Darwin’s Dyke: What the Fossil Record Actually Shows

Allosaur Fossil Skull
Allosaur Fossil Skull

How many times have you heard this? “The fossil record proves evolution!”

It doesn’t. Let me tell you why. Hey, I’ll even show you.

What the Geological Strata Charts don’t tell you.

What they want you to believe
What they want you to believe

Now, the picture we’re usually given to illustrate how evolution is demonstrated shows a cross-section of geological strata and some corresponding text to indicate that these strata represent specific ages. They’re all lined up nice and neat from beginning to end. Each slice has a group of representative fossils to show how life has allegedly progressed through the ages. The first few slices show jellyfish, worms and trilobites; the next shows fish; then amphibians and early reptiles; then dinosaurs; then mammals; and finally man. Nice and neat.

Of course, it’s just a drawing. Darwinists weren’t actually there, so it’s only their interpretation of what the fossil record means.

A few things these charts don’t tell you.

  1. These geological strata don’t always play ball with the claims of the Church of Darwin. Quite often the early strata are flip-flopped with later ages, so that allegedly younger fossils are found below older fossils. Evolutionists do explain these anomolies away when they can and chalk up the rest to “We don’t know yet, but we KNOW it WASN’T the result of a catastrophic global flood!” But you should be aware that their neatly laid out strata-age chart exists in full form nowhere in nature! It’s not observable. It’s inferred from their evolutionary presuppositions.
  2. All of the missing links are missing. The dots are only connected in their minds, not in the fossil record. By nature of the fossils themselves, which don’t come with pedigrees, birth certificates or identification tags of any sort, no one can state that one fossil creature is descended from another with absolute certainty. This is an important point. They can speculate, but their speculations presume Darwinism; they don’t spring forth naturally from the evidence. The fossil record simply shows, as Ken Ham has famously put it, “billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth.”
  3. The Cambrian Explosion makes a shipwreck of their nice neat chart. Rather than seeing simple life forms such as worms and jellyfish appear to be folowed by trilobites and fish and the like, we instead see representations of all major phyla appearing AT THE SAME TIME! This obvious slap in darwin’s face has caused not a few Darwinists to famously modify the theory. Punctuated equilibrium, or “punk eek,” suggests that life exists with only minor adaptations within established kinds [observable microevolution, which no one disputes], but then goes rapid changes in short spurts which leave behind no transitional forms! This is just another example of how the speculative [and imaginative!] nature of Darwinism makes it unfalsifiable.
  4. They don’t tell you that there are other alternatives [such as the one illustrated in the Walker chart below] to the Old Earth uniformitarian view assumed by Darwinists and Progessive Creationists [Compromisers would be a more appropo term] which not only address the same set of facts that Old Earthers have [we all ahve the same facts to interpret, but start with different assumptions] but also address the “anamolies” that Old Earth explanations create.


Walker Biblical Geological Rock Chart

The Fossil Record Itself Shows that Rapid Burial and Preservation are Key factors in Fossilization

The fossil record is replete with examples of fossils which illustrate that the animals were swept up in some catastrophe and buried almost instantly!

We have fish that died in the act of eating another fish…

The Last Meal of a Fossil Fish
The Last Meal of a Fossil Fish

We have animals which died in the middle of giving birth…

A Fossil Ichthyosaur Giving Birth
A Fossil Ichthyosaur Giving Birth
A Close-Up of a Pregant Fossil Ichthyosaur
A Close-Up of a Pregant Fossil Ichthyosaur

We have large animals [which is a “sizeable” argument for rapid burial in and of itself!] which died seemingly in the midst of struggle… 

Fighting Dinosaurs? Why Are Predator & Preay Fossilized Together?
Fighting Dinosaurs? Why Are Predator & Preay Fossilized Together?

We have huge, mass graves where dinosaur fossils are jumbled together like so much flotsam after a flood — and little wonder if the Biblical account is true!

Dinosaur Graveyard in Bighorn, Wyoming
Dinosaur Graveyard in Bighorn, Wyoming
The Dinosaur Graveyard aka the Morris Formation
Dinosaur Graveyard aka the Morrison Formation

We even have soft-bodied animals and delicate structures such as dragonfly wings which were buried quickly enough to imprint themselves in mud before the decay made that impossible. 

Fossilized Dragonfly Wing
Fossilized Dragonfly Wing
Jellyfish Fossils
Jellyfish Fossils

We even have horseshoe crab tracks preseved in stone. How did that escape erasure if stone takes millions of years to form out of mud?    

More Horseshoe Crab Tracks
Horseshoe Crab Tracks

 Add to this the puzzle [for darwinists] of polystratic fossils, tree fossils which run vertically through several strata of rock.

If these strata allegedly represent billions of years, how did the tree survive long enough [without rotting] to become fossilized?  On an empirical level, the Mount Saint Helens eruption gave us a tangible example of how polystratic fossils might form. According to Answers in Genesis:

The volcano sent mud and debris hurtling down into Spirit Lake, sloshing a wave nearly 900 feet (300 m) up its initially tree-studded slopes. The wave sheared off trees with enough lumber to make all the houses in a large city! The trees were sheared off their roots and stripped of their leaves, branches, and bark. The “forest” of denuded logs floated out over the huge lake. As they water-logged, many sank vertically down into and through several layers of mud on the lake bottom.

These are anamolies [mass burials all over the Earth, evidence of sudden burial of living creatures and polystrate fossils] created by the Old Earth uniformitarian assumptions, but which are easily accounted for by the Young Earth Biblical Catastrophic model.

Ironically, Darwinists and Creationists both agree that in order to be fossilized, the subjects had to be buried completely and very quickly at that to keep the subject from total decomposition so that there would be anything to fossilize! In fact, the debate is not that flooding and rapid burial are critical elements in fossilization; the debate is now whether there were hundreds [or thousands] of small, local flood events or a single global flood such as the Bible records.

Guess which one the Darwinists are promoting? Yep, the one that doesn’t lend credence to the Bible. It seems they would cut off their nose to spite their face, so long as they do not allow a Divine foot in the door. So much for parsimony.

–Sirius Knotts

Read More Articles from Darwin’s Dyke, exploring the weaknesses and implications of Darwin’s theory.

A shorter version of this post is available for  download in PDF format as part of our free 13-part Defending Genesis church bulletin insert series [#8 in the series]. This series has been described a miniature course in Creation and Catastrophism. They can be used as church bulletin inserts or stand alone witnessing or apologetics tools.

A free podcast is also available of this post at DefendingGenesis.Podbean.com.


115 Comments Add yours

  1. cindyinsd says:

    Hi, Sirius

    I have a question for you, and I’m not sure whether I read this somewhere or it just came from me alone, but I wonder how come we still have rivers and mountains and things if the earth is as old as some people like to think.

    If the earth is really billions of years old, wouldn’t all the mountains have been washed away by all the rivers and the rain and wind a long time ago? Maybe this is naive, but it just doesn’t make sense to me that the earth isn’t a flat salt swamp by now (unless it’s young). What do you think?


    1. Hello,

      Allah says in Al Quran:

      Al-Naml sura “And thou seest the hills thou deemest solid flying with the flight of clouds: the doing of Allah Who perfecteth all things. Lo! He is Informed of what ye do. (88)”

      This is to indicate that the mountains even though they seem solid they come and go like the clouds. Clouds gather up then shed rain and disappear. This is exactly what happens to the mountains; earth gather up “collide” and form mountains then they shed sediments and they eventually disappear and go like the clouds.

      This is to show that Allah the creator of everything has the knowledge of everything he created. So if you read his book “Quran” you will see that evident.

      Also not that Quran cannot be translated to any other language as to get the meaning of al Quran you need to read it in Arabic however these are just explanations or interpretation of Qruan in a different language.

      1. Yahya,

        Your comment is extremely off-topic. This is not an open forum for propogating the lie of Islam. Comments on this site are moderated. Please see our Rules of Engagement for posting comments and abide by them in future comments.

        Thank you,
        Rev Tony Breeden,
        A minister of the Resurrected Son of God, Jesus Christ the Creator

  2. Tony Sidaway says:

    You’re trying to disprove evolution by quoting Ken Ham? Best of luck! 🙂

    1. stephen says:

      Maybe I was misunderstanding the message Ken Ham was making, but what I recieved from that debate was that science says they prove things we dont know, but really in-truly they reprove things we do know through the scriptures. There were large scaled animals some on land and some in the sea. Job 40 and 41 describes some of the beasts still living after the flood. The scriptures also explain the profound evidence of that catastrophic event we see. The flood of Noahs time. Not only that, but also the fact that the earth is spherical(Isaiah 40:22), the water cycle is explained(Job 36:27-28), springs in the sea, recesses of the deep[(Job 38) I know that dosent seem like a deal, but know that the ocean floor was thought to be flat until sonar was invented.] There were many proofs that Ken Ham had and could’ve easily recited. I think the best point of all of it was the point he made and continuously made about the love of Jesus Christ. Getting the message of love out to millions, and for that, I commend him.

  3. Mike says:

    Nice job!

    “All of the missing links are missing.” – that’s quite funny 😉

  4. Sirius says:


    Words fail me as I consider the incredible lack of depth, wit and comprehension your dismally banal comment evidences. I am torn between wishing to mock you to scorn for attempting an ad logicum cum ad hominem without bothering to qualify how the ad hominem is crucial to my argument exactly OR simply pointing out that the majority of my argument neither borrows from nor refers to Mr. Ham, but he is mentioned only one time for a rather famous phrasing of an idea I wished to convey.

    It’s certainly nice to know where you stand on your personal feelings for Ken Ham. I do hope you have something more interesting to contribute. For example, would you care to comment on anything specific on the article you apparently did not read [or could not comprehend at any rate] except to note that Ken ham was mentioned once?

    Probably not, since if you HAD read what I’ve written you would note that I’m not trying to disprove Darwinism by quoting Ken Ham, but rather I have demonstated, as Darwin himself acknowledged [and this is why he tried to dismiss it as notoriously “imperfect” in Origins], that the fossil record does not support Darwinian theory.

    I should like to make one final note. My true name is also Tony. It’s a good name. If your comments on this blog are a true sampling of the piffulous tripe you habitually spew upon the virtual world, I do hope you’ll stop using that name, for the sake of all Tonys everywhere.

    Best of luck,
    Sirius Knott

    1. Starla says:

      I found this very interesting. I loved seeing the pictures of the fossils. I find God fascinating in that He allowed these things to happen so that we could see them. I think it’s kind of like a photo album a parent might put together for a child so they can see what happened before them. I especially liked that the fossils have some of the very same animals stamped in them that exist today like the jelly fish. I believe things adapt as far as they can to survive but I also believe that some of the animals that exist today also existed long ago. There is nothing new under the sun and to say that something “evolved” into something completely different from the original species to me is confusing. Maybe I am not making any sense. But I liked what I saw and read and I get your point. Well done!

  5. Tony Sidaway says:

    Sirius, forgive my impulse to mock your posting. Rather then get into a long explanation of your many errors, I’ll direct you to a website that refutes every single one of your credulous claims, and more.

    [Sirius: Sadly, Tony here appeals to a higher authority, TalkOrigins in this case, an inevitable indication that he has not read the rules of engagement in the About Me section of this blogsite. I digress. He continues his baseless and unqualified ad hominem here…]

    For a basic introduction to evolution, so you’ll know in future what you’re arguing against, I recommend What evolution is by the late Ernst Mayr.

    [Sirius: I know what evolution is. He really needs to read the rest of this site. His presumption is that I must be ignorant since I don’t agree with his bleating faith in Darwinism.]

    And if you want to argue against modern geology, stop telling nursery tales about global floods and read a modern geology text book.

    [Sirius: Yep, more ad hominem. I must be ignorant because there is no science but naturalism and Darwin is it’s prophet! Hail science! He’s done, now read my response…]

  6. Sirius says:


    Why do you guys keep barking up my tree? or at the moon? or whatever? You guys always have something to say, but you really ain’t saying nothing. How come you guys never have the temerity to actually address the points of argument I’ve presented in the blog? [Oh, because you can’t. You either lack the intellect to try or you possess intellect enough to know I’ve got your number.]

    As I’ve warned others in the past, please read the About Me page, as I have rules on my site. One of the more pertinent rules is that if you wish to make a comment, you must actually engage whatever small capacity you possess to form your own arguments in your own words. We call this independent thought. We’re big on it here even if you’re not. We don’t allow you to appeal to your own special higher powers like TalkOrigins. Instead, we use our blogsite as a benevolent excuse to make Darwin neophytes think and articulate for themselves, instead of appealing to authorities.

    Thus far, you’ve appealed to science by consensus [hail science!] but you’ve not told me why I should consider their opinion better than the creationist view. Is it because they are supermen of whom we peons are not worthy [hail science!]? Is it because they’re right? If so, tell me how, if you can do more than parrot, if you can do more than express your faith in those who do your thinking for you?

    If there are sooooo many errors in this blog, put your intellect at stake and actually try to formulate a coherent argument. Why should I accept Just-so story of Darwinism given the evidence I’ve presented over Biblical catastrophism? Are you just going to appeal to a consensus or to authority again?

    Come back when your evolved enough to evidence sapience, you knuckle-dragging sheep,

    –Sirius Knott

  7. Tony Sidaway says:

    I’m not appealing to a higher authority, Sirius. Just asking you to read somehting about evolution before you parade your ignorance.

  8. Mike says:

    Hey, I wonder how many Christians he gets on his blog who just throw down a link followed by a suggestion to read the bible?

  9. Sirius says:

    [Wow. This guy’s mental midgitry knows no bounds.]


    It is you who has been parading your ignorance on my blog. Allow me to elucidate…

    Mike’s comment succintly illustrates why throwing out a link [what we call “appealing to higher powers” around here – would you prefer “appealing to better men than you?”] displays a lack of intellectual integrity. In fact, failing to formulate a credible and lucid answer on this site is pretty much an admission of ignorance [because you don’t know, but you have a hero who does your thinking for you that does! What faith! hail naturalism!]

    I’ve read Dawkins, Hitchens, Darwin – the whole lot! In fact, it’s BECAUSE I’ve actually READ Origins that it’s filed under science fiction on my shelves. You’d know that if you’d bothered reading my actual post. I know all about Darwinism – and I don’t agree with it! And I’ve actually gone about systematically writing down why exactly I disagree. Unlike you and some of the other wannabes who’ve visited my site…

    I’ve bothered to put my money where my mouth is and actually state my opinion in an intelligent manner, while you’ve hidden behind what I suspect is a false front of I’m-too-too-intellectual-to-be-bothered-with-being-brave-enough-to-actually-engage-the-subject-at-hand. But from where I’m standing it looks like your just another punk troll who shot off his mouth before he realized he was in over his head.

    But that’s OK. If you CAN’T answer me, well, that’s par for the course for you Darwinist wannabes. But don’t put out a smokescreen about how I don’t know anything about evolution. Instead why don’t you demonstrate your alleged sapience [and my supposed ignorance] by addressing my actual post?

    Can you manage to cranial output and the integrity to do that?

    –Sirius Knott

    1. jimmy guzman says:

      To Tony and Sirius:

      Please answer me directly. If evolution/Darwinism is real, what will be our face in the future generation. Because evolution does not stop, it’s a continuing process, therefore we continue to evolve. From ape to man. From man to.. what? Ape again? OR robot?

      1. Sirius and I are one and the same.

        If evolution were true [and it isn’t; this sort of speculation squarely classifies as science fiction, mind you], our future face would be… annihilation. While monkeys might remain in the face of humanity [according to the standard evo just-so story], humanity is in the opinion of most evos unique in our ability to transcend the limits of natural selection. Thus some evo science fiction writers and futurists have suggested we might adapt and improve ourselves; unfortunately Original Sin is a scientifically verifiable fact – men have a tendency toward violence, war, sin and self-destruction. We cannot improve ourselves [apart from Christ] and in order for something to replace us [the only remaining option from an evo POV], well… the annihilation of mankind would be a requirement given our “evolutionary transcendence,” don’t you think?.

        Thank you for your question. If you write a book with this plot, send me a copy and mention me in the foreword.

        Rev Tony Breeden aka Sirius Knott

  10. Tony Sidaway says:

    Hi, Sirius. I’ve simply asked your to study the subject before you try to attack it. Attacking my intelligence won’t make your problem go away or enable you to fool others into thinking that you’ve got your facts right when you come out and parade ignorant nonsense like the global flood.

    Now enough posturing. If you’ve read anything on modern geology you’ll know that your comic book description of geological dating is ridiculously wrong. You misrepresent the Cambrian explosion, as a simultaneous appearance of all modern phyla, when it’s known to have taken at the very least tens of millions of years.

    I don’t waste much time with you because you obviously, blatantly, know nothing of modern geology or evolution. You’ve read Dawkins? Really? You show no evidence of that.

    Moreover you argue for a young earth. That’s a complete waste of time.

  11. Sirius says:

    “Tony” [sorry, but your apparent lack of intelligence casts serious doubt as to whether that’s your real name],

    I’ve read Dawkins. Are you so enthralled by his snitty British accent that you could not comrehend how someone would not simply read his hubris and be instantly illuminated, convinced and converted [hail naturalism!]? Seriously, lad – you might believe everything you read uncritically, but we philosophers like to evaluate the evidence.

