There are no transitional fossils. Like kinds begat like kinds, there is no evidence suggesting otherwise.
Death didn't occur until the fall of man.

And fire can't melt steel.

Sheesh, if some of you sounded like you actally understood evolution, and didn't get your entire understanding of it from evengelical tracts, then we would have something to start with.

The biggest issue with having a discussion with people like yourself is your "I'm smarter and more educated than you" attitude.  Your response comes across as an attack on the other poster's education and intelligence.  Perhaps the Religious Forum is no place for that sort of approach and  attitude. In itself, it reeks of an inability to form a coherent argument without attacking the other members?  I would suggest you might have more success in getting the discussion you seek by changing your velocity. An ad hominem approach is rarely conducive to a respectful discussion.

Merely an observation.

Edited ~ medicmandan

Either what we can observe is true, or God created a world full of lies.

I find it much more likely that the creation story of the Bible is allegorical than I do that God intentionally deceived us.

Huh?  Did God say the earth was billions of years old?  Did He say we were amobia that turned into fish then monkeys then people? Nope.  Man said that.  So how can God be lying if we don't believe that?

The problem is, nobody ever wants to actually understand the evidence of an old Earth or for Evolution. So, these discussions are meaningless. I truly don't believe anyone who claims they do anymore, yet who repeats tired old mischaracterizations of the science. Apparently, lying is the most Christian thing to do if the subject relates to Evolution.

Ok, so what you're saying is that you haven't the slightest idea how radicarbon dating works. Not even the first level idea - just something you've heard someone, who was just as clueless and wrong as you are now, say. And you said, "Hmph, confirms my own bias... therefore, must be true."

I guess I'm embarrassed for you.

People were convinced that the Earth was flat at one time too, and burned alive for saying science was wrong.  Now science says evolution is true, but who knows if something new comes to be the newest theory.

I see your willingness to study science seriously is matched only by your willingness to study history the same way.

Well we can date the earth. We can see things light years away, and we know how fast light travels so we can extrapolate on the distance it's traveling and through that determine a time frame. All of this points to an earth millions of years old. Not thousands.

So either what we're able to observe and measure is wrong, and God created a world that presents itself as a falsehood, or, the young earth theory is bunk.

I'm going to go with young earth being bunk, because I don't see God creating a false illusion to fool us.

Scripture also describes the earth as being immovable, but I don't see anyone arguing against the earth rotating or orbiting the sun anymore.

Our Father created the stars far away. Same as He created Adam as a full grown man.
Also, I think your understanding of Scripture leaves a lot to be desired.

His understanding of scripture is merely different than yours. Your understanding of science is demonstrably non-existent.

That's why I don't tweet.

Ok, so Ken Ham is not one that you would trust. Great. Ignore the site for what it is and that is fine. However, what he is quoting is indeed the Bible. If you don't want to believe because of Ken, then take it from the Scriptures what not only he quotes but also what I said on page one regarding the different aspects. Still, you had not answered my questions that I posted. You took my argument and tried to draw it out to the allegorical picture. 

I also disagree that it is VERY MUCH a salvation issue. Follow with me on this. Evolution is true (either evolution or Theistic Evolution). As such, mankind is still in the stages of evolving. That means then that where we are today is not indicative of right or wrong, just a step in the process. Now, is it then ok for kids to kill kids in school? Is it ok for babies to be aborted? Is it ok for LEO's to be murdered and gunned down on the street? Is it ok for husbands and wives to beat on one another, to cheat on one another? Is it ok for us to rob from places of business and work? Is it wrong for us to basically act as we do as mankind? If you say yes, then I wonder about the salvation you speak about. If you say no, then by who's standards are they judged? If evolution is true, the standard is always changing, adapting, recalculating to match what is most popular in the day. We then were wrong to bring about Hitler's army. We were wrong to keep them from exterminating the Jews because in their mind, they were the master race. Truth is relative if evolution is true. That means that the truth you speak in regards to salvation is only true to the point that you can prove it. Who is to say that your salvation is right and mine is wrong? 

