulkd not be provided by remaining for months on a twig."
--Insects would have eaten each other and eaten vegetation and bacterias as I believe some insects eat. Some insects require specialized environments because they are specialized, they were not specialized during and before the flood. Such as penguins, some can live close to the equator such as the galopagos Islands, and some are confined to the poles, if you switch them around their gonna die. Or the panda bears well balanced diet, variation had not yet taken place to these extremities.------------------

"Some insects do have the capacity to float and even swim to safety but many do not...flying insects such as bees and flys drown when on water,even if they dont sink imediately and all flying insects whould have ad one hell of a time in remaining airborn through 40 days of deluvian rains. anthropods like large spiders could never have survived a world wide flood."
--Insects such as these would have had themslves in the center of these vegetation mats, there are leaves that are emensly large, even ft in diameter. Anthropids such as spiders could have survived doing simmilarly the same thing."As for the fountain of the deep argument,that one has always puzzled me. and on the talk origin web site,they exposed a lot of very obvious problems with that theory."
--Point out some and we can discuss them."How could there have been enough water to cover the world highest peek contained under the earths crust."
--The high mountains were causes of plate tectonic activity as I have explained and is evident as I explained earlier that activity moved hundreds of times faster than it did today during ancient lava flows through magnetic plarity variations considered to take tens of thousands of years to variate."what could have caused it to shoot out of wherever it was contained and what could have kept it from returning imediatly in its container below the earth."
--A cause would have been increasing preasure on the earths crust, such as how todays volcano's are caused. Not much water though some would have burst through these underwater volcano's but the 'problem' of it not returning to the earths mantle, wouldhave been preasure, as it was the cause of the burst in the first place.------------------

"But this leave theory also assumes calm water,which oceans are not. No lake or pool environement can replicate the conditions of a world wide flood and so your experiment is at best a poor aproximation and that is a generous estimate on my part. There would have been far too many elements stacked against survival of potential adrift insects for it to be even remotely likely."
--Sure it wouldn't have been calm, but there also would not have been emense tidal waves that would drown them.------------------