    A couple points:

    1. The argument for a young earth is only a complete waste of time if it’s not true. You’re begging the question, but you’ve not demonstrated why except to appeal to authorities. Science has a self-correcting mechanism wherein the previous paradigm [and the authorities who subsist off it and defend it] is always replaced by those willing to challenge the old paradigm through freedom of inquiry. A refusal to engage the debate is both arrogant and cowardly. It’s also demonstrably unscientific and even antiscientific. It’s essentially relaince upon dogma.

    2. You don’t waste time with me because you have NOTHING intelligent to say. You bit off Waaaaay more than you could chew. You have demonstrated your ignorance by appealing to authorities [what we call appealing to a higher power] and claiming I’m ignorant without bothering to support your allegation. You have also not addressed any specific point of my argument. You’re a fartful dodger.

    3. I’ve not misrepresented the Cambrian explosion any more than Stephen Jay Gould did. The point is simply that there was no a gradual progression from simple celled oragnisms to more and more complex organisms, but rather there appears a grand variety of life with no transitional forms evident [there never are] in an extremely tiny span of time [by geological standards]. This pretty much kills the idea of gradual evolution and forced any scientist who looked at data rather than dogma to come up with the idea that evolution comes in fits interupted by long boring periods where nothing happens. Of course, we haven’t seen macroevolution ever, but hail darwinism anyway, right “tony”?

    4. How do they KNOW it took tens of millions of years? Were they there? Do you really want to go a round with me over how they date these rocks? Are you up for it? You certainly haven’t demonstrated an aptitude for argument thus far.

    5. I have amply demonstrated that I understand evolution on this blogsite. I simply don’t agree with Darwinism. And I’m in good company. Mendel thought he was a blithering idiot. Origins is essentially one giant argument from ignorance relying upon argumentum verbosium and a good dose of imagination. But working out how something might happen if your theory is true isn’t the same thing as proving it, is it? Presuming it’s true because you’ve worked how how it might have happened IF it’s true at all is begging the question.

    6. I’m not attacking your intelligence. I’m pointing out that you haven’t demonstrated any!

    But since you brought it up, how would “Tony” define evolution, big boy?

    –Sirius Knott

  12. Stian says:

    Hi Knott!

    For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the global flood DID happen.

    Have you considered the enormous amount of problems such an event would have with the observed facts?

    To mention a few…

    1. The ice caps on the poles would never have the chance to grow to their current size in 4000 years. These caps would have been destroyed if they were submerged in flowing water for months. We also have a way of dating ice, in which we count the layers of ice. Why doesn’t these layers show that they are less than 4000 years?

    2. Fresh water fish. If the world was flooded, there would be no fresh water for the fish which require these conditions.

    3. Diseases.. some diseases can only survive in humans. The human immune system fights these and makes it impossible for them to survive in populations of less than 10000 individuals, now imagine a group of 10…

    4. We also know that “species” with a very low population has huge problems surviving. If a modern species is down to a handful of members, they will probably go extinct. There are also major problems with inbreeding.

    The list goes on…

  13. Tony Sidaway says:

    Hi Sirius. Please read some text books….

    [Sirius: Gentle readers, I can’t take it any more. We are all actually stupider for having entertained this fellow’s drivel. I dunno. Maybe the broken record approach works where he comes from. Certainly many toddlers find they can wear down adults with this method, but I kinda feel like adults should attempt more intelligent discourse. I’m cutting him off, for all our sakes. If he ever decides to say something ELSE, I’ll let you know.]

    1. Anonymous says:

      So you’ve censored the argument against you.. how quaint.

      1. What argument? and you might want to check out our rules of engagement, btw, especially anything under #6.

  14. “You guys always have something to say, but you really ain’t saying nothing.”

    Wouldn’t that mean you are, in fact, saying something?

    [Sirius: See what I write when I’m low of coffee! Good call, airtight. I meant that these guys are always talking, but they say nothing of substance. Filling the air with words. Prattling on. I digress. ;] heh heh.]

  15. Sirius says:


    Whether the list goes on or not, I’ll address your specific objections:

    1. The Biblical picture of the Flood and the subsequent evidence we have for THE Ice Age [i.e. – flash-frozen mammoths] suggests a rather sudden onset to the Ice Age [which only covered approx. 1/3 of the Earth not its entirety]. You’re assuming gradualism or uniformitarianism, whereby current processes [and rates] are assumed to account for all past phenomenon. Current catastrophism models add vulcanism to the picture. Volcanic eruptions would have blocked the sun’s heat to a great measure, creating a drastic temperature drop. Vegetation would have created the necessary carbon dioxide to alleviate this problem and warm the earth back up after a couple hundred years.

    Also: the Biblical model suggests a uniform climate made possible by a vapor canopy [which fell to earth at the Flood when the “windows of heaven opened.”] that produced a greenhouse effect. The subsequent post-Flood lack of said canopy would have then allowed the climate differences we see now.

    2. ICR’s website puts it succinctly:

    “Heavy rainfall over the land would quickly fill the river basins with torrential flows. These in turn would empty out onto the encroaching coastline as a freshwater blanket. Odum refers to situations similar to this as a “highly stratified or `salt-wedge’ estuary.” Such a massive freshwater outflow from the continents would join with the oceanic rainfall to form a halocline or strong density gradient, in which fish flushed out from the land aquatic systems could continue to survive in a freshwater environment. Stratification like this might even survive strong winds, if the freshwater depth was great enough to prevent internal current mixing. Thus, a situation might be envisioned where freshwater and marine fishes could survive the deluge in spite of being temporarily displaced.”

    In other words, there are possible answers.

    3. Again, you need to look at the Biblical model. First, we don’t know whether said diseases mutated and specialized into what they are now by the time of the Flood. Considering the evidence, it would seem to be a later development.

    4. This has been answered many times over. Humans [per the Biblical account] lived much longer lives and we may postulate that they were more genetically robust. The animal kinds were likely as robust. Current Catastrophism models also stress that Noah only needed to carry the representative uber-“kinds” which would have adapted into the variety we see now through observable microevolutionary processes. The problems you’re refering to would not have been applicable with such genetically robust specimens. It is only now, after many harmful mutations, that we have problems with inbreeding.

    –Sirius Knott

  16. forknowledge says:

    How many Creationist websites did you mine this dreck from? Your condescending attitude only makes it more ridiculous. Please, please check your facts before you write things like this.

    1. TDN says:

      Hello Tony, I appreciate your focus on keeping this site open to outsiders, and also at trying to keep the discussion honest. I wanted to make a brief comment about a gentlemen that I was listening to recently that did extensive scientific testing on fish. He was able to identify several species of fresh water fish that could actually live in salt water for extended periods and some that could live indefinitely in salt water. AS I recall his name was Dr. Arthur Jones. He is a brilliant guy. Check him out. He has allot of very good insight.

  17. Sirius says:


    It’s pretty funny that you’d comment on MY condescending attitude, considering you started your comment on a Christian site with a blasphemous hyperbole [deleted], yet even with this omitted your arrogance is quite evident. If you think it makes ME look rediculous, how rediculous do you look – especially since [like “tony”] you can’t seem to articulate your specific objections.

    You see, the ad hominem about Creationist sites merely masks the fact that you’ve said nothing specific. You may as well have written, “Nuh-uh!”

    Having said that, care to be specific about which facts I should have checked? Or are you all mock and no substance?

    –Sirius Knott

  18. Stian says:

    With all respect, you’re grasping at straws here…

    [Sirius comments: I’m certainly feeling the respect thus far…]

    All you creationists can do is try to find “possible” alternatives for the evidence. You never pick the one the evidence suggests, because it contradicts the bible.

    [Sirius comments: We believe that true science will never contradict the Bible; that IS our presupposition. Are you suggesting that you don’t pick the explanations that best fit your macroevolutionary presuppositions?]

    The evidence does NOT suggest a “Vapor Canopy”. In fact, it’s not only extremely unlikely and unsupported by evidence, it also brings a lot of new problems to the table. The pressure of such a canopy alone would add 0.1 bar/meter of rain. It would have to contain enough vapor to add at least 5 km of water on the earths surface, which adds a whopping 500 bar to the pressure at sea level. How would this INCREASE life expectancy? It makes no sense. Add this to the fact that such a vapor canopy would absorb nearly all the sunlight, leaving very little for the plants and photosynthesis. The “vapor canopy” theory is pure nonsense with no credibility and no support by evidence.

    [Sirius comments: Since the Bible doesn’t explicitly state there was a Vapor Canopy, I’m not prepared to be dogmatic about it. Certainly your criticisms are worth considering. Irregardless of the theory’s viability, the Bible does say that the water came from two sources: the fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven, from above and below. The water from below the earth’s crust would have been plenty hot which would have raised the ocean’s temperature. A cooled atmosphere [from rainfall] combined with warmer oceans would have lead to more moisture in the air allowing larger snowfalls in a short time.]

    Then, to number 1.

    On earth, we have ice layers that are ~4000 meters thick. How would you suggest that these could regrow in 4000 years? You would agree that the climate when Jesus was alive was similar to todays? There is no mention of cold periods in the bible, is it? If a volcano were to create a 4000 m thick ice layer, one would surely notice it in Israel too? I don’t even know where to start pointing out inconsistencies. It just doesn’t add up! The evidence points in a completely different direction…

    [Sirius comments: You misunderstand. I’m not saying a single volcanowould have this effect, but increased vulcanic activity from such a catastrophe might cause the effect post-Flood.]

    While we’re at it.. how do you explain that the pyramids seem untouched by a flood? Most are dated pre-flood. If you claim that they are post-flood, when would you date them?

    [Sirius comments: Um, most are not dated pre-Flood. The Great Pyramid and the Sphynx are possibly pre-Flood. The dating of these structures is based largely on flawed Egyptian chronology. The Sphynx does show extensive water damage, so it is possibly pre-Flood. There is no reason why Noah’s sons would not have tried to emulate the structures of pre-Flood cultures. Biblical chronologists suggest that one of Noah’s sons built the Great Pyramid.]

    How could we repopulate earth in only 4000 years, and evolve from only a handful of israelis to blacks, whites, asian, indian etc…? We know that the africans have been where they are for some years now… and the mayas have a lot of structures dated at least 3000 years back…

    [Sirius comments: Israeli? I’m assuming you presume upon the ethnicity of N oah and his family of survivors. And I do not believe we evolved from Israelis or any other ethnicity. There is evidenced a great deal of diversity in skin color and facial characteristics in even present-day children where one parent is of one ethnicity and the other parent is of another. These differences do not require long ages.]

    There is no way the mayas could have left israel 4000 years ago, reached south america (how?), started their very own culture and populated the land. In the same time they changed from israelis to indians. What happened to their israeli ancestry? Why have we not found any relics from israel or references to their culture?

    [Sirius comments: Again, you presume some form of human evolution where ethnicities are concerned [a very racist notion, btw].]

    It just doesn’t add up, no matter how hard you try to bend the truth. It makes NO sense and is completely unsupported by evidence.

    I can not understand how you can defend this…

    Science does not yet have all the answers, but at least they make a conclusion based on evidence…you just make evidence based on a (impossible) conclusion…

    [Sirius comments: We do not make evidence. We all share the same pool of evidence. I’m sorry you cannot come to the correct conclusions.]

  19. freidenker85 says:

    Sirius, I have a question: Is there anything in flood geology that provides accurate, consistent dating of fossil fauna all dating apx. during a bible-inspired flood date that’s been corroborated by other date sources? (For example, radioactive dating’s been corroborated not only by different dating methods, but also, in the case of Renee et. al, 1997, by historical records of Mt. Vesuvius (sp.?) volcanic eruption, which has, and I’ve read this article myself, consistent and independent results from multiple radiometric datings which are amazingly consistent with the historical account of the volcanic eruption, that is, about 1800 years ago)

    I must admit that I cannot truly answer how come there’s trees buried vertically, for example. Geology’s not my speciality, though I’m quite curious to hear about young earth arguments. I’m a biology undergrad, so my (currently partial) knowledge is in Biology.

    [Sirius comments: I’m not sure how to answer your question, so I’m emailing the guys at BiblicalGeology.net for their advice. I’ll get back to you, provided, of course, that they get back to me.]

  20. Penguin_Factory says:


    No one seems to be addressing your point, so I’ll give it a whirl: the Earth is not flat because of plate tectonics. Mountains are indeed eroded, but new ones are formed due to the buckling of the Earth’s crust.

    [Sirius comments: I’m not sure I agree with this response, Cindy. I haven’t answered your question yet because I’m still researching it. I do that.]


    Here is my refutation to the points you raise. I’m not an expert, so please don’t take my word on any of this- I encourage you to do independant research to verify (or falsify) what I write here.

    [Sirius comments: OK]

    Those charts showing geological strata are made that way for the purpose of clarity- scientists are not actually suggesting that the strata are always so neat and orderly. It’s just a conceit to present information in a more understandable way, just as planets in a school textbook will be shown lined up perfectly, when in reality they never actually do this.

    [Sirius comments: They still include dates promoting the Earth as billions of years old. I see your point about simplifying for clarity, but this oversimplifying tactic seems to be a common indoctrination method amongst Darwinists. Eugenie Scott defines evolution generically as “change over time” and with this misleading reductionist definition proceeds to teach students that evolution is then true.]

    As to why the column isn’t perfect, plate tectonics is again the answer- various processes warp the Earth’s crust, so that older plates are pushed or newer ones lowered. This is why absolute dating methods are handy.

    [Sirius comments: Plate tectonics is an explanation of what occurred in the past; it’s not happening in the present. You’re using it to try to justify an Old Earth through the assumption of slow-and-gradual uniformitarianism. Catastrophic plate tectonics, on the other hand, suggests that these events did not occur gradually but rather rapidly [catastrophically] as part of the Flood. Also, I hope you aren’t implying radiocarbon dating when you say “absolute dating methods.” Didn’t I address this already once. Oh yeah. I did. Transitional Forms: Why the Speculative Nature of Darwinism Makes It Unfalsifiable]

    Ah, the “no transitional fossils” fallacy. There are transitional fossils- many of them. I can’t really give an in-depth answer to this without linking to outside sites, but suffice it to say, there is a wealth of information about transitional fossils out there, if you care to look for it. The evolution of land mammals to whales, for example, is well-documented in the fossil record.

    [Sirius comments: “Many of them”?!? Au contrare. There are candidates for transitional forms, but they’re pretty dubious. Instead of the myriad transitional fossils Darwin predicted, we have only a handful of disputable candidates. The evolution of land animals to whales is well-speculated about. You cannot say from the fossils with any certainty that one species evolved into another. This is only begging the question.]

    You’re actually correct here that scientists can’t look at two fossil and state with certainty that this species evolved into that one. But they can trace th evolution of broader groups of species. For example, there’s a statue of a small mammal in the Smithsonian Museum in Washington. It’s thought to be related to the ancestor of all living mammals, because it’s the first mammal with the requisite traits that appears in the fossil record. But the museum doesn’t state that this particular species is our ancestor, because we can never know that with certainty.

    [Sirius comments: Yeah… again, they’re making an assumption about that fossil. It’s guesswork, not fact. You’re right that I am in fact correct when I note that you can’t say that this or any species is our ancestor with absolute certainty, and it’s begging the question to state that we had such a macroevolutionary ancestor.]

    As to Ken Ham’s comment, I’m curious as to what he means when he says that the rock layers were “laid down by water”. Most of the rock that we find fossils in was created by intense pressure found at the bottom of the ocean, but I fail to see how this connects with the flood, as I’m assuming he claims it does.

    [Sirius comments: Your presuming a uniformitarian model. The creation model suggests that the intense pressure was created by the catastrophic flood dynamics themselves.]

    One point I’d like you to consider: How could all of these species have existed side by side at the same time before the flood? Even today, with a relative scarcity of animal life, competition is fierce and small disruptions to an animal’s enviroment can cause it to go extinct. The scenario Ham is presenting, and which you seem to be endorsing, would have led to the rapid extinction of the majority of living species long before the flood occured.

    [The creation model has never suggested that all of the species we see today have always existed or existed at the time of the Noahic flood. We believe they existed as perhaps 8,000 land vertebrate species which have since flourished into the 11,000 species of land vertebrates. Remember, only air-breathing land animals required the safety of the Ark. I don’t think your point takes the creation model into account at all. How many animals do you think existed prior to the Flood that you would presume high extinction rates would prevail?]

    The Cambrian Explosion? Really? Let’s get this over with quickly.

    [Sirius comments: Yes, really. And OK]

    All major Phyla did not appear in the Cambrian explosion- at least six have been identified as Pre-Cambrian. Jellyfish and sponges appeared before the Cambrian explosion (and yes, we have the fossils to back this up).

    [Sirius comments: Define the pre-Cambrian. You should know as well as I that there is much dispute about which fossils and strata should be considered pre-Cambrian. To state this sort of thing dogmatically when it is highly disputed is simply hubris.]

    Let’s look at Chordata, the phylum that humans and all mammals belong to. It’s representative in the Cambrian explosion is a very small, simple creature. Getting from this proto-chordate to humans and whales and what have you requires…. well, evolution!

    [Sirius comments: You’re presuming that the fossil strata represent ages of evolutionary development. Creationists see the strata as order of burial. But nice try.]

    The Cambrian explosion was indeed an explosion, but in geological time. The phyla did not appear at the same time- the “explosion” still took millions of years.