Yet if Creation is more than allegorical, if it is indeed literal, it answers the most common question...why do we as mankind have the issues and the problems that we have? Why do we fight, kill, murder, hate, deceive, etc.? It is because of the fall. The fall is indeed in Genesis 3. It speaks as to the sin that infects all mankind because of the curse that was brought because man wanted to become God themselves (Look at Satan's argument to Eve as well as his own statements in Isaiah 14:12-14). If it is alagorical, then why do we as Christians really try to teach or speak of anything in the Scripture. It is untrustworthy and therefore, I can now make it say and be whatever I want. No more absolute truth. No more factual basis upon which I build my faith. After all, we are not really sinners. We just are in a point of evolving in our own ways. No God, No Christ, No Salvation.

In regards to Ken Ham, you probably are aware of many other ministries that have also spoken very clearly and definely on this topic as well. There are litteraly hundreds. However, I point people to the ones that I have used most. Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis is not my first (albeit I think they are very good) places I go. I go to Institute for Creation Research as my primary. I also visit Creation Ministries International. Then after those two, I may or may not go to Ken Ham. However, I had on file the article that I posted and so I used it. In each of these ministries they have very concise and cognitive arguments for a young earth. This is a forum so for me to go into full depth, it is easier for me to hit main points and point to the proof from those who are in their fields. 

You are right. God has given us intellect and wisdom in seeing what is there before us. We can worship Him as the Psalmist says and even Paul in Romans 1. However, mankind has taken the position that there can be no God. Therefore creation does not speak of the Glory of God, but to Humanism and materialism. I am going to step out here and take a guess that you are very gifted in the math's. You speak as though you follow the likes of Hugh Ross. I will say the man is brilliantly smart. However, I see errors in his works (especially the book titled, "Fingerprints of God"). He uses math so fluently that it appears he is lost in the translation of it. He comes from a place that Science must be right and so the Scripture must bow to Science. False. Scripture is not a Science book. But when it speaks of science it is true and accurate 100%. It is science that has been promoted and developed, not because of humanism and evolution but because of Creationism. 

You speak of fossils. You speak of being able to age them. How are they aged? By the rock layers that they are found in. This is not made up. But then they turn around and say that the age of the rocks are determined by the fossils that are found therein! That is circular reasoning. I give a challenge...name one fossil that is an uncontested missing link. No group of scientists have an consensus on it. There are no transitional fossils. Take a feather for example. They say that scales evolved into feathers. However, when we see fossilized feathers, even to the deepest parts, they look like fully formed feathers. No change. No transition. 

Lastly, you are right. God is outside of our time. Yet, time was given so we can understand. Everything was done so we could benefit from and use it for our knowledge about HIM! It is never about us. Many will argue that in 2 Peter, the thousand years are one day and one day is a thousand years. It is not what they are saying. The focus is completely contrary to how that verse is meshed in with Creation. But in the same token, I would not try to force God into what our science says. That is very counter productive. Let the evidence speak for itself. Evolution looses every time. 

Your entire post is a long lost of strawmen and absurd "points" from the likes of Ken Hamm and Kent Hovind that betray a sad ignorance of what scientists actually do and understand.

I know you don't believe me and won't care, but I feel compelled to point that out.

Evangelical tracts? I have given arguments that are laid down by math, science, History, geology, etc. That cannot come from tracts. Do you have evidence of which you speak...unless you are thinking about Chick Tracts then I haven't read one of those in...16 years or so. No, I do try to read several articles from these sites (which do reference secular work as supporting evidence for why they make their arguments) dealing with everything from molecular levels to Astrophysics. I may not understand everything, but I am able to piece enough together to help me formulate my ideas. 

You have given arguments that betray a profound ignorance of "math, science, History, geology, etc."

Perhaps your faith in the honesty of the men who have directed you to cherry-picked findings and out of context arguments allows you to believe you understand what it is you are saying, but it looks laughable to anyone who has taken as a much a a geology course.

I need to learn to quit jumping into these threads. No ones minds is going to change, the gross mischaracterization of what science actually claims, vs what the young earth types say it does is mind blowing.