    [Sirius comments: And you know it took millions of years because you were there? Or because you presume the fossil strata represents ages of macroevolutionary development?]

    I don’t know enough about the chart you posted next to comment on- can you give me a link to follow?

    [Sirius comments: BiblicalGeology.net]

    Rapid burial. No one denies that this occurs- but there’s no reason to invoke a world-wide flood to explain it. Landslides, the collapse of cliff faces, asteroid impacts, volcanic eruptions- all of these events can explain perfectly well how species are often entombed quickly.

    [Sirius comments: Which is more parsimonious: hundreds or thousands of small catastrophes or one big one?]

    Your final point is a little odd- Why should scientists lean towards the explanation that lends credence to the Bible?

    [Sirius comments: Why should they avoid explanations just because they might support the Bible?]

  21. forknowledge says:

    Having said that, care to be specific about which facts I should have checked? Or are you all mock and no substance?

    You should have checked all of them. You’re wrong about the geological column, about the Cambrian explosion, about missing links…the list goes on.

  22. Sirius says:


    Not another “…the list goes one…” comment! Ech! Weren’t you the one who caqlled ME cliche? You’ve essentially said nothing, except, “You’re wong, man! You just friggin…. wrong!” You’re a credit to Darbots everywhere, pal.

    Care to tell me WHY you think I’m wrong, like the intelligent dissenters who comment on my site?

    –Sirius Knott

  23. forknowledge says:

    As I said already, I’m getting to it – but on my own blog, where others are more likely to see it. My intention is not to set straight every Creationist on Earth individually, even ones who may as well be condensed versions of Creationism itself. Rest assured that you won’t have to wait long for the explanation, either, since you’ve brought nothing new to the table.

    [Sirius comments: Good luck with your ignoble quest to set me straight, if that’s your intention. Talk about tilting at windmills! I’m only cutting you some slack because you called me a “Creationist extraordinaire.” But now that Iyou’ve determined that I’ve “brought nothing new to the table” I suppose I’ve been down-graded to mere Creationist generica? You’re so fickle. Oh well. You can’t please everyone.

    If I’ve brought nothing new to the table, it certainly hasn’t kept you from using my blogsite as fodder for your own creative process. BTW, why should I bring anything new to a discussion which is basically 150 years old? Granted, new evidence will give us new insights, but the lines have already been drawn, pal. You and I are simply playing our historic roles. Knight takes bishop. Check.]

  24. Penguin_Factory says:


    Well, yes, they do include dates that are billions of years old. This is because the accumulated evidence of centuries of research supports the idea of a multi-billion year old Earth.

    [Sirius comments: Does it? You sure you’re not making any presumptions here?]

    As for reductionism…. you do have a point here, but again, reductionism is a necessary conceit. In nearly every subject I studied at the secondary school level, information had to be simplified for the simple reason that students would have trouble understanding it if it wasn’t. Evolution is almost never explained properly to young people or scientifically illiterate members of the general audience, but this is because it’s the only way to introduce them to the idea, rather than some sort of nefarious indoctrination.

    [Sirius comments: Dumbing down Darwinism. Sounds like a good blog title. It’s only indoctrination if no alternatives are allowed or if the theory’s flaws are never discussed. Oh wait…]

    Plate tectonics describes only the past? Slow down there. Plate tectonics is occuring right now- it’s effects are occuring all around us and scientists can detect them directly. The Himilayas increase in height every year, just as the pacific increases in size, due to tectonic activity. Earthquakes, volcanoes and subduction are all processes created by plate tectonics.

    [Sirius comments: Ah, the influence of cold medication. Let me provide a context. We assume the slow, gradual processes we see now were working at the same rate in the past, but we cannot know that with absolute certainty because it happened in the unobserved past. It might also have occurred by catastrophic effects seen today like earthquakes and volcanoes or by a Noahic Flood. The point is we are assuming uniformitarianism, but that may not be the case.]

    And yes, I’m talking about radiocarbon dating. Well, not really- radiocarbon dating gets the most attention for some reason but it isn’t the only such method of radioMETRIC dating scientists use. I will reply to your comments on this matter at a later date.

    I believe I’ve already stated that science doesn’t deal in absolutes when it comes to transitional fossils. What they can do is look at the facts and decide which theory best explains those facts.

    [Sirius: OK, I’m with you so far.]

    What we find (the facts) is a geological column containing fossils that show a clear chronological progression from one type of animal to the next.

    [Sirius: Um, no. We have a lot of dead things buried in rock layers. That “clear chronological progression” you allude to is an interpretation of the fossil record, but is not the only possibility nor even the best explanation.]

    Evolution (the theory) best explains these facts.

    [Sirius: I disagree.]

    So yes, the evolution of land mammals to whales is “speculated on”, as are all other evolutionary lineages, but it’s speculation that’s based on evidence, and it’s status is based on continued adherence to that evidence.

    [Sirius: Correction: The evolution of land animals to whale is speculation based on evidence based on a continued adherence to darwinism.]

    It is absolutely incorrect to say with certainty that any one species is defintely our ancestor, unless we can bring genetic evidence into the picture, but it is NOT begging the question to infer evolution, because evolution and evolution alone explains the facts. We do not need to know every exact step in an evolutionary chain to be able to infer evolution, any more than a detective has to be able to trace the every exact step of a suspect in order to conclude that he has killed someone.

    [Sirius: Evolution and evolution alone explains the facts??! Tautology! Biblical catastrophism equally explains the facts. You’re still begging the question. You’re saying that evolution best explains it because evolution is true because evolution is the best explanation…]

    You don’t seem to have much knowledge of how the scientific method actually works.

    [Sirius: Observable, testable, repeatable. The scientific method doesn’t apply to the past. The historical method applies to interpreting past events.]

    What exactly do you mean, that the pressure was created by the flood mechanics? Water alone explains pressure; no flood mechanics need to be invoked to explain that. What the flood doesn’t explain is the amount of time needed to create sedimentary layers. I would be very interested to know the proposed mechanism by which a short-term event could do the work of several million years.

    [Sirius: Sedimentary layers can be laid down in rapid succession under catastrophic conditions. It’s been observed.]

    Your use of the word “presuming” is interesting. I’m not presuming anything- the current models used to explain these processes are backed up by heaps of evidence. I employ a uniformitarian model because it seems to be the correct one.

    [Sirius: I know you don’t like this answer, but you weren’t there. You’re presuming long ages.]

    Noah’s Ark presents a fiesta of logical fallacies and problems so panoramic that I’ll stick to the one you brought up here- it is not only air-breathing land animals that required the safety of the ark. A global flood would be devestating to marine organisms as well. Ocean salinity is one major factor to consider- you can’t add a lot of water to the oceans without affecting this- as is temperature. Many species of fish and other marine organism require specific habitats to survive- habitats like shallow-water coral reefs, which would have either been destroyed or become deep-sea reefs during the flood.

    [Sirius: I addressed the fish question in an earlier comment.]

    – Actually, I’m presuming the strata represent periods of rock formation. It’s the fossils that represent evolution. I also note that I’m tagged with the perjorative “presumed” while creationists merely “see” their conclusions. A double standard?

    [Sirius: You’re presuming but you’re not presuming? Or you just don’t want me pointing it out? We creationists admit our presumption. I just want to level the playing field.]

    The idea that the strata represent periods of burial is not viable. Why do many flying animals appear lower than land-dwelling animals? Shouldn’t we expect the fossils to be sorted by this sort of criteria- or to not be sorted at all? Why do mammals appear at a certain point and not before? Shouldn’t we expect at least one to have been buried alongside, say, a dinosaur or an early reptile?

    [Sirius: Not necessarily]

    – Let us dispense with the “were you there” nonsense- it’s childish

    [Sirius: No, it’s true.]

    No, I do not assume this. Scientists haven’t dated geological strata by the fossils found within them for decades, at least (fun bonus fact= the idea of an old earth originated long before evolution did). As I stated, we know that the layers are millions of years old due to those pesky absolute dating methods (which can indeed be used to date rocks themselves, rather than just organic material found within them. For example, isochron dating can be used this way).

    [Sirius: Again, radiocarbon dating is flawed and is based on the presumption of extreme geological antiquity.]

    Hundreds of thousands, because, again we know that these layers were laid down over millions of years and not in one event (I will address any objections you have to this claim at a later date).

    [Sirius: Again, how do you know without presumption? You weren’t there. Uniformitarianism is just a belief.]

    Scientists go with whatever explanation fits the evidence. Whether it fits the Bible isn’t really taken into account.

    [Sirius: You’re actually implying that scientists have no presuppositional biases when they examine the evidence???]

  25. Stian says:

    I pick the explanation that is suggested by evidence. The evidence is overwhelming, and accepted by the majority of the scientific community. The creationist “theory” is not accepted by anyone who doesn’t believe in God as far as i know. This is because it directly contradicts reason and evidence in every aspect of serious science.

    [Sirius: So argumentum ad vericundium? And how does the idea of God contradict reason and evidence in “serious science” exactly?]

    While we’re at it.. how do you explain that the pyramids seem untouched by a flood? Most are dated pre-flood. If you claim that they are post-flood, when would you date them?

    [Sirius comments: Um, most are not dated pre-Flood. The Great Pyramid and the Sphynx are possibly pre-Flood. The dating of these structures is based largely on flawed Egyptian chronology. The Sphynx does show extensive water damage, so it is possibly pre-Flood. There is no reason why Noah’s sons would not have tried to emulate the structures of pre-Flood cultures. Biblical chronologists suggest that one of Noah’s sons built the Great Pyramid.]

    Where do you get your dating from? Most ARE dated pre-flood by non-creationist science. You’re saying that scientist have no clue on what they’re doing when their discoveries contradicts the Bible, but whenever they’re not, they’re right. Even if you date the pyramids post-flood, why would Noahs sons emulate the structures of pre-flood cultures instead of their own? Why are the pyramids built for pharaos…? You’re saying that pharaos were noahs sons in disguise? They just went straight to egypt and converted to egyptian pre-flood belief? WHY would they pick up the egyptian culture? .. The building of the pyramids took hundreds of years.. where did they get the slaves and labour?

    [Sirius: Why wouldn’t they come up with their own structures instead of emulating past glories? Why wouldn’t they want to re-invent the wheel?

    You’ve actually brought up several separate issues here. I’m not saying that the pharoahs were Noah’s sons in disguise, only that Ham’s son Mizraim may have in fact founded Egypt and its culture. Mizraim is in fact a synonymn for Egypt [circumstantial evidence, I realize].

    Two of your questions have no answers via secular scholars either, for no one knows why exactly the pyramids were built [Biblicists can suggest that they were copies of the aborted Tower of Babel ziggurat] nor have they been able to figure out how it was accomplished in so short a time.

    Traditional Egyptian chronology is based on the works of Manetho, who attributed long dates to the reigns of ancient pharoahs, possible exaggerations. In any case, the revised chronology of Egyptology provided by David Downs fits the evidence and the Biblical timeframe.

    Again, Mizraim would not have adopted Egyptian beliefs. He would have founded them as so many others have founded false religions.]

    How could we repopulate earth in only 4000 years, and evolve from only a handful of israelis to blacks, whites, asian, indian etc…? We know that the africans have been where they are for some years now… and the mayas have a lot of structures dated at least 3000 years back…

    [Sirius comments: Israeli? I’m assuming you presume upon the ethnicity of N oah and his family of survivors. And I do not believe we evolved from Israelis or any other ethnicity. There is evidenced a great deal of diversity in skin color and facial characteristics in even present-day children where one parent is of one ethnicity and the other parent is of another. These differences do not require long ages.]

    The key thing here is “where one parent is of one ethnicity and the other parent is of another”. You didn’t have those conditions post-flood. There were only one ethnicity to take from. And yes, this DOES take LONG time.. this is an evolutionary process which is driven by natural selection. I don’t believe in superevolution. Why are there still black people in the USA?

    [Sirius: Again it is observable, despite your macroevolutionary beliefs to the contrary, that a bi-ethnic couple can produce children of varying degrees of ethnic skin color and physical characteristics. It is also observable that bi-ethnic children who marry someone of another ethnicity bear children that are further affected.

    The “why are there still black people in the US” canard is just as impotent as the “if man evolved from ape, why do we still have apes?” fallacy.

    Despite your assertions to the contrary, contemporary apologists for the Noahic flood suggest that Noah’s family was multi-ethnic.]

    Again, you presume some form of human evolution where ethnicities are concerned [a very racist notion, btw].]</blockquote?

    Please, keep racism out of this. To note that there ARE indeed differences between different ethnicities is not racism. Racism is when you claim that one is above the other.

    [Sirius: It is racism to say that one ethnicity is less evolved than another.]

    You also fail to mention the missing jew-culture references. Why did the people in israel still keep their hebrew customs, while everyone else changed theirs completely and switched to completely different belief systems? Why did the migrants throw away God and invent new ones? Why do we find evidence of blossoming cultures from all over the world, seemingly untouched by “the great flood”?

    [Sirius sighs heavily and then comments: Hebrew culture did not come about until the time of Moses. Why does anyone rebelagainst their Creator and serve gods [or no-gods] of their own making? Rebellion against God is the simplest definition of sin.

    These blossoming cultures that were allegedly untouched by the great Flood all have their own flood legends, which were corrupted along the way so that there are minor differences. But they remembered!]

  26. Stian says:

    I’m getting nowhere here.

    [Sirius: That’s true.]

    You have obviously picked your side, no matter how unlikely it is and no matter how many fantastic coincidences is needed. It doesn’t matter to you that it makes absolutely no sense, as long as its not in conflict with your bible.

    [Sirius: I have picked a side. Allow me to suggest that you also have picked your side, no matter how unlikely it is and no matter how many fantastic coincidences are needed. It doesn’t matter to you that it makes absolutely no sense, as long as its not in conflict with Origins [or utter naturalism, at any rate]. We all have our biases. You just won’t admit yours.]

    Most of your “theories” are, as previously stated, just you gripping on to the last straw. The tiny “could be” that you can use to delude yourself into believing this is actually science.

    [Sirius: Many of the arguments that Darwin made in Origins were mere speculation of how things “could be.” He defended these speculations with arguments from ignorance [“Given our present level of ignorance, we cannot say absolutely that it didn’t happen!”] and flawed theological arguments [“My idear of the Creator would have not created things the way I see them today, so evolution must be true.”] If I’m allegedly gripping the last straw, it’s to keep you from using it to finish a poorly-thatched straw man. If the use of speculation [that tiny “could be”] keeps something from being actual science, Darwinism is likewise disqualified from actually being science. Be careful to be consistent!]

    How would adding multi-ethtnicity in Noahs family help? If so, they would have evolved in the same environment into completely different ethnicities. White people, indians, asians, blacks.. all happily along on a giant boat with two animals of each “kind”? Why would there be different ethnicities? How could there be, as it was only 2000 years since Adam and Eve?

    [Sirius: In USAmerica, we’ve watched variations within and across ethnicities occur within only a few hundred years. I’m sorry that you find it impossible due to your presuppositional bias [I note you cannot even think of the subject without trying to invoke evolution!], but there was plenty of time between Adam and Eve and the Noachian Flood for different racial characteristics and shades of melanin to have become evident. Or have you assumed that Adam & Eve were the same color? If we may make some implications from the Biblical account, Eve being formed of a rib bone may have been white, while Adam who’s name translates to “Red Earth” was of a darker pigment. Such speculation aside, the potentialities for what we now recognise as specific ethnicities were written in our genes. Again according to the Bible, ethnicities did not become refined into groups until Babel. Did you know that even today there are examples of twins born to bi-racial couples where one child is most definitely white and the other black? We’re all one blood, as the Bible records.]

    [Sirius: So argumentum ad vericundium? And how does the idea of God contradict reason and evidence in “serious science” exactly?]

    I never said anything about the idea of God.. I said the creationist “theory”. It contradicts science because you have no real theory. You have no falsification criteria. You have no predictions. You only have a useless idea. It also contradicts science because you draw the conclusion first, then look at the evidence…

    [Sirius: Darwinism also lacks true falsification criteria. And we do make predictions from the creationist model. We have predicted that only certain kinds of animals will be able to interbreed with one another. Genetic science bears this out. We also predict that coal can be formed rapidly and our research in this area has led us to be able to find coal deposits more efficiently.

    You really haven’t bothered to examine the creation model at all, have you? Has it occurred to you that you’re only attacking a straw man creation model of your own making? Do you have any idea what we actually propose?]

  27. Penguin_Factory says:

    You know, Sirius, I find this strategy of constantly bleating “presumption, presumption!” very wearisome. I won’t be acknowledging any such replies in the future, unless you can substantiate them with something other than basless accusations.

    [Sirius: Well, I wouldn’t call them baseless. I’m sorry if you cannot be honest enough to admit your own assumptions and presuppositions. I prefer honesty.]

    – Everything we learn in school is “dumbed down” in this way. Every scientific idea has flaws, but understanding those flaws often would require knowledge that students are simply not equipped for at a primary or secondary school level. This is not something that’s confined to evolution, but it is the only subject that attracts accusations of indoctrination.

    [Sirius: Could that be because, due to naturalistic bias, no other theories are allowed consideration?]

    As for alternate theories- there are no alternate theories.

    Sirius: See? Indoctrination.]

    Scientists do not recognize creationism as a valid alternative to evolution, just as historians don’t recognize the theories that the holocaust never happened or that Shakespeare’s plays were written by Francis Bacon. Should we be teaching these ideas as “alternate theories” as well, simply because people have suggested them? Of course not.

    [Sirius: Thank you for the straw man analogy. Those theories would be rejected due to a complete lack of evidence and, in actuality, evidence to the contrary! On the other hand, naturalist scientists [and educators] refuse to consider the overwhelming evidence for creationism or even intelligent design, waving the evidence away with a sanctimonious proclamation of, “It’s not science if it’s not completely naturalistic.” If God exists, this flawed presumption will lead inevitably to flawed or even erroneous conclusions.]

    And there you go again! I’m not assuming anyhthing. You can accuse me of presumption till the cows come home, but that’s not a valid refutation of anything I’ve said. A noachian flood simply doesn’t explain the evidence, and what’s more, invoking one causes far more problems than it solves. The amount of scientific objections raised against the idea are too numerous to list here, but you can find them with a simple google search.

    [Sirius: And here’s where I lost respect for you as a debater, when you said the noachian flood simply doesn’t explain the evidence. It does in fact explain the evidence. You might have asserted that it doesn’t explain the evidence as fully or as well and then went on to qualify why you think this so, but to negate it entirely is hubris and, frankly, dogma.

    You should also know how I feel about a “simple google search.” Relying on information from a “simple google search” will lead in all likelihood to simple and ill-informed opinions. The Internet is nigh full of misinformation, half-truths, outright lies, baseless opinions and outright lies. In fact, it’s a good thing you came to my site or you might have missed a breath of truth!]

    The chronological interpretation of the fossil record is indeed the best explanation. We know the strata are different ages, and that they were laid down over millions of years (from dating methods). We see some species disappear and new ones take their place, and this happens in the sort of gradual progression that we should expect to find if evolution is taking place, AND the process displays exactly the sort of nested hierarchies that evolution calls for.

    [Sirius: You KNOW the strata are different ages? I’m sorry, I simply don’t agree that the chronological interpretation is the best inference. Catastrophism explains more of the picture we see, including the anamolies the Darwin model cannot.]

    – Of course layers can be laid down quickly, but can they be compressed into sedimentary rock quickly?

    [Sirius: Yes, they can]

    The answer to the fish question didn’t address coral reefs.

    [Sirius: Care to be specific?]

    By what process did the fossils sort themselves to give the impression of gradual evolution?

    [Sirius: The fossils do not give the impression of gradual evolution until someone artificially suggests this possibility. Drawinism is not self-evident from the fossil record. Even Darwin himself was intelligent enough to try to disqualify it from FALSIFYING his theory by calling it notoriously “imperfect.”]

    – Of course scientists are biased, but they’re not biased against the Bible. It’s been noted that the initial interpretation of a new discovery often seems to confirm the hypothesis of the discoverer, until outside sources (ie other scientists) set things straight. This is unfortunate, but it’s human nature, and in science errors will eventually be corrected by peer review.

    [Sirius: Scientists are biased in favor of naturalism. They will not consider the supernatural at all. This being the case, it cannot be stressed enough that, if God exists and some problems will necessarily have supernatural answers, no amount of self-correcting peer review will be able to overcome this exclusionary presuppositional naturalistic bias to accomodate the actual truth.]

  28. Sirius says:

    Having re-read this tedious but enlightening string of comments, I will say this, boys and girls:

    It has become apparent that many who disagree with the Creation Model are really only attacking a straw man creation model of their own making. It’s possible that they have little or no idea what we’ve actually proposed.

    This being apparent, I shall endeavor in the near future to lay out just exactly what Creationists believe about the Ark, the Flood and the post-Flood world. Be please patient in the meantime.

    –Sirius Knott

  29. Penguin_Factory says:

    I see you’ve … a fairly substantial section of my …, including the … that actually backed up what I’ve been saying, essentially destroying my … without having to… Very well then- I present below a condensed summary of my reasons for rejecting flood geology and creationism, so that we can lay to rest all of these accusations of bias and presumption. This is by necessity going to be fairly long, but you’ve left me with no other choice (in the event that you decide to … this too, I’ll be posting it on forknowledge’s blog as well)

    [Sirius: Good. Ol’ forknowledge needs the traffic my good name generates. You may not have heard yet, but I’m apparently a Creationist extraordinaire or something. Of course, whether he actaully approves your post of comments for my site on his site is up to him. BTW, have you ever thought it might be simpler to just get your own blog instead of finding other people’s blogs and complaining when they don’t publish everything you’ve bothered to blather? To be fair, if you’d read my Rules of Engagement, this is exactly the sort of editting I said you’d be subject to.]

    1) The flood calls for the quick, recent creation of fossil-bearing strata, but we know this is not the case because we can measure the radioactive decay of elements in rocks and calculate how long the atoms within the elements have been decaying for (note that this is not radiocarbon dating, which is used to date organic matter), beginning with the rock’s formation. There are over 40 methods of radiometric dating in use today and all of them, testing different elements from the same and different samples, hundreds and thousands of times, have reached the same conclusion: the earth is not young. The strata of the geologic column were deposited for the most part over millions of years, and the animals fossilized within them similarly lived and died over millions of years. The decay rates of radioactive isotopes are, with a few exceptions, stable- there is no way to speed it up or slow it down, and those few exceptions require the sort of conditions found only within a laboratory.

    [Sirius: Radiometric methods that consistently corroborate an old Earth do so because old-Earth scientists do not accept data that doesn’t meet their expectations. If the rocks show a lower age than expected, they postulate a reason why they can re-calibrate the results due to one of several standard contingencies. The old-Earth dating is based on assumptions about the initial make-up of the rocks and a further assumption that the rate of decay has remained constant, even though creationist geologists have demonstrated that there are several lines of evidence which suggest that those rates were accelerated in the recent past, at Creation and possibly to a lesser extent during the Flood. Granted, the laboratory experiment required special conditions, but no alterations to any known physical constraints. The Creation model does suggest special conditions, that a Creator God established the observable universe in six days. This experiment shows that the radiometric long-age standard is not invincible and that what we’ve suggested, the the Bible is accurate, is possible — not impossible, as you claim.]

    This is completely contrary to what the flood model calls for, and is a major blow to it’s status as a viable hypothesis.

    [Sirius: As noted, you overstate your case, sir.]

    Furthermore, the dates given by radiometric testing make sense in light of the evidence. Our planet bears signs of a vast array of geologic drama over it’s history, inlcluding but not limited to: multiple ice ages, continential drift, mass extinction events, supervolcano eruptions and multiple asteroid impacts. Radiometric dating gives all of these events time to occur within- a young Earth model would have all of these events occuring within a short span of time, which is simply not possible, as the asteroid impacts alone would very likely have destroyed the planet’s ability to support life if they had really taken place in the space of a few thousand years.

    [Sirius: I’m not sure whether to take this seriously. The Biblical Flood model is a catastrophe of such magnitude that it DID wipe out all air-breathing land invertebrate life on Earth, save those in the Ark. While the major water damage and the majority of the fossil strata were laid down during the Flood, the Earth continued to experience dramatic climatic and vulcanic disruption for the next several hundred years.

    As for the asteroid impacts, neither of us agree on the dating methods employed to date said impacts, so I’m not sure such a discussion would be fruitful; however, while I’ve read a model or two of flood catastrophism that suggests a possible asteroid impact, I’ve not seen one that suggests myriads.]

    Furthermore, many facts that the flood seeks to explain are better explained by the action of plate tectonics, which we can observe directly and in real-time. We thus find that the flood not only contradicts radiometric dating but is rendered obsolete by a different theory that we can see happening around us. We know that ancient features of the planet are accounted for by plate tectonics because we can look at the effects it has on our world today and see those same effects in past geologic strata.

    [Sirius: You’re going to hate me for this, but your entire argument rests on PRESUMPTIONS of uniformitarianism and the accuracy of old-age radiometric dating. Sorry. It had to be said. If you need to take a break, get some air, count to 10, take a nerve pill or whatever…. I understand.]

    You are refering to parsimony, I see, but if God exists and He has given us revelation, your long-age alternate theory is simply wrong. I’m sorry it bothers you, but the catastrophism model fits the evidence well and I’d say even better than the uniformitarian model, since it accounts for the anamolies I’ve mentioned in my post [waaaaaaay above], which you have not ONCE addressed, btw.]

    2) Why I reject creationism

    [Sirius: This ought to be good.]

    If we can reasonably conclude, through the dating methods explained above…

    [Sirius: Is this whole argument gonna rest on old-age presumptions?]

    …that the geologic column is ancient and represents periods of time lasting millions of years, we can infer some interesting things about the fossil record.

    [Sirius: Bingo! He shoots! He scores! The crowd goes mild.]

    It follows from “knowledge” of the Earth’s antiquity that fossilized life forms were deposited slowly and over time in their respective strata. This gives us snap-shots of what life has been up to for millions of years, and putting these together lends credence to evolution.

    [Sirius: Yes, I put quotes around the word “knowledge.” If you were being academically honest –a trait I’d never charge a dyed-in-the-wool Darbot with, mind you– you would have inserted the word “inferred” in that spot. It’s a belief. A guess. Speculation. Dare I say, a PRESUMPTION?]

    Evolution predicts that life should start off simple and progress, over millenia, from there. This is what we find- go far back in the geologic column and life becomes extremely simple and small, so that Ediacaran (pre-cambrian) fossils are difficult to even see without a microscope.

    [Sirius: Stephen Jay Gould could be honest about the impact of the Cambrian on Darwinian dogma, but you keep seeing the picture the way they told you to anyway, huh? Hail naturalism!

    I always remind folks that the fossil record is only data seeking an interpretation. Proposed [Neo-]Darwinian mechanisms simply cannot account for the lack of time the Cambrian “age” gives them in which to develop such a diversity, without resorting to further Just-So Stories like punk eek.]

    Evolution predicts that we should expect to find transitional fossils, and we have.

    [Sirius: Again, instead of the innumerable transitional fossils Darwin proposed we would find, we have only a handful of highly disputable candidiates.

    NOTE: In a subsequent response, he gave me THREE examples of what he feels are transitional forms. Three. Not the innumerable transitional forms Darwin predeicted. A lousy three candidates.]

    Hyracotherium skulls show a clear progression into Equus (modern horse) skulls. The chronology is sound- Equus skulls don’t appear earlier than they should. The fossils progress logically and naturally. Fossils also show the evolution of horse limbs from multiple toes to just one.

    [Sirius: Again with the horse mythology! There is no “clear progression” except in textbook drawings and the minds of uncritically faithful Darbots. I actually addressed this in another post: Transitional Forms: Why the Speculative Nature of Darwinism Makes it Unfalsifiable:

    “Take the famous Dawn of the Horse progression made famous in museums and textbooks, showing a hyrax with four toes and a progression of several three-toes creatures slowly developing into the one-toed modern horse. But when structures other than toes are considered, the elegant picture of the march of evolutionary progress unravels: Hyracotherium [commonly – and erroneously – called Eohippus] begins the list being the smallest and having four toes. It has 18 pairs of ribs. The next [with three toes] has 19. The next has only 15. Equus, the modern horse, has 18 again. This sequence [which is debated amongst the experts for reason of just such anomolies] requires putting Old World and New world fossils side-by-side with no believable explanation as to how they might have migrated back and forth as they evolved. When found on the same continent [ex. John Day formation in Oregon], three-toed and one-toed animals are found in the same geological stratum. Hyracotherium fossils have been found in surface strata alonside two modern horses, Equus nevadensis and equus occidentalis. In South America, the one-toed is found BELOW the three-toed. Nowhere in the world are the horse series fossils found in successive strata as depicted in textbooks. The horse series is simply the product of a vivid Darwinian imagination.”

    We should expect, if evolution is true, for new types of animals to start out more similar to each other and then diverge over time, and again this is what we see. Early carnivores followed this pattern, with ungulates and carnivores being quite similar in the beginning, but branching as time went by.

    [Sirius: What you say is true if we’re speaking of microevolution, or adaptation within kinds of animals, but unobservable macroevolution is still speculation and cannot be falsified due to the geological time it claims.]

    You’re of course entitled to protest that these predictions were created after the fact to fit the evidence, but this isn’t so. Darwin (among others) predicted that, if his theory were correct, we would find all of the things I’ve listed above before any of these fossils was discovered.

    [Sirius: Having read Origins [lovingly and purposely filed under science fiction on my bookshelf], you’re going to have to refresh my memory on this particular pre-evidential quote. I’m under the impression that much of what he “predicted” was already known to him.]

    Furthermore, genetic evidence also supports evolution. We can use it to prove that humans and other great apes share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. There is a type of virus called an endoginous retrovirus, or ERV. ERVs leave “elements” in the DNA of their hosts, and these elements consist of only one nucleotide base out of millions. The only reasonable way for one organism to have the same ERV elements as another is for them to be related.

    [Sirius: The genetic evidence only suggests common design elements, which is equally compatible with either Creationism or Intelligent Design. You’re reading much more into the data because of your macroevolutionary PRESUMPTIONS.]

    Humans don’t share one ERV element with chimps- we share THOUSANDS. This is beyond the realm of coincidence.

    [Sirius: Again, the genetic evidence only suggests common design components. Why shouldn’t creatures that are more homologous to one another evidence more similarity in their peculiarities of design? You are making the mistake of presuming that correlation means causation. The data doesn’t imply common ancestry. You’ve read that into the data because of your…. [you know]]

    Furthermore, one of our chromosomes is actually two fused chromosomes. Both of these chromosomes are found, unfused, within other great ape species. Again, common descent is the only viable explanation for how this came to be.

    [Sirius: You’ve made a great deal of the similarities between ape and man, but what of the differences? G.K. Chesterton made a famous rebuttal to the fallacious argument from homology. And can you explain how this fused chromosome creates such a great divide between brute and man? I’m sure your faith in Darwinism will cause you to plead, “We don’t know how yet, but darwindidit.” Why? Because of your PRESUMPTIONS.]

    So, Sirius, I’ve dealt my hand.

    [Sirius: And that was it?]

    This is only a small selection of the evidence- I could literally fill this comments box with links to further information, if I wasn’t so sure you would delete them all.

    [Sirius: Yes, those “simple google searches” lead, I’m sure, to such unassailable conclusions. And enough with “the list goes on and on” stupidity. You didn’t even discuss the inconsistencies to your favored theory that I pointed out in this post. You avoided them like the sodding plague and moved the goalpost. Not that I blame you, since you couldn’t answer them without a simpering yet faithful utterance of darwindidit.]

    No more accusations of presumption, bias or presupposition.

    [Sirius: Um… nevermind. I’m sure you can guess what I’m thinking anyway.]

    I’ve presented my facts. Let’s see yours.

    [I did present my facts. YOU never addressed any of them.

    On the other hand, you blokes have inspired me. N o, I mean that. It’s become apparent that you’re beating the stuffing out of a poorly thatched straw man creation/catastrophism model. You truly have no idea what we believe. To remedy this, I shall endeavor in the near future, God willing, to put forth what we creationists actually believe so that I don’t have to waste time fielding misconceptions born of reading too selectively of pro-darwin literature or not critically enough of whatever a “quick and easy google search” dredges up. [One shudders]

    And, one last time, the word of the week is:


    –Sirius Knott

  30. freidenker85 says:

    “Sirius comments: I’m not sure how to answer your question, so I’m emailing the guys at BiblicalGeology.net for their advice. I’ll get back to you, provided, of course, that they get back to me”

    I don’t get it. You write here about flood geology – without the premise of a young earth, or for that matter – without the premise of accurate dating methods – then the whole idea of a young earth model is moot, isn’t it? So how can you possibly be sure of such a model if you haven’t, in detail, learnt how such a model dates phenomena on earth? Do note that, considering the fact that old earth dating methods still produce consistent, corroborated results, a young earth model would still require a plausible alternative explanation for these results (and at least some means of replacing the dating estimates on the geological column based on these methods, that is, not simply comparing any evidence to historical/biblical texts.)

    Sirius comments: I’m sure you would have been happier if I had simply made something up, right? No, I didn’t think so. Like all humans, I do not have all of the answers… and I never will. But unlike the opposition, I’m willing to man up and admit it when I don’t know and then tell you I’ll research it a bit and get back to you. Any other approach to the questions is simply hubris, which is to say, a flash in the pan. A lot of noise but no substance.

    Having said that, I will say this: Radiometric methods that consistently corroborate an old Earth do so because old-Earth scientists do not accept data that doesn’t meet their expectations. If the rocks show a lower age than expected, they postulate a reason why they can re-calibrate the results due to one of several standard contingencies. The old-Earth dating is based on assumptions about the initial make-up of the rocks and a further assumption that the rate of decay has remained constant, even though creationist geologists have demonstrated that there are several lines of evidence which suggest that those rates were accelerated in the recent past, at Creation and possibly to a lesser extent during the Flood.

    While I know the flaws of radiometic dating, I am not willing to through them oout the window entirely; they simply need to be recalibrated. You, however, asked me a highly specific question of which I am unsure of the reply. Are you willing to wait until I research the matter further before I reply or do you need snappy off-the-cuff answers to be sure you’re getting correct information?]

    By the way, I’ve heard of young earth dating methods but so far, it’s all rather weak stuff (Po halo method, for example, is one particularly bad method that’s been circulating and AFAIK, has withered a bit since it spawned) – I’d be happy to learn of any new method or at least of a method that’s still accurately used today.