Then, if we don't understand the evidence for old earth...give it. Give us the resources to track down your findings. Give us the links to the information you used to support your claims. Give us something that proves what you are saying. I know what I have seen. I know what I have studied. I USED to be a Theistic Evolution because in my mind the Bible had to fit science! But that is just the fallisy that is promoted by Hugh Ross and others like him. NO, NO, NO, the Bible doesn't have to answer to man's science. It was God who gave man the ability to use science. Why then does Theology have to answer to Scientology? A much better approach is Science answers to the Bible. Let the Scriptures be the lens that Science operates out of. Science and the Bible are not enemies. Only when mankind wanted to remove God and his responsibility to God that the lie was promoted that they were not conducive. I see no conflict of interest. I do when the tests are manipulated to prove a bias and I will head it off now...this goes both ways. 

Then give me evidences that I am wrong. Real evidence and not from the likes of Bill Nye and Charles Dawkins (who isn't even a scientist as well). I agree with Kent Hovind but I must ask...where have you seen me quote him? Where have I used his information? Where have I even alluded to him? I am really interested how I was lumped into Hovind's camp and so suddenly without proof. 

But I wait for your answer to my questions that I asked before as well as asking now...where is the evidence? Give it to me so I can research it out and study. I want to know as well. I want to be informed. But if you can't or won't give it I question on how far I can go with the arguments you have made here. 

If science and scripture contradict, science is wrong. Flat out. No questions. But an old earth doesn't contradict scripture, nor does evolution.

I don't think any of us will truly know these answers until we can ask God himself. 6 days or billions of years matters not. God created the universe. A fast miracle or a slow one is still a miracle.

I'm sorry, but this is reminding me of far too many GD threads for me to believe you.

There is more information out there than will fit in libraries. It's there if you look for it. There are website devoted to the whole "debunking" debate nonsense, but it's better to just stufpdy the science.

The fact you mention Bill Nye and Charles Dawkins tells me your knowledge of this whole thing is, as your arguments show, "internet deep."

We are talking about hundreds of years of accumulated knowledge and understanding in fields from geology to biology to astronomy, you are looking for more internet. I can't help you, I can only ask you to open his mind and read.

As for Hovind, the absurd "circular logic" argument about fossils (which betrays complete ignorance of the history and methods of geology - the layers were named for the fossils long before anyone speculated they might contradict the then widespread understanding of the age of the earth, many various dating methods have been developed and used as cross reference materials, but the fossils remain a handy guide to layers now that the history is established) is a popular one of his.

Science and Scripture don't contradict each other. True Science must be something observed, or be able to be recreated in a controlled environment.
Scientific theory is something all together different, and generally associated with those attempting to deny a creator.
There is a reason it's rightly named the theory of evolution, and not the fact of, and the theory definitely contradicts Scripture.

I read Don Johanson's book about finding Lucy and was surprised by the amount the biologists relied on the geologists in dating their fossils. Can you provide examples of your circular reasoning that I can look up?

A great example of this is found as short time ago as 2013 (Daniel J. Peppe (Department of Geology, Baylor University) & Alan L. Deino (Berkeley Geochronology Center) © 2013 Nature Education [img width=14,height=14]http://www.nature.com/scitable/natedimages/info_icon.png[/img]

Citation: Peppe, D. J. & Deino, A. L. (2013) Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods. Nature Education Knowledge 4(10):1 [I am not sure why this is hot linked above, but the next link is where it is located]. 

In the article, it starts off speaking about the age of fossils. It speaks to C14 dating as well as Argon dating and a few other aspects. It does give little honesty to the fact that some of these methods must change in order to maintain a balance because each testing gives a different answer. I will agree with that. However, I also find, and if the paper is read, that it then goes into geology. In that segment, it speaks of the geology as having an horizontal layering effect and a cross built effect. But then it goes into how the fossils can tell the age. I guess they are not using the term Circular reasoning but instead Geological method. If you wish to read their work directly, I would say go here. 