  31. freidenker85 says:

    I’m sorry, but I’m quite surprised.

    [Sirius: Oh?]

    You’ve spent some time writing a whole paragraph rehashing why you’re not answering me now while, of course, if you neglect insulting my intelligence, it’d be perfectly clear to anyone why you wouldn’t (it’d be the reason you mentioned, and I had no qualms with that) – that I almost forgot what I orignally inquired about.

    Sirius: You asked, “Is there anything in flood geology that provides accurate, consistent dating of fossil fauna all dating apx. during a bible-inspired flood date that’s been corroborated by other date sources?

    I inquired about you not knowing anything about young earth dating.

    <Sirius: Really? Because the question was whether there were dating methods used by flood geologists that provide consistent young earth dates, not an accusatory “why don’t you know anything about young earth dating?” There were some ad hominem comments that I deleted to that effect. Are you refering to those?]

    It’s also highly bizarre that after I inquired you about this matter, you (at least that’s what you mentioned) sent an e-mail to someone instead of just linking me to the, I guess, huge repository of flood geology information that’s out there. I asked you because you purport to be, if not an expert, then at least some learned pundit in this field.

    [Sirius: Let me see? Why don’t I link to a bunch of ouside sources instead of researching the answer myself? [You guys seem really bent about this restriction, I’ve noticed.] Other than the fact that it would make me a hypocrite, since I don’t really allow you guys to do it, it would make me a shallow faith-head pseudointellectual who doesn’t comprehend what he claims he believes. Like the guys who simply link to TalkOrigins or some other higher power and let those guys do the thinking while they simply do the believing.

    BTW, the only reason I could lay claim to any sort of intelligence in this [or any] area is because I bother to research questions, with the integrity to admit when I don’t know coupled with the offer to research it further. Everything else is a bluff and a lot of blowing of smoke. There’s too much of that out there.]

    At any rate, let me emphasize it if it weren’t clear enough – I would not, by any length, be happy if you simply made something up. That’d be boring. I’m really interested in what makes you believe that the earth and the universe are young contra all the evidence otherwise I’ve learnt about. I’m not writing this or asking you questions so that I could mock your intelligence or the authorities you use or whatever, but considering the fact that I’ve spent a lot of time and money to learn what I know, in part, about his particular bit of origin science, so I’m quite curious to hear anything other than what I learnt.

    [Sirius: It would suck to find out you actually paid to be indoctrinated into a faith position.]

    By the way – about radiometric dating, I know how messy radiometric dating can be, and apparently geologists know this too. This is why I’ve never read an article (and I’ve read a few) that uses RM dating that doesn’t contain either multiple radioisotopes/multiple samples/other dating methods and in any case – there’s always plenty of tests in endless tables for any sample being used. The interesting and, well, the reassuring part about RM dating is that it produces so many consistent results. The unconsisted results, be they for young or old – are, well, unconsistent. That’s why it’s easy to disregard them – there’s plenty of reasons why you’d get a funny result -reasons apart evil scientists who presuppose that anything that does not conform to their presuppositions is bad results. The samples could be bad, the machinary could get screwed up, calculations could be jumbled up, or in worse cases, fabricated. In short – there’s plenty of ways in science to get into bad results apart from scienctists being evil and although I’m sure some scientists are evil – I’m pretty damn sure the majority of them are not – and there’s a majority of them who find RM dating a trivially accepted dating method.

    [Sirius: It is the way the inconsistent results are decided to be erroneous based on the presumption of long ages that bothers me. It reminds me of the thought problem I posed in There Is No Science But Naturalism and Darwin Is It’s Prophet! in which I demonstrated that if God exists, not allowing consideration of that possibility would inevitably lead to some erroneous conclusions. Similarly, if no young earth results are ever allowed simply because we “know” we’ve been through long ages [even though verifiable written human history began like only a few thousand years ago] and the earth is actually young, we’d never know it because our bias filter will not allow it. To give a more recent example more pertinent to science, Gregor Mendel’s research gathered dust for years simply because scientists thought they’d found the answer to biology in Darwin and had no need to look further. [Gregor Mendel thought Darwin’s theory was bunk, btw] Only after he was re-discovered and his results became incontrivertible did the neoDarwin synthesis incorporate Mendel’s theory into theirs. My suggestion is perhaps there is something more to these “erroneous” datings. Perhaps they aren’t mistakes. Perhaps they indicate a flaw in the long-age presumptions [including assumptions about the original composition of the rocks and the consistent rate of decay used in all RM dating methods] and we need to look futher into what they might mean rather than chucking them because they don’t agree with the establishment view. Isn’t that what real science is about? Expanding the horizons, not protecting the dogma that secures the carreers and prestige of the current scientific burgeois. Or you could just keep chucking whatever doesn’t match your presuppositions, but isn’t that akin to looking for evidence that supports your theory while disregarding anything that contradicts it?

    BTW, I never accused all scientists of being evil, but I am sure that human nature confirms that folks don’t like change, they don’t like their gravy boat being upset and they don’t like finding out they paid to be indoctrinated into an erroneous or out-dated paradigm. Resistance to dissent is inevitable. And folks always seem to fall into the comfortable trap of seeing what they expect to see.]

  32. Penguin_Factory says:

    Would you believe that I accidentally deleted my original post haway through? This is therefore going to be brief, so if I skip over anything or leave out detail, point it out and I’ll post it at a later date.

    [Sirius: Gentle readers, I simply must apologize in advance for this guy’s comments. He seems to think that blogs are somewhat akin to chat rooms and so he simply responds to the last set of comments without any frame of reference. I usually just delete this sort of discombobulated response because it’s annoyingly confusing to sort out. I hope Penguin factory keeps that in mind if he does submit any future posts.]

    Your objection to radiometric dating techniques is fallacious. Recent changes to quantum tunneling rates would alter fundamentally the properties of matter, leading to continual changes in the size of planets and the orbits of the moon and Earth (among a lot else). No such changes have ever been detected. Your obection to radiometric dating is deflected, and my point still stands.

    [Sirius: Could you provide a source for these claims? Because until you do, your point is still quite dull and inadequate to punch a hole in my argument.

    NOTE: Predictably, his source was the highly argumentative, biased and misanthropic TalkOrigins.]

    How did a flood cause planet-wide volcanism, and if this actually happened why didn’t it destroy the atmosphere? Floodwaters would have been he least of the survivors’ problems.

    [Sirius: Once again, you demonstrate a significant lack of understanding of the model you claim to be so inadequate and inconsistent with the data. The catastrophism model suggests that when the “fountains of the deep” broke up that this lead to major tectonic and vulcanic activity. The Flood is believed to have lasted well over a year, but minor catastrophes continued for quite some time post-Flood [accounting separately for pre-Babel ape and [more or less] post-Babel man fossils]]

    (Also, you can’t dodge the asteroid problem- a lot of these things have collided with the Earth. How did ecosystems recover in such a short period of time?)

    [Sirius: If it occured during a year-long Deluge, one is forced to ask, which ecosystems are you refering to?]

    I have addressed the anamolies- localized events that caused mass burials.

    [Sirius: But you avoided polystratic fossils like the plague, didn’t you? And what about the fossils of animals killed in the act of eating or giving birth? You seem notoriously silent on those matters.]

    Your other point- that I’m wrong if God exists- places you in the enviable position of proving that God does indeed exist.

    [Sirius: Actually, the Christian God must necessarily be approached by faith. The sort of God the Bible describes would be undeniable if we had full proof, which would eliminate free will completely. Therefore, as Pascal put it, He gives us too little evidence to be completely sure but too much to completely disregard. Creation makes God’s existence, Godhead and eternal power self-evident, if you are willing to believe, so that you are without excuse.

    Your lack of belief and erroneous pleas for insufficient evidence in defense of your willful ignorance do not negate God’s existence if He does in fact exist. Nor will it make you any less wrong.]

    What do you mean, the Cambrian doesn’t allow enough time for diversification?

    [Sirius: Do you only read material that supports your presuppositions? Read Denton and Gould and get back to me. The short answer: No mechanism for evolution [time+mutations] allows enough time for the development of the sheer diversity of complex forms from simpler pre-Cambrian forms unless we postulate magical punk eek theories.]

    Let’s take a look at your objections to horse evolution. I have no idea why you brought up Hyrax, since it’s not a horse and scientists never claimed it was.

    [Sirius: Hyracotherium. Small hyrax-like animal. Not even included on a lot of the more recent horse mythology charts.]

    Ribs are irrelevant- rib numbers vary even within species, and there’s nothing in evolutionary theory which states that species must keep a consistent number of ribs throughout the process.

    [Sirius: Care to provide any examples? NOTE: He did not provide any examples in a subsequent response, though he again insisted the variation on the number of ribs was not inconsistent.

    In any case, I simply find the inconsistency of the Darwinian application of natural selection to be highly amusing. At times, you talk about how natural selection keeps beneficial mutations [when you can see the benefit]; at other times you say it’s completely random [as you’re doing now, when you can’t see the benefit] and undirected so why should anyone be surprised at increasing or decreasing numbers of ribs or even tails that vanish and re-appear through the fossil record.

    I cannot stress enough that homology does not imply common descent, only common design. You and I both know that you cannot prove one fossil descended from another. You’re reading that into the data. The fact of increasing and decreasing numbers of ribs makes this a little more obvious.]

    Old and New World fossils can be put side-by-side because the Old and New worlds were once side by side themselves- plate tectonics, remember?

    [Sirius: That’s quite a trip. Even die-hard Darwinists have a hard time swallowing that one, which is why there is great variety in the way these horse fossil mythologies geneologies are put together. In fact, a lot of your compadres consider Old World and New World horses to be separate developments from a common ancestor who, well, got around.

    Yet see how your nice and neat horse mythology progression series gets chopped up when examined in the light of actual research?]

    Even if hyracotherium fossils were found alongside one-towed horses, this proves nothing because evolution allows for ancestor species to co-exist with descendant species. However, this claim has never actually been substantiated. One H.Rimmer first made the claim in 1935, but the earliest known descriptions of Equus Navadensis make no mention of hyracotherium fossils found alongside it, and neither do any known scientific papers since then. Occidntalis seems to actually be the same animal as navadensis, discovered and named twice.

    [Sirius: The earliest descriptions of Equus Nevadensis make no mention of hyracotherium fossils found alongside them… On further investigation, I could not find any independent confirmation of Rimmer’s claim. As you point out, the point makes little difference for it could not falsify Darwinism.]

    I can find nothing about your claim that one-towed horses were found below three-towed in South America (you’re being a tad vague there). Where did you get this from?

    [Sirius: National Geographic, January 1981, p. 74.]

    Before I answer this, please define what you mean by micro-evolution, and what exactly a “kind” is.

    [Sirius: Before you answer what? It’s not a chat room. Do try to be specific.]

    Microevolution is the observable minor adaptation to environment within a kind of animal. A kind of animal, which in general best relates to a family or sub-family. A dog is still a dog, whether wolf or teacup poodle. That sort of thing. Macroevolution is common descent of all biological forms and has never been nor ever could due to geological time scales be observed but is only inferred. It’s a belief.]

    NOTE: Predictably, he latched onto the idea of a kind as a family [though I warned that this was a generality] and stated that I had just said humans and apes were the same kind. That’s the weakest straw man I’ve ever seen thatched on my site. Like Darwinists when pressed to define a “species,” we Creationists do have trouble defining a “kind” and have found it best to provide an illustration instead: a dog is still a dog whether a wolf or a teacup poodle. A kind is a grouping based on the demonstrated ability to interbreed [or to be bred from], if that clarification helps somewhat.In any case, I apologise for any confusion my general equivocation may have engendered.]

    Why would God design both us and Chimpanzees to look as if our ancestors were infected with ERVs in exactly the same places, thousands of times? You’d almost think he WANTS us to believe in evolution!

    [Sirius: That’s a lovely non sequitur. So now you believe in God? Darwin used some theological arguments in Origins, too, which is why I’ve never been convinced, among other reasons, it’s a scientific theory so much as a religious apologetic – atheism/naturalism being a theological viewpoint.]

    Chesterton was a Christian Apologeticist, not a scientist, who wrote that in 1908, decades before the modern study of genetics arose. His opinion doesn’t really count for a whole lot. This is rather ironic consdering the quote condemning appeals to higher authorities you have on your main page.

    [Sirius: “Real science never has to resort to credentialism. If someone with no credentials raises a legitimate question, it is not an answer to point out how uneducated or unqualified the questioner is. In fact, it is pretty much an admission that you don’t have an answer, so you want the question to go away.” –Orson Scott Card

    You need to re-read that prohibition. I object to using links to make your argument. I have no problems with supporting quotations or supporting references.]

    Anyway. Only a relatively small amount of genetic difference is needed to explain the physical difference between humand and other great apes. The fused chromosome doesn’t create the differenct between apes and humans, the other chromosomes do.

    [Sirius: And the OTHER more glaring differences?]

  33. freidenker85 says:

    [Sirius: freidenker85 was kind enough to bring a typo [since corrected] to my attention. Proof again that I’m not perfect and that SpellCheck doesn’t make a hill of beans if the incorrect word is spelled correctly! Thank you, freidenker85.

    We pick up his comment where he references something I said in my last response to him:]

    You said: “Perhaps they aren’t mistakes. Perhaps they indicate a flaw in the long-age presumptions [including assumptions about the original composition of the rocks and the consistent rate of decay used in all RM dating methods] and we need to look futher into what they might mean rather than chucking them because they don’t agree with the establishment view. Isn’t that what real science is about”

    But… and this is important – you don’t have any evidence to suggest this stuff, right? I’m all agreement when it comes to this paragraph.

    [Sirius: I do have evidence to suggest this. I have the Genesis account which advises me from an Eyewitness account that the world was created in 6 days. More on this in a moment, since your further comments run into this vein…]

    Expanding our horizons IS what science is all about. That’s why winning ideas like genetics win (even if I accept what you wrote about Mendelian genetics to be correct contra to what I learnt in introductionary genetics this year, historical overview and all) – winning ideas like, possibly, flood geology.

    [Sirius: I’m not surprised that the sad history of the brief overlooking of Mendelian genetics was not included in your textbook. The neoDarwinian synthesis has since incorporated Mendel into their theory and I doubt they’d want either this oversight or Mendel’s views on Darwinism spoiling their portrayal of a unified front of science. In any case, such controversies and disagreements are hardly fodder for an introductory course.]

    Let me sidestep the issue of you misquoting me or misunderstanding me and just rephrase myself: you brought evidence that the earth is young in this post – so I asked you if any of this evidence has anything to do with dating techniques – since saying that “things take a short time” doesn’t mean much if it could take a short time billions of years ago, unless, of course, there’s a verifiable way of dating anything (especially stuff that’s “supposed” according to current evolutionary theory to date a lot more) that corresponds to a young earth model.

    Sirius: So I appear to have misunderstood you in some slight respect of your question. My apologies. Further research on my part is still required, but the misunderstanding is unfortunate.]

    This is an extremely relevant question that receives not only any address in your post, but that you do not know of or would care as much to link to. Let’s put out the whole ideology of “not linking to other places” thing behind and let me say that I will accept what you say even though I don’t find myself agreeing with you. It’s your blog and it’s also your call if you want to do this or not.

    [Sirius: If you’d like some independent link, I have provided you with one: BiblicalGeology.net.

    That aside, I agree it is an extremely relevant question to my overall view but NOT necessarily to the subject matter at hand.

    The Darwin’s Dyke series simply shows flaws in many well-known Darwinian mantras and illustrations. It is not positive evidence for Young Earth Creationism. It is not my intent to simply tear down darwinism and then say, See, Creationism must be true by default! That would be silly. My intent is simply to expose the flaws in the evidence and level the playing field so that one can see that both Creationism and Darwinism are on equal ground in terms of scientific viability, usefulness and falsifiability.

    Positive evidence for a young earth would obviously have to be addressed and these exchanges of comments have convinced me that I should research the matter more fully in regards to dating methods in that regard. That is, I have provided some positive evidences, but I have not addressed dating methods except generally and I will not address them until I am satisfied with the conclusions of my personal research.]

    In any event, I did make it quite clear that I found it surprising, actually, quite shocking, that you present evidence for a young earth without even knowing of any dating method that corresponds to what you seem to imply about the earth – that is, that it’s young. Unless the reason you believe it’s young has nothing to do with any materialistic dating methods (which would make the entire issue completely different. If your faith in the age of the earth relies on, say, the bible, and the bible alone, then why waste time on putting pictures of fossils in here?)

    [Sirius: I am surprising and I daresay quite shocking. You have every right to ask this question. Unlike many of my visitors, I am not ashamed to admit my biases and presuppositions. Everybody has them, though some would dare to pretend otherwise!

    As I have related recently in Why I Am A Creationist 3, I was raised a Creationist, was later indoctrinated into Darwinism and, after a decade of darwin, eventually came back to the Creationist position. My reasons for embracing the Young earth Creation position stem from the fact that I believe their is reasonable evidence to believe that a personal, transcendent God exists, that Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead and that I can believe the Bible in regards to what it says about the human condition, history and prophecy. I laid out these reasons in Why I Am A Creationist.

    As a result of these investigations, particularly in examining the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection and the supernatural accuracy of Bible prophecy, I came to the position where I believed the Bible to be the divine revelation of God. The Bible has proven so reliable in other areas that I am able to give it the benefit of the doubt as I sort out other areas. This is not inconsistent with rational science. It is true that Darwinist, when encountering a problem that seems to contrdict Darwinism will give the theory the benefit of the doubt by saying, We don’t know yet, but we will solve it eventually.

    You might object that the Genesis record could be allegorical, but it does not read like one. And I find that we make less errors when we take the text literally [allowing for figures of speech and the like]. Since the rest of the Bible has proven reliable and historically accurate, and since it is inconceivable that God’s truth and scientific truth could contradict one another [true science will agree with God and vice versa, since He created the laws which govern the world we study by science], it is reasonable to explore the possibility that the Word of God reveals the truth about Creation and Catastrophism [including the young age of the Earth] and that an exploration of these ideas will bear positive fruit. This I am endeavoring to do.

    Do these insights answer your questions as to my shocking methods?]

    NOTE: He did respond, but I somehow deleted it. Fortunately, I found it in my email list but cannot figure out how to make it a separate comment, so here it is:

    Then why are you going through the effort with showing pictures of fossils? Just bring the evidence you see as proof and induce it on anything the bible says.

    In short, you don’t believe the earth is young because any physical evidence tells you this, but because it lies in accordance to what biblical texts say (if you interpret them literally, which many seem not to. Including some Jewish sects I know of, including the secular Jewish sect I’m familiar with and was raised in)

    There’s really nothing more to talk about, then. If your belief in a young age has nothing to do with science, then my entire approach to this blog entry is pointless, and I believe I have wasted both of our time. You’ve every right to believe what he bible tells you about the history of the earth. I was curious if you believed the world to be young because of something science told you. If you presuppose that science can only affirm the bible (and if it doesn’t, it’s not science) – then there’s nothing in science that’s relevant to your beliefs anyway. You’d believe the bible first and nothing you find or I present to you will change that.

    I’ll be delighted to read about any creationist dating methods if you post on them here, though.

    Thank you for your time and patience. You’ve answered my questions.

  34. Anonymous says:

    Church of Darwin or Church of religion: what does it really matter in the final analysis?

    [Sirius: A great deal. If darwin is correct, we will be replaced by something better and the end of our individual lives spells personal oblivion. If Christendom is correct, man is the special creation of God with an eternal destination, a Heaven to gain or a Hell to shun. This makes the matter extremely important!]

    Life has been here on our earth a very long time and certainly longer than we humans have been.

    [Sirius: Genesis says otherwise. It claims plant life precedes humanity by three days, marine and flying creatures [including insects] precede man by two days and land animals were created earlier on the same day.]

    The only thing that seems certain as far as I can tell is life will continue to change and species will come and go,no matter what the cause may be.The real issue anymore about life here on earth is simple-will we humans allow it to continue on or our we going to doom it and have it gone forever?

    [Sirius: How very Green of you to say so.]

    Evolution is just another word for change over time and how life came to be is not easy or even possible to answer no matter what church you subscribe to.

    [Sirius: Actually that definition of evolution is Eugenie Scott’s equivocation and it’s patently misleading and void for vagueness.]

    I take a middle of the road view because I care not for the useless argues over an issue that can’t be reasonably resolved .The reality of this world basically for the most part, is what you see is what you get.

    [Sirius: So you’ve decided there’s nothing beyond what you see? No soul? No God? No point?]

    People like to be antagonistic and elitist when they think that they are right and that is human nature. Both schools of thought on the subject of how life came to be here on earth sure have a lot to say and oddly end up negating each other so in the end it seems nothing was accomplished. Logic and reason are the only things we have to distinguish our selves from all the rest of life here on earth.

    [Sirius: And yet you suppose you are right. How can you be sure? And why should we listen to you? Think about it.]

  35. Penguin_Factory says:

    “If darwin is correct, we will be replaced by something better and the end of our individual lives spells personal oblivion.”

    Believing in evolution doesn’t rule out the possibility of an afterlife. Honestly, this “Darwin or God” dichotomy is completely false.

  36. Sirius says:

    Really? Since Darwin’s theory is based on the presupposition of naturalism,that the supernatural is unnecessary to explain the observable world, how does Darwinism allow forthe existence of the supernatural, of the soul and unlimately of God?

    I’m not quite sure you’re being consistent. Have you thought out the ramifications of what you say you believe?

    –Sirius Knott

  37. Penguin_Factory says:

    The view you have of science and the supernatural is….

    [Sirius: Yeah, I’m gonna cut him off here, because like many of my readers I suffer from idiosis: a severe allergic and demonstrative reaction to the presence of idiocy.

    For those of you [three guys max] who may be disappointed that I’m not publishing his entire comment: Trust me, you’re not going to miss much. He basically accuses of setting up a false dichotomy between Darwinism and God, and whines that I’m unfairly singling out Darwinism because [drumroll please and cue the predictable mantra of the faithful Darbot] there is no science but naturalism. But for those of you who felt cheated by my arbitrary editing policies, I leave you with one last tasty snippet from the ever-lovin’ Penguin Factory:]

    By the way, what happened to my latest reply in our debate?

    [Sirius: Mydogateit. We had to put him down. So the way I see it, You owe me a dog, Penguin Factory. And until you supply a canine of equal or greater value, I’m holding the rest of your comment privileges hostage. I’d settle for a penguin actually. If you live up to your name, you should at least be able to pull off a famously flightless bird, right?]

  38. penguinfactory says:

    You said: “He basically accuses of setting up a false dichotomy between Darwinism and God, and whines that I’m unfairly singling out Darwinism because [drumroll please and cue the predictable mantra of the faithful Darbot] there is no science but naturalism. ”

    That’s not what I said.

    [Sirius: I know it’s not exactly what you said. It’s basically what you said. We call this a summary.]

    Your linked post states, and I quote:

    “The modern scientific establishment has decided by scholastic fiat that naturalism [i.e. – atheism] shall be the basis of all science. In doing so, they have a priori excluded the possibility of the supernatural, of God.”


    [Sirius comments: I wrote that? Wow! That’s good writing!]

    Firstly, naturalism isn’t atheism- naturalism states that natural phenomena have natural explanations.

    [Sirius: It is the insistence that natural phenomena can ONLY have natural explanations that is in debate. Note that I also wrote in that article the following points:

    1. If God exists, there exists the possibility that some problems will require a supernatural answer.

    1a. This is not to say that all problems will require a supernatural answer [an appeal to God, if you will] or that no problems will have natural explanations.

    1b. Given the intricacy and complexity of design observable in nature, but also the inter-relatedness of its systems, laws, ecologies and species, we should expect to see that a majority of the problems shall have natural solutions. To put it another way, since the supernatural [God] has set up [created] the natural world and its laws, processes, et cetera, and since we observe the natural world we inhabit and have limited or no access to the supernatural [here, being that which exists outside the natural] apart from God’s will and revelation, we should expect that most solutions of the natural world shall be natural.

    1c. Since the world has a supernatural designer, a minority of data and problems shall certainly require a supernatural explanation [again, if God does indeed exist].

    1d. Problems requiring [not possibly owing to] a supernatural explanation will be unexplainable by natural processes alone. [Note that this is not a “god of the gaps” approach or argument from ignorance. Problems requiring a supernatural explanation would not be explainable by naturalism. In other words, it would be found that naturalism was inadequate to explain the problem but that intelligent design did, not merely that naturalism could not explain it yet.] This would include things which are irreducibly complex or inconceivably improbable for natural processes to account for [as Dembski pointed out, why should naturalism get a free lunch?], such as elements of intelligent design [for example: irreducible complexity, unaccountable ascending orders of information, a “fingerprint” of homologous design elements incorporated into differing processes/entities and input of new information such as that required for the origin of the universe and life] or phenomena that may only be explained by intervention [an overruling of natural law and processes] by the supernatural.

    It just doesn’t have an effect on the natural.

    [Sirius: You’re begging the question. Re-read There Is No Science But Naturalism and Darwin Is Its Prophet! again with your God-given mind engaged this time. If the supernatural exists, some problems will necessarily require a supernatural answer.]

    Or, to quote wikipedia:

    [Sirius: AKA the encyclopedia you can edit if you don’t like the ugly truth. But go on.]

    “Another basic form, called methodological naturalism, is the epistemology and methodological principle which forms the foundation for the scientific method. It requires that scientific hypotheses are explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events”

    [Sirius: This assumption is the very issue we are debating. I am not alone in thinking that the “requirement” of methodological naturalism is contrived and fallacious.]

    You said: “Mydogateit”

    Well, that’s no problem- I have another copy right here on my desktop. I’ll just post it up again and all will be well. Just keep your dog away this time, alright?

    [Sirius: Ha! My dog is dead as a result of the consumption of the original comment. While your wit has earned you a temporary reprieve from the comment moratorium my dog’s demise earned you, I cannot make any future promises of leniency. I expect a dog of equal or greater value or a famously flightless bird from your factory. Cough it up, buddy!]

  39. penguinfactory says:

    You said: “It is the insistence that natural phenomena can ONLY have natural explanations that is in debate.”

    But that’s not what scientists are insisting. Like I said, science takes the position that if the supernatural exists, we can’t study it scientifically. Therefore, scientists don’t consider supernatural explanations, because it would be pointless. If they ever found some phenomonon that could only be explained via the supernatural, they’d admit to that, but so far (and here’s the salient point) they haven’t.

    [Sirius: As I pointed out, their very presuppositions prevent them from ever making such a supernatural admission. The rest of your point is balderdash. Anything we can’t study directly [like origins or quantum physics] can still be infered. But naturalistic scientists have an investment in Darwinism and have placed a high wall of protection around it to insulate it from criticism.

    You said: “1c. Since the world has a supernatural designer, a minority of data and problems shall certainly require a supernatural explanation [again, if God does indeed exist].”

    Woah, woah, hold on. And You’re accusing me of having presumptions? This entire point rests on the assumption that God exists. Why should scientists, or myself, or anyone else for that matter, assume this?

    [Sirius: Re-read that statement and cool you jets. You missed the word “if.” This statement is irrefutable IF indeed God exists. That aside, I DO accuse you of presumption for the excellent reason that you presume a great many things.]

    You said: “This assumption is the very issue we are debating.”

    No, we’re not. There’s a clear distinction between naturalism that assumes outright that the supernatural doesn’t exist and naturalism which doesn’t take it into account. Or to put it another way, science is agnostic towards the supernatural, rather than atheistic.

    [Sirius: I’m glad you came to my site, as you appear to be confused about a greta many things. Allow me to clear away some of your confusion. Science isn’t agnostic any more than it’s neutral. We all have the same pile of shared evidence, yet our presuppositions cause us to come to completely different conclusions. The naturalism that assumes the supernatural does not exist is the selfsame naturalism which doesn’t take the supernatural into account; for why else should it be precluded a priori?]

  40. Sirius says:


    I have recieved a response from Tasman Walker at biblicalgeology.net. His response to your query is as follows:

    Hi Sirus,

    I’m not aware of any analytical method that can be relied upon to date things within a biblical framework.

    We rely on the same methods as all other geologists to work out the age of things relative to each other. That is, the principles of superposition, cross-cutting relationships, inclusions, etc. One powerful way of establishing relationships is through consideration of the landscapes. This
    has all to be assigned to its proper place in the scheme of things by using the classification criteria of Biblical Geological model.


    Useful links:

    Classification criteria: http://biblicalgeology.net/Model/Classification-Criteria.html

    And example of using geography to estimate the timing of things: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4529

    Hope that helps,
    Sirius Knott

  41. freidenker85 says:



    “Because we believe the Bible is true, we assume that its plain reading gives an accurate understanding of Earth history. Biblical chronology is used as the basis for geological investigation.”

    Okay, I read through both the links you posted here and I’m feeling kinda dizzy. Even if I take *everything* written on both blogs at face value, no one actually admits that there’s consistent dating of samples indicating a young earth. There are data regarding relative sedimentation and rapid burial, all perfectly fine with an old-earth model as well, but even your guy admitted himself that there’s no “young earth dating methods” used by, well, young earth flood geologist. I’m quite disappointed. Both sources failed to address my original question or admitted that there isn’t an answer.

  42. Kees van den Bosch says:

    Hi Sirius Knott,
    I am impressed with the tenor of your comments in general and feel relieved about having found a kindred soul in interpreting Holy Scripture litterally as read.
    I have a manuscript with my publisher with the title “The Greatest Scientist Alive” which discusses Genetic Engineering and its ramifications in which I suggest a ‘possible’ scenario explaining the old-earth versus new-earth controversy and how they might fit together. I like to touch base with you, to discuss this. Yours sincerely Kees.

  43. Tony Sidaway says:

    The notion that there is any “controversy” in geology over dating is completely misconceived and factually incorrect. Only numbskulls like SIrius dissent from the mainstream view, which has been well supported for well over a century.

    1. Sirius says:

      The notion that there is not a controversy in geology over dating is wishful thinking. Mt Saint Helens made catastrophists and neo-catastrophists out of a good lot of geologists. Rapid erosion, rapid deposition of sediment layers, the explanation for polystrates and even how coal in a relatively short amount of time were all observed. Lyell did a good job of convincing people of uniformitarian processes. Darwin applied this theory to biology. Both forgot how large a role catastrophes play in both fields. [Catastrophes observably interrupt the uniform processes of gradualism; some theories of micro-evolution – which is compatible with the creationist theory of adaptation with created kinds – suggest that catastrophes may be a catalyst for rapid speciation.] I’m afraid “tony” [which is too good of a name for such bad notions] may be only seeing what he wishes to see.

      But keep your head in the sand, if you must. While I’m thinking of it, thank you for the erroneous and unnecessary ad hominem. Unfortunately, “numbskull” is completely lacking in imagination and says nothing to the fact.

      Sirius Knott

  44. Tony Sidaway says:

    Your contention that Mt. St Helens eruption has provoked a controversy over dating demonstrates why the term “numbskull” is appropriate here.

    Holding minority ideas in geology is one thing, but you go further than that, grossly misrepresenting the support your ideas have, to the extent of saying that there is a dating controversy in geology to the extent that creattionist dating is plausible.

    There are two possible explanations of your unfounded and untenable claims: ignorance or dishonesty. If the former, open a textbook on geology and learn.

    1. Sirius says:

      Now I remember you. You’re the “go read a textbook” fellow! Wow. You really are a one-trick pony, aren’t you?

      That aside, you’ve inserted a straw man into this conversation. I’m not saying that the existence of said controversy makes creationist dating plauisible. To the contrary, creation dating and proposed mechanism are plausible, hence the controversy. Again, Lyell advocated near pure gradualism, attempting to circumvent the Noachim Flood. This, despite the fact that a majority of ancient people groups have flood legends about a universal flood. If such an event, such as the Bible and flood legends record, gradualism has been grossly interupted at some point. Here’s a suggestion: Read a bit more about what happened at Mt Saint Helen, then tell me whether the Grand Canyon, strata layers and polystrates necessarily had to take long ages. The answer will surprise you. It didn’t have to take long ages, especially if a Noachim Flood actually occured. Coupled with ignored evidence suggesting a young earth [the decay of earth’s magnetic field, the amount of salt in the ocean, the amount of helium in crystals, et cetera] suggests that a Biblical dating of the earth is plausible. It’s not the controversy which suggests it’s plauisible; its the plausibility that engenders the controversy.

      Now you are correct in that the official party line amongst scientists is uniform geology. That doesn’t make them right. I think we both know that. But neo-catastrophist geologists are growing in number. Meanwhile, schools still spout the official dogma, right?

      Therefore, there are two possible explanations for your faith in uniform, gradualist geology: willful ignorance or successful indoctrination.

      Sirius Knott

  45. Josh says:

    I know that arguing with a creationist (especially of the YEC variety) is like trying to kick water uphill, but just in case anyone reading this really thinks there’s anything to any of your claims…

    1. Of course the layers can be “flip-flopped”, as you put it. Such cases are called unconformities and they’re well documented and well accounted-for by geologists. The fact that in most cases the sequence of layers agrees with the dates provided by radiometric dating of igneous ricks in close proximity to or sandwiching layers validates the geological column (in a broad sense – scientific data are always open to revision of particulars, unlike religious fundamentalism). You also seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that we never find, say, dinosaurs, octopuses, or puppy dogs along with the fossils associated with Cambrian strata.

    2. While it’s true that, as Kent Hovind puts it, we can’t tell that a fossilized organism ever had kids, the broad strokes of evolution are preserved by the fossil record. For establishing pedigrees, DNA, RNA, and protein data from living organisms are far more effective and impressive than the fossil record ever was, and also support evolution, by the way.

    3. The Cambrian explosion wasn’t much of an explosion. If I’m ever attacked by crazed fundamentalists, I’m hoping they use an IED that operates on geological time, so I can continue to enjoy my coffee (and the rest of my life, and the rest of human history…). And phyla are one of the broadest taxa of animals. It sounds impressive when you say that most phyla are represented in Cambrian strata, but what does that really mean? Insects, spiders, crabs, lobsters, jawed fish, reptiles, amphibians, mammals… none of the above exist in Cambrian strata, because they’re all the result of much later diversification.