But, lest it is assumed that I am making this stuff up or am seeking for any answer, I wish to give quotes of two secular scientist that realize the problem of fossil/rock dating:

J.E. O'Rourke: "These principles have been applied in Feinstratigraphie, which starts from a chronology of index fossils, and imposes them on the rocks. Each taxon represents a definite time unit and so provides an accurate, even 'infallible' date. If you doubt it, bring in a suite of good index fossils, and the specialist without asking where or in what order they were collected, will lay them out on the table in chronological order." - J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," AmericanJournal of Science, Vol. 276, January 1976, p. 51.

David Kitts: "But the danger of circularity is still present. For most biologists the strongest reason for accepting the evolutionary hypothesis is their acceptance of some theory that entails it. There is another difficulty. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation, which necessarily presupposed the non-repeatability of organic events in geologic history. There are various justifications for this assumption but for almost all contemporary paleontologists it rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis." - David G. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 466.

Regarding Lucy, we find that many times, we see Lucy held up as the perfect example of what our origins were based upon. Don Johanson does this as well. When we look at what was actually found however, it is not what they show as fact. There are very little in the way of bones and much of those bones are fragments. But yet they recreate the face to look exactly what we picture. I am going to be honest enough in my own personal evaluation to say...I can't say that it was a human nor can I say it was an ape (there are brilliant people on both sides that dogmatically say one way or the other). I know of very short people (I have an aunt who barely crests 5') and I know of really tall animals (gorillas). But with the factual evidence from Lucy's skeleton, I would not be dogmatic. Either case, I know that it was not a transitional fossil to Homo Sapians as is reported because we have no evidence elsewhere to support that theory. 

The fact that I point out Bill Nye and Charles Dawkins is because they are commonly propped up by the New Athiests as to being the brilliant ones who support their sides. I am not saying you are an atheist since I do not know you. Nor will I ever consider attacking your intelligence by simple statements of internet deep research and the like. I will point out, that you have the same information I do. any research that I can do is done so with whatever source I can. Whether that be evolutionists or creationists. However, my questions still stand and they have not been answered. I have not gotten the one example. However, I will share one evidence.

When we speak of the age of the earth (indeed this is just part of the discussion of geology) one must ask how is it aged as an individual idea by itself. I found a handy source in the USGS website. I will put the quote here: "A commonly used radiometric dating technique relies on the breakdown of potassium (⁴⁰K) to argon (⁴⁰Ar). In igneous rocks, the potassium-argon "clock" is set the moment the rock first crystallizes from magma. Precise measurements of the amount of ⁴⁰K relative to ⁴⁰Ar in an igneous rock can tell us the amount of time that has passed since the rock crystallized. If an igneous or other rock is metamorphosed, its radiometric clock is reset, and potassium-argon measurements can be used to tell the number of years that has passed since metamorphism." (full resource here).

Do we realize the math involved with this form of dating? What about the assumptions? I know that you have already discounted me and my intelligence with a  wave of the hand, but I am not basing my thoughts on my own stupor. If it was left to me, we all would be in trouble. But let's let the intelligent ones argue. I know you probably will discount the site immediately, but as I know you know, any good research must be willing to take in every possible information that can be reached (hence I asked for some info. Not the WEB because if one searches long enough, they can find anything). 

Dr. Andrew Snelling, "Excess Argon": The "Archilles' Heel" of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon "Dating" of Volcanic Rocks" - Found here

What about the other dating methods? Dr. Vernon Cupps with Radio Active Dating (Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5; Part 6; Part 7; Part 8). Each of these articles covers a different aspect to dating.

What about even Evolutionists own thought? I know that you had mentioned you had hundreds of years of backing. You are right. Charles Darwin in the 1800's really popularized evolution, but it was not him who actually formulated it. It was Charles Lyell that really gave the tipping point. But where there is only a hundred or so years for Evolution, before this there were thousands of years of Creation. So this is a mute argument for timing. What did Charles Darwin really say about his theory? He pointed out the issues himself. Most specifically in chapter 6 and 9. (Entire work found here)

We find in chapter six he says, "looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all the species of the same group together, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved, as we shall in a future chapter attempt to show, in an extremely imperfect and intermittent record. ". (actual chapter found here).  