    And the idea that “worms” and jellyfish even SHOULD be followed by fish and trilobites seems to be your own prejudices speaking. All are members of different phyla (heck, “worms” alone could refer to several very different phyla – it’s more a description of shape than of ancestry!), and as such are the result of earlier divergences, and not divergences from each other.

    As for punctuated equilibrium, the Cambrian “explosion” has nothing to do with it, and it’s not a radical departure from gradualism anyway (many biologists cringe when they’re treated as separate, incompatible concepts). Look up Hardy-Weinberg equations if you really care about punctuated equilibrium (except as an “evolutionists are idiots lol” buzzword).

    4. Tas Walker’s chart does provide an alternative to the standard geological column. And Joe Vlasic’s stork model provides an alternative to those wacky concepts of cell division and differentiation in embryonic development. Follow the evidence, kids.

    I’ll skip to the end of your long piece now.

    “[T]he debate is now whether there were hundreds [or thousands] of small, local flood events or a single global flood such as the Bible records.

    Guess which one the Darwinists are promoting? Yep, the one that doesn’t lend credence to the Bible.”

    Nice usage of square brackets, BTW. (Were you doing that just to sabotage acts of ellipsis?) Anyway, those silly Darwinists and their goofy Darwin fetish! (Hey, did I mention how they like Darwin?) I mean, imagine how ludicrous it would be if we had… *snorts*… small, local floods!

    Oh wait, there are over 100 small (well, except to those affected!), local floods around the world in an average year. So you’d better revise that number up to “millions”.

    1. Sirius says:


      Before I respond, compassion compells me to inquire whether you’re quite serious and whether you would not prefer in any way to ammend your response to something more cogent and indicative of sapience and with rather less uninspired drivel and ad hominem?

      Sirius Knott

    2. Sirius says:

      Josh aka EyeDunno,

      1. I really can’t believe you’ve pulled the “why don’t we find velociraptors with bunny rabbits?” card. Thus far, we haven’t. True. Neither does current catastrophist theory predict such a thing, which is what makes this a straw man. We predict instead that successive intact ecosystems succumbed to the Global Flood. [Hot water reefs, floating forests, shore, inland forest, etc etc].

      As to your first point, the fact that radiometric dating agrees with with uniformitarian geology’s presuppositions about the age of rock layers isn’t at all surprising. They tend to throw out dates that don’t confirm their assumptions. And radiometric dating is itself based on old earth assumptions. There are three assumptions in particular: that the rate of decay has remained constant, the original parent/daughter ratio and the assumption of a closed system.

      Note also a few inconsistencies with said dating methods. For example, The urianium-lead age of zircons from a New Mexico granite is 1.5 billion years, but the leakage rate of by-product helium gas from the same zircons yeilds an age of only 6,000 years. Also deep earth diamonds which cannot be contaminated contain measurable radiocarbon, implying that the earth is young. And don’t get me started on polonium radiohalos. In short, you’re spouting uniformitarian dogma but no one’s ever given you the whole picture [we call it indoctrination].

      Keep digging.

      2. The alleged pedigrees of DNA, RNA etc often flatly contradict the pedigrees suggested by evos from the fossil record. If you really want to get into this, I will, but you’ve been seriously mislead as to the reliability of this sort of rubbish. Similarities in DNA codings between organisms that share similar homology more imply similarity of design and similarity of function. Common descent is presumed, not observed. And since the fossil record simply shows stasis [a dog remains a dog and recognizably so] and sudden appearance [no evident ancestral forms], those dots are only connected in your heads – and damnably in public school textbooks. But of course molecules to man evolution is simply a belief.

      3. Nice dodge, but on the geological scale proposed by uniformitarianism, we both know it’s more like a flash. No evident ancestral forms and simply not enough time for evolution to have done it’s theoretical work.

      As for the statement: Insects, spiders, crabs, lobsters, jawed fish, reptiles, amphibians, mammals… none of the above exist in Cambrian strata, because they’re all the result of much later diversification,” you’re simply presuming that goo-to-you evo occured. Again, current catastrophist theory suggests that ecosystems were successively overwhelmed during the Flood. So just as I don’t find lions in the ocean, I should expect the layers to contain unique fauna [rather than a blender mix that evos typically suggest as a straw man]

      Hang on a bit. Are you equating saltations with gradulaism? I realize now that evos have attempted a patch-job synthesis between the two, but fast and slooooooooow are simply not the same thing, sir!

      But this takes the cake: “And the idea that “worms” and jellyfish even SHOULD be followed by fish and trilobites seems to be your own prejudices speaking. All are members of different phyla (heck, “worms” alone could refer to several very different phyla – it’s more a description of shape than of ancestry!), and as such are the result of earlier divergences, and not divergences from each other.” Sir, I’m only getting the idea from PUBLIC SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS which consistently illustrate this sort of succession as fact.

      4. I’m particularly enamored of the Vlasic stork reference. Ironically, it’s something as demonstrably false that adorns our textbooks: Ernst Haekel’s flasified embryo drawings. I note however that you offerered no specific reason as to why Tas Walker’s chart was false.

      That’s of course because the last of your commentary descends into snarky mockery. Thanks for obscuring the issue. We’re talking about millions of small, local fossil-making floods which are not really evident [the generic floods are there, but are they making fossils?] or one massive Flood, which btw also lines up with the phenonmenon of universal flood legends found the world over.

      -Sirius Knott

  46. Sean says:

    Regarding the salinity issue… It is a non issue. All these brilliant minds that support darwinism forget that between creation and flood there was not enough time for the water to become salty. 1. there was no rain. A mist watered the earth. 2. All of the oceans salt comes from minerals leached from the dirt the rivers erode. 3. Micro evolution does not preclude that fish in the non-salty ocean adapted to live in a slowly increasing salinity environment. 4. If the earth is truly billions of years old (and all things continue as they have since the fathers fell asleep); why does seawater have so little salt.
    Unfortunately to for the adherents of the origins religion there are too many little details that break the macro argument. Lack of verifiable (scientific) evidence is the major one. Show me ONE mid-state fossil and I will BELIEVE you. There are NONE and none will ever be found. The closest matches to “missing links or intermidiate forms have long be proven to be hoaxes. An affliction in palaentology and archeology that does not seem to go away. I suppose if yoiu have NO evidence you have to make some up. 2 skull fragments lead to a composite model of some ape-like thing – what a CROCK!!!
    One of the prime reasons I am no longer an evolutionist but a creationist.
    The weight of the evidence does not add up. All you have is a couple of really loud mouthed individuals spouting the same thing over and over and over and over and over… ad nauseum.
    No new evidence has been found to support darwin. More evidence is coming from biology and astronomy to support creation than darwin. All I can say to these poor deluded individuals is: “Good Luck with that, hey!!!” The weight of evidence is shifting more and more away from darwin, and his supporters (like the flat earthers) of Galileos day are getting increasingly vocal in an attempt to make all evidence to the contrary dissapear. The arguments for darwinism are essentially the same as being called a racist for critising the Obamanator. “You don’t worship darwin so you must be stupid, ignorant, unscientific, etc. (insert your own blah blah). Darwinism is a crutch for psuedo scientists who are not brave enough to admit that we just might not be alone…

    PS: Excuse the English – 2nd language and all that…

  47. Max says:

    You idiot… This is absurd!

  48. Sirius says:

    Max apparentlly has Tourette’s but little of substance to offer.

    -Sirius Knott

  49. pianogirl says:

    I just have to say that all the name calling and such is really uncalled for. I personally agree with Sirius, but I must say that if you want someone to learn anything or if you want to win an argument, this will not help your case. How about some intelligent discussion folks!

  50. James says:

    You can tell you’re a christian. The fossil record is right. You are wrong. You’re scared of your god going under.

    1. Sirius says:

      The fossil record can be neither right nor wrong, being mere data. It has no opinion in the matter and it doesn’t come with handy-danady ID tags. The fossil record requires interpretation. Interpretations of data can be wrong. I’ve simply demonstrated that the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record has a lot of fatal problems and is thus wrong.

      God is in no danger of “going under,” as you put it. Might I suggest that you’re scared that the Bible is true and that God exists and that you therefore answer to a Higher power than yourself?

      1. Tom C says:

        Carbon dating does not require subjective analysis. Even if it did, there are plenty of scientists who check behind one another. Nice try. Fail.

      2. Tom C,

        Your credulity fascinates me. Radiometric dating makes three assumptions: [1] that we know the initial parent/daughter ratio (we can’t know this, we must presume), [2] that the rate of decay has been constant and has never changed [again, we must presume] and [3] that nothing has been added or removed [we must presume]. So it does require subjective interpretation. Scientists checking up on others are using the same assumptions, leading them to the same conclusions. So nice try. Fail.

        -Sirius Knott

      3. drlindberg says:

        “Your credulity fascinates me.”
        I don’t see that this kind of insult is called for. This is the kind of name-calling I was referring to above. Can we keep this discussion civil, please?

        “Radiometric dating makes three assumptions: [1] that we know the initial parent/daughter ratio (we can’t know this, we must presume), [2] that the rate of decay has been constant and has never changed [again, we must presume] and [3] that nothing has been added or removed [we must presume]. So it does require subjective interpretation. Scientists checking up on others are using the same assumptions, leading them to the same conclusions. So nice try. Fail.”

        You throw around the term assumption, but ignore the fact that scientists TEST their assumptions. There are ways of determining the initial ratios and variations in rates of decay, as a short search of reliable sources will indicate. I’m not clear on what you mean by “nothing has been added or removed.” Who are you suggesting did this adding or removing? Do you not think that it would have left a trace?

        You also ignore the fact that dates are cross-checked using different methods based on different assumptions. How would you explain the fact that the results confirm each other.

        And please do not fall back on the old anti-evolutionist stand-by implying that scientists are cooking their results to make them agree. With so many people from so many countries working in so many different specialties, If they were faking them, how in the world could they manage to get all the faking to agree?

      4. Lindberg,

        If you truly object to name-calling under any circumstances then you hold me as a Christian to an unBiblical standard. My short answer is Mount Carmel, Elijah, prophets of Baal, read it again. I might also note that Jesus Himself called folks pretenders [“hypocrites”], hard of hearing, snakes, and pretty graves full of corpses. When God addresses Job’s friends, He begins with the question, “Who is this who darkens counsel with words without knowledge?” For more on this subject, see Are Christians Too Nice?

        As to your second point, how do I put this? I noted that radiometric dating makes three assumptions.

        At no point did you demonstrate how a scientist could objectively determine what the initial parent/daughter ratio was; again, scientists make the assumption that no daughter isotopes were present in the initial state, which is quite the assumption! Worse, it may be entirely incorrect, for radiometric dating conducted on igneous rocks from recent volcanoes of known modern dates will nonetheless show the same old ages of rocks of unknown ages. This anamoly suggests that we need to calibrate these dates somehow, and that at the very least the assumption of initial conditions makes radiometric dating unreliable. If we can’t trust radiometric dating to give us the correct age of rocks of known age, how can we possibly trust it to give us the correct age of rocks of unknown ages?

        At no point did you demonstrate how a scientist might determine whether parents or daughter material was added or removed prior to measurement. You suggested that there would be some way to determine this, but you gave no examples of such. We are again left with an assumption that no material was added or removed prior to measurement.

        At no point did you demonstrate how a scientist could determine whether the rate of decay has always been constant. So again, the assumption must be made.

        Which brings me to your irrelevant point concerning how scientists come to the same conclusions of old ages using dating methods that employ the same exact assumptions: of course they do. The notion of millions of years is derived from the assumption of uniformitarianism, the idea that the present is the key to the past. This concept forms the backbone of geology, but it is important to note that from a Biblical POV it is flawed.

        How so? Well, the uniformitarian geologist assumes that present natural processes are sufficient to account for the past. When they do so, they presume that God has never acted and that supernatural revelation [the Bible] is irrelevant to the question of history. Many Christians – from Old Earth Creationists to Gap [Ruin and Reconstruction] Theorists to the new “Historical Creationist” sentiment – fail to recognize this. They note that nature is observably uniform and that uniform natural laws are one of the evidences for a lawful God. Ironically, God promises us in Genesis 8:22 that we should expect to see uniformity in nature, but this promise is made after Creation, the Fall and the Flood, the major exceptions to the uniformity we observe in nature. When children are being taught the history of the universe in terms of millions of years, their hearts and minds are being prepared to accept an all-natural worldview that excludes the supernatural from all consideration and divorces God from reality. Yet only the Biblical Creationist has a consistently rational, non-arbitrary basis for conducting science.

        Dr. Jason Lisle, author of The Ultimate Proof of Creation, has given this line of reasoning quite a bit of thought in a post called Evolution: The Anti-Science:

        “The biblical creationist expects there to be order in the universe because God made all things (John 1:3) and has imposed order on the universe. Since the Bible teaches that God upholds all things by His power (Hebrews 1:3), the creationist expects that the universe would function in a logical, orderly, law-like fashion. Furthermore, God is consistent and omnipresent. Thus, the creationist expects that all regions of the universe will obey the same laws, even in regions where the physical conditions are quite different. The entire field of astronomy requires this important biblical principle.

        Moreover, God is beyond time (2 Peter 3:8) and has chosen to uphold the universe in a consistent fashion throughout time for our benefit. So, even though conditions in the past may be quite different than those in the present and future, the way God upholds the universe (what we would call the “laws of nature”) will not arbitrarily change.8 God has told us that there are certain things we can count on to be true in the future—the seasons, the diurnal cycle, and so on (Genesis 8:22). Therefore, under a given set of conditions, the consistent Christian has the right to expect a given outcome because he or she relies upon the Lord to uphold the universe in a consistent way.

        These Christian principles are absolutely essential to science.”

        Point being: wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions, Lindberg.


  51. Ms. Spock says:

    Hello Sirius,
    I recently came accross this site while looking for information on the web. It appears that what I’m seeing is an old debate but I wanted to comment on a question that was asked. One of the evolutionist stated that if there were 10 people on the ark how would virus and disease survive. 1. Many organisms (i.e. bacteria, parasites, etc. )live symbiotically in the human body, never hurting the host, then one day they just become pathogenic for unknown reasons. We have live bacteria in our stomachs to help us digest food. The same holds true for many animals. Everyone on the ark would have had bacteria, parasites and viruses that were not being fought by their immune systems because they had not become pathogenic. 2. Many viruses that affect humans came from animals. Humans contracted a number of viruses when they decided to “become intimate” with the animals. Again the majority were probably brought over on the ark. No doubt some of the sea life we eat hosted their own share of microorganisms. The majority of this information can be found in any Microbiology textbook for Medical laboratory technicians.

    1. Tom C says:

      It’s a lot easier on the mind to just disregard the silly notion that all modern life could survive a bottle neck as severe as what’s described in Genesis. Seriously, one of the guest commenter on this site actually suggested that Noah (I’m speaking here as if I believe the story, but I do not) brought two of each “kind.” As in, only 2 dog specimens, only 2 chickens, only 2 spiders ,etc. How then, do we have both the black widow spider and the brown recluse today? The boxer and the husky? The pit viper and the king snake? This is to say nothing of all the types of plants that could not survive a global flood, such as flowers.

      So what was it? Did God magically create incredible diversity in plants and animals from thin air after the flood, and then forget to put that into the Bible?


      Come on peope

      1. Tom C,

        Science has documented many cases of rapid speciation, especially following a bottleneck event. You’re simply rejecting this scenario because you reject the Biblical Flood itself. Likewise, creationists have [over]explained how plants could have survived both inside and outside the Ark [for argument’s sake].

        Furthermore, we know as a historical fact that all domestic dog breeds came from a single wolf ancestor a few thousand years ago. According to the Bible, man has always played a part in selection to vaying degrees.

        Meanwhile, we have never seen life spring from nonlife. Nor have we seen one kind of creature transform into another kind of animal entirely, such as ungulates becoming whales or reptiles becoming birds or fish becoming amphibians. You believe that these things happened despite the fact that it has never been observed because you were taught to think that way as a child. You were given a one-sided, uncritical presentation of an all-natural history of the world and told it is fact because it is purely natural… because scientists play by a set of arbitrary rules which prevent a Divine foot from entering the door. Consequentally, all they can do is come up with all-natural answers which may or may not be true [despite their presumptions] – and are certainly false where supernatural agency was actually responsible!

        -Sirius Knott

  52. Henotic says:

    Just so I understand this…are evolutionists claiming we have fossil evidence of animals within the developmental stages of sexual reproduction (sex organs, sperm producing mechanisms, egg producing mechanisms, etc.)? We have evidence of animals in transition into mammals with live birth capabilities that correspond with mammary glands that transform elements into nurishing milk & just happen to lead out through apparitions in the breast (nipples) in anticipation of such offspring? We have evidence of placental developement that internally incubates offspring, surrounded by fluid and coincidentally connects the fetus to an ambilical chord which provides the developing being with EVERYTHING they need from the “host” mother??? Really, I’d LOVE to see this eveidence. We seem to be “missing links” of ENTIRE biological mechanisms within individual animals & understanding such tissue may not present itself in this “record”, it lends itself to be an even more daunting task for the evolutionist. But it “must have” happened because…look…here they are.