Speaking of natural selection, even in those who hold to this cannot agree with themselves based upon the argument of Kin vs Gene selection. 

Bohr_Adam, I don't know you. I have not met you. I bet in person you are a very nice guy that would do anything you can to help out your friends and family. However, on a forum like this, it is not enough to say that someone is ignorant because it seems that all they have is "internet deep" research. It seems to me that my questions regarding Genesis still stand. My questions regarding evidence still stands. I would like one avenue that you have to give me a place that will enable me to research. I am a firm believer that you will always learn more from those who are of a different belief than those who know the different belief. A Creationist can and will never be able to teach and expound with passion and depth like an evolutionist. At the same time, I ask that you also take the time to read what is posted. Read what is linked to. It is not a matter of insulting your intelligence. It is a matter of a discourse that brings us to this point. You may never agree with me but at least now the evidence for both sides can be placed for us to follow and study more. 

In a way, I agree with you. When we see God, all will be made known. We will then have our answer and I will most rapidly admit that if I am wrong, I owe you and everyone else an apology. Evolution is a Theory (A scientific theory) as well as Creation. We cannot duplicate either one and therefore it comes down to faith and faith only that begins our research. I think that Occum's razor clarifies the best for me as it makes the most sense to me. In essence it says, "The theory that has the least amount of assumptions is the correct theory". Wrong, or right, we will know. But an assumption is an issue that needs to be handled on both ends.

Edit: You said, "the gross mischaracterization of what science actually claims, vs what the young earth types say it does is mind blowing". The mischaracterization exists on evolutionists side as well. Not just young earth proponents. This is why we need to study to the fullest we can each claim and not stop at just the first hit on a search (which I am not saying that you have done). 

There is not "evidence for both sides."

There is not even a "both sides." "Creation" is not a scientific theory, it's not science. It's rejection of science in favor of purported received knowledge.

There is what the scientific evidence points to, and there is what it does not point to.

You've posted nothing original, just the same tired old tropes, complete with the strawman that evolution = atheism. In fact, about all you are missing is the "of man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" line. Maybe that's coming.

ICRs attacks on Potassium Argon dating, gene mutation rates, and everything else they publish on, are internally inconsistent, and I question the ethics of any one who reads their stuff enough and claims not to see it. They have, in 40+ years of "research" never once offered an alternative, testable hypothesis. To do so would knock down their house of cards, as any competent researcher could use their own work against them.

I will assume, for arguments' sake, you are trusting them at face value because they espouse Christianity. You do not seem to have ever read any legitimate science that you weren't directed to in Creationist literature.

Exodus 20:1, 11
And God spake all these words, saying... For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

I read about 1/2 of the thread.

I am a young earth creationist.  

No reason not to be.

I agree. There was a lot of evidence that really opened my eyes! 

Edit: please don't take this as me being egotistic or haughty. That is not my intention and if it came across that way, please accept my sincere apology. 

To my son I explain somewhat like this:

The bible describes a creation that took six days.

When we look around the stars and the earth, with the assumptions we make we seem to observe a very old universe from where we're sitting.

I also notice from observation that time isn't what most people think it is in terms of its constancy.  The experience of it changes depending on how fast you are going, the gravity around you and such.  Fly a plane around the earth with a clock, keep a same clock on the ground, and you will measure different times when the clocks meet up again.

Not being certain that God's frame of reference from which this pre-human information is being shared is constantly the same frame of reference I view the universe from now, I have no way to judge anything about the differences in recorded times except the laws we have uncovered that govern the universe are not violated by 6 days passing from one perspective, and 15 billion years passing in another.  As such, there is no cause to bother about it.  Focus instead on the author of those physical laws and the laws by which he would guide and judge your own life.

Very well put.  I agree with your view but couldn't articulate it as well.  I believe in a 6 day creation.  I also believe that the universe could be very old.  I have no problem reconciling the 2 different points of view.

I am a young earthier. It really doesn't matter to me if I am right or wrong. I don't believe in evolution.

I really like believing in a young earth because it pisses off liberals.