  53. inkth says:

    Ok…so where’s the “missing links” or “evidence of transition” from non-sexual or asexual reproduction to Sexual reproduction? If you understand how mammary glands work (wiki “mammary gland” sub category Development and hormonal control)
    and all that must have led to the emergence of such biological mechanisms, how did infant mammals eat? Or did breasts full of milk with nipples to suckle from exist before mammals gave live birth? So i’m guessing the emergence of a placenta, amniotic fluid, ambilical chord that provides nutrients to the fetus, and the genetic coding to choreograph the timing, quantities, reproduction/divisions, etc of all the cells needed to produce a live birth, produced babies that weren’t like any we see today. If so, what “evidence” is there? Not what somebody imagines happened…(like creationists do) but actual evidence. I know there are difficulties of soft tissue not fossilizing. Which makes it more unlikely there exists such evidence outside of our imagination.

  54. Hello,

    I’ve read your write up and even though I agree with your idea I don’t completely agree with your logic.

    I agree that evolution is just a theory that no one can prove right and I frankly don’t believe in it.

    However, I don’t agree that the earth has to be young because it was created in six days.

    In Quran Allah Says

    In Al-Araf sura ” Lo! your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days, then mounted He the Throne. He covereth the night with the day, which is in haste to follow it, and hath made the sun and the moon and the stars subservient by His command. His verily is all creation and commandment. Blessed be Allah, the Lord of the Worlds! (54)”

    However Allah also says:

    Al-Hajj Sura “And they will bid thee hasten on the Doom, and Allah faileth not His promise, but lo! a Day with Allah is as a thousand years of what ye reckon. (47)”

    which means that even that Allah says the earth is created in six days this might actually be millions of years in what we count as a year. Please note that In Arabic the world Thousand is often used to indicate a very large number and not the exact number.

    This explanation is made easy because Quran is still in the original state it came in and has not been rewritten like the bible. Also not that Quran cannot be translated to any other language as to get the meaning of al Quran you need to read it in Arabic however these are just explanations of Qruan or interpretation in a different language.

    Farther explanations of the flood could be found out also from Al Quran.

    1. Yahya,

      An honest critic would note that the meaning of the word day depends on the specific context, not all possible meanings of a word in any given context. In a post called Six Solar Days, or Why God Took His Time, I noted the following:

      “I often get commentators who object that a word, usually the word “day” actually, can have many different meanings, so the Genesis days could have been any amount of time – except 6 actual days of course!

      In the case of the word “day” we cheerfully admit that it has several meaning depending upon the context. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis uses the phrase “In my father’s day, it took 10 days to drive across the Australian outback during the day” to illustrate the point that it can mean a period of time, a 24-hour day or even just the daylight portion of the day/night cycle.

      But it’s meaning is derived from context. It’s meaning is not determined by all possible meanings or the wishes of the audience, but by the intended meaning of the author.

      Interestingly, “yom” the Hebrew word for “day” is used 2301 times throughout the Old Testament. It’s only in Genesis 1 that we question what it really means. Outside of Genesis, it’s meaning is consistent and the rules of context are well-established: Anytime we see the word “day” and a number [410 times], it means a regular 24-hour [aka solar] day. Anytime we see the words “morning” and “evening” together withOUT the word “day” [38 times], it means a regular solar day. Any time we see either the word “morning” or “evening” with the word “day” [23 times], again, a normal solar day. And whenever we see the word “night” with “day” anywhere else in the Olt Testament [52 times], you guessed it — a 24-hour solar day. But people seem to have trouble applying a consistent rule of application to Genesis because of they suppose science has proven millions of years.”

      The reason the Quran states that “a day with Allah is as a thousand years of what ye reckon” in the first place is because Mohammed plagiarized the Judeo-Christian tradition. Psalm 90:4 states “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.” Similarly, the apostle Peter who discipled at the feet of Jesus stated, “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” [2 Peter 3:8]. In each passage, the immediate context refers to the fact that God is eternal [outside of time, having created time itself] and long-suffering. To extend the meaning to Creation days of Genesis or, similarly, the 4th Commandment [Exodus 20:11], the latter being written by the finger of God Himself upon stone tablets and given to Moses [Exodus 31], is reckless and unwarranted because, again, the specific context determines the intended meaning of a term.

      I am forced to admit familiarity with the Quran flood account which is vague by anyone’s standards. Compare this to the true and historical Biblical account which gives the Ark’s dimensions and a rather detailed log of the Flood as it rose and then receded over 1 year and ten days. Again, one is forced to note that Mohammed borrowed his account from the Judeo-Christian tradition without the good sense to include the entire account.

      I am forced also to note to that this is not an open forum for propogating the lie of Islam. Comments on this site are moderated. Please see our Rules of Engagement for posting comments and abide by them in future comments.

      Thank you,
      Rev Tony Breeden,
      Servant of the Resurrected Son of God, Jesus Christ the Creator

  55. Robbo D says:

    I find it extremely sad that in the year 2011 people are attempting to propagate creationism as a legitimate theory to oppose evolution. It is hilarious that this supposed ‘debate’ pitches on one side, religious fundamentalists who have as their evidence one book (either the Bible or the Quran), up against the fields of Geology, paleontology, evolutionary biology, physics, cosmology etc which cite thousands upon thousands of observed examples within nature that have all agreed with the theory of evolution. Nothing yet has been observed or discovered to refute the idea of evolution via natural selection and i think if somebody does find such a piece of evidence they would most surely change our entire perspective on how humans (and all other domains of animals) came to exist, as well as grabbing themselves a nobel prize to boot. I plead with all those who believe that creationism is a true alternative to evolution to do some reading about the subject, along with other areas of science before you dismiss the tenets of evolution because it doesnt agree with a world view coined hundreds or even thousands of years ago.

    1. Robbo D,

      You are amazingly credulous when it comes to the claims of microbes-to-man evolution.

      Here’s the problem with your response:

      1. You offer us a false dilemma of science versus religion, which has been addressed on this site ad nauseam. For example:

    2. Why Creation is Foundational to Science – Not Evolution
    3. 2. You have made a false equivocation between observable horizontal changes within created kinds of animals that creationists and evolutionists alike affirm [eg, natural selection, speciation, mutation] with the unobservable claim of vertical [phyletic] microbes-to-man evolution which require increasing orders of information.

    4. Deflating Dobzhansky’s Grand Assumption – Why Microevolution Does Not Lead to Macroevolution
    5. -revTony

  • Robbo D says:

    Separating ‘vertical’ from ‘horizontal’ differentiation indicates that you don’t understand the concept of evolution because in fact the two processes are essentially one and the same. These ‘observable horizontal differences’ between species as you put it, have occurred over hundreds or thousands of years, for example all species of domesticated dogs are originally descended from the grey wolf over a period of about 15 000 years. Now there a variety of dogs ranging from tiny chiuhuahuas to wolfhounds to setters to retrievers, all which were originally the same breed of wolf. Now think about the fact that if you had for example 500 million years to breed these dogs, imagine the differentiation you could produce if you bred them and environmentally challenged them in a highly specific fashion. Another example that is easily accesible and will help you to understand the concept is Lenski’s E. Coli experiment. This experiment (started in 1988) has successfully reproduced over 50000 generations of bacteria in 12 different groups and has clearly demonstrated the addition and mutation of genomic material through succesive generations with subsequent alterations in the bacteria’s phenotype. Once again, this has occurred over a measly 2 decades or so and thus if extrapolated to a much larger time frame ie 10 million, 500 million, 1 billion years (we know through radiometric dating that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old) it is easy to see that there could be vast changes that would render these organisms unrecognisable from their original state as simple E. Coli bacteria. I have one question for you Rev Breeden, i just wonder why it is that when you are not trained in the field of biology or geology or any science that you think your opinion is as valid as someone who has spent their life gathering evience and reading within these fields? Robbo D

    1. Robbo D,

      Alas! Whether a wolf, teacup poodle or an English bulldog, dogs remain dogs and recognizably so! This is better evidence for the creation model than the microbes-to-man evolution model. These horizontal changes are accomplished by shuffling the deck and/or by a loss of information, not the vertical increases of orders of information required by fish-to-philosopher evolution.

      I’m glad you brought up Lenski because it’s another point in favor of the creation model. The part you left out is that Previous research has shown that “wild-type E. coli can utilize citrate when oxygen levels are low.6 Under these conditions, citrate is taken into the cell and used in a fermentation pathway. The gene (citT) in E. coli is believed to encode a citrate transporter (a protein which transports citrate into the cell).6 When oxygen levels are high, it is thought that the citrate transporter does not function or is not produced (even though they still possess the enzymes necessary to utilize citrate). Thus, wild-type E. coli already have the ability to transport citrate into the cell and utilize it—so much for the idea of a “major innovation” and “evolution . . . making a rare and complex new trait”! Other labs have also produced Cit+ E. coli and speculated that mutation(s) in citT (or its regulators) allow the citrate transporter to function or be produced under high oxygen levels.6, 7 These types of changes are very consistent with the creation model, but cannot serve as a means for evolution.” [src: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/a-poke-in-the-eye ]

      Richard Lenki’s experiements show adaptation and nothing more.

      As for your last, rather ill-advised question [with its lovely appeal to expertism], I think ‘ll let Orson Scott card answer you:

      “Real science never has to resort to credentialism. If someone with no credentials at all raises a legitimate question, it is not an answer to point out how uneducated or unqualified the questioner is. In fact, it is pretty much an admission that you don’t have an answer, so you want the questioner to go away.

      Expertism is the “trust us, you poor fools” defense. Essentially, the Darwinists tell the general public that we’re too dumb to understand the subtleties of biochemistry, so it’s not even worth trying to explain to us why the Designists are wrong. “We’re the experts, you’re not, so we’re right by definition.”

      …The fact that they refuse even to try to explain is, again, a confession that they don’t have an answer.”


  • Robbo D says:

    Another point specifically to do with the fossil record is that you must understand that all fossils are transitional. There are no ‘mising’ links as you creationists love to claim. If you genuinely go and study the fossil record you will see that there is a gradual change within the fossil record from simple to complex organsims. Of course every single tiny detail is not preserved but this is clearly not possible as if every single organism was fossilized there would be no more organisms to continue reproducing. What actually occurs is that random organisms are fossilized from time to time and on some occassions huge amounts of organisms are fossilised at once (cambrian explosion) but the idea is to look at the big picture of progressive fossils and you will see that there is a brilliant progression that clearly demonstrates development from simple to complex organisms.

    1. Robbo D,

      You really are more credulous than I first supposed! The progression you point to is an assumption, not the revelation of the fossil record itself. Calling upon Stephen J Gould as a hostile witness, we note the following:

      “The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed. (Stephen J. Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p. 14) [emphasis mine]

      The reason evos suppose that the horizontal processes we observe must lead to vertical accumulations of microbes-to-man evolution is because one of the chief architects of the modern evolutionary synthesis suggested in Genetics and the Origin of Species (1937):

      “There is no way toward an understanding of the mechanism of macroevolutionary changes, which require time on a geological scale, other than through a full comprehension of the microevolutionary processes observable within the human lifetime. For this reason we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of micro- and macroevolution, and proceeding on this assumption, to push our investigations as far ahead as this working hypothesis will permit.” [emphasis mine]

      Evolutionists proceed on the assumption that these observable changes somehow accumulate into larger phyletic changes, but it is an assumption after all, not the revelation of the fossil record.

      For more on this issue, see Deflating Dobzhansky’s Grand Assumption, or Why Microevolution Does Not Lead to Macroevolution.


  • robbo D says:

    i find it humerous that you think credentials and education count for so little. When you have a problem with your plumbing do you call a plumber?, a problem with your power an electrician? or do you just grab some guy off the street and say experts dont know anything all opinions on this matter are equally justified? As i am interested in the creationist arguement i was just wondering how Noah fitted 100 million species on his boat?

    1. Poor Robbo D.

      You’ve missed my point entirely. Here’s what I said: True experts must answer even the objections of folks who aren’t experts, but may never rely on their credentials or expert status as an “answer;” which is to say that asking for my credentials rather than answering my argument merely reveals the fact that you have no answer.

      Not only do you have no answer, you don’t even know you’re asking the wrong questions! For example, creationists do not believe that Noah needed to fit every known species, extinct and living aboard the Ark. Rather he was to bring all of the animals aboard according to their kind. The Biblical kind is not the same thing as a species.

      The Bible states that God created plants and animals “after their kind” and told them to be fruitful and multiply “after their kind.” [Gen 1:12,25] This implies variation within fixed limits, which Mendel confirmed in his studies on heredity and which we observe in nature. A dog is still a dog, be it a dire wolf, fox, English bulldog or chihuahua. We can say then that canines are a “created kind.” Baraminology is an exciting new field which studies such “created kinds,” or baramins. God created the original wolf/dog baramin and gave it the potential to adapt to various environments and conditions.

      At the Flood, God sent 2 of each unclean created kind [and 7 of each clean kind] to the Ark. There were only about 55 kinds of dinosaurs.
      For example, varieties of the ceratopsian dinosaur kind have different arrays of neck frills, horns and knobs, but Noah would have needed
      only 2 individuals from this baramin. Likewise, Noah wouldn’t have needed to bring horses, donkeys, zebras and now-extinct three-toed
      horse varieties, but only 2 members of the equine kind. The same applies to felines, chickens and so on.

      In his book, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe has offered that only about 16,000 animals would have been needed to fulfill God’s command to bring in two [or seven of the “clean” animals] of every land-dwelling, air-breathing animal, creeping thing and winged creatures. A cubit is roughly the distance between a man’s fingertips to his elbow. Using a conservative short cubit of 18 inches, [meaning that the Ark could well have been larger!] Dr. Woodmorappe believes that “less than half of the cumulative area of the Ark’s three decks need to have been occupied by the animals and their enclosures.” [p.16] The rest would have been adequate for stores, foodstuffs and the 8 human survivors of the Deluge.

      Upon leaving the Ark, the animals again multiplied after their kind [Gen 8:16-19] into all of the varieties we see today.

      For more on what Creationists actually believe concerning Noah & the Ark [as opposed to what you merely think we believe] see our website dedicated to the topic.

  • robbo D says:

    there is no such thing as a ‘kind’ in nature good sir, its simply a word that doesn’t mean anything specific so can be used as yet another absurd creationist argument

    1. The definition for species is also debated, sir.

      By denying there is anything such as a Biblical kind you are simply presuming your own argument rather than addressing the arguments I have made. Point in fact, the Biblical kind usually falls at about the family level [but not always]. The Biblical kind fits both observed biology and the fossil record, both of which demonstrate stasis [so that a dog is still a dog and recognizably so be it a wolf, German shepherd or English bulldog] and [in the case of fossils] sudden appearance rather than gradual emergence.

      Treating the idea of the Biblical kind with a sweeping denial is indicative of a man who has not quite thought out both his own worldview and the argument of those he claims to vehemently oppose.


  • Anonymous says:

    Awesome great way to show the lie of evolution good job.

  • Jjan Baldwin says:

    I do not want to be an Evolutionist. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientific­ally possible­, creation leading to The Lord Jesus Christ.

  • Human Ape says:

    “According to Answers in Genesis:”

    Amazing. You invoke lunatics who believe the entire universe was magically created out of nothing only 6,000 years ago.

    This post might make your dead Jeebus cry but you should study it anyway:


    You got a lot of work to do mister. You might as well get started now. Also, please understand you’re never going to learn anything if you depend only on professional liars for your dead Jeebus.

    1. Human Ape,

      Firstly, you offer my readers an assoiative ad hominem, a weak-minded attempt to poison the well by charging a source I quote as erroneous WITHOUT EVER ONCE ENGAGING THE ARGUMENT BEING PRESENTED. Again, why should I take you seriously?

      Especially from someone who, secondly, expends such effort on a straw man argument. I’m referring to the link you provided. Creationists do not claim there are no candidates for transitional forms [hence, the straw man you thatched together]; rather, we note that while we should find innumerable transitional forms according to Darwin’s theory of microbes-to-man evolution, we have only a handful of disputable candidates which could as well be mosaics as true transitional forms.

      If you’d like me to show you how each of the examples you propose could be interpreted differently, I will do so. It might even be intructive to your readers that to pompously proclaim that one has no more to say on their blog is really an admission that they cling to dogma rather than to the scientific method. You see, a dogmatists could make such a statement because no amount or quality of new evidence would cause him to revise or deny his position, while a true freethinker [like myself] will consider new evidence and revise his position if the new evidence merits such revision.

      I think you have me mistaken for someone else when you claim I am relying on anyone else for my thinking, sir. I rejected Christianity because of doubts related to evolution, millions of years and the gross hypocrisy of the the church in the 1980s. Even after I returned to the faith, I once claimed that God could have used evolution and that one should accept the possibility of millions of years. After a careful investigation of the claims, presuppositions and evidences for and against each position, I rejected millions of years of microbes-to-man evolution for Biblical Creation. Meanwhile, aren’t you something of a Pharyngula fanboy? PZ Myers has admitted that he has more or less abandoned logical argument for more emotional tactics. Who’s lying to you, HA? Who’s really lying to you?

      Sirius Knott

  • drlindberg says:

    I would like to ask a couple of questions for clarification. I hope you will not, as usually happens, ignore them (like my comment of September 3, 2011, which after four months is still marked “awaiting moderation”), or start calling me names.

    1. Who ever claimed that the strata around the polystratic fossils represent billions of years? The account of William Dawson, who described the Joggins site way back in the 1860s, clearly shows that even way back then scientists knew that this was not true.

    2. Until recent medical advances, it was not uncommon for women to die during childbirth. Why would a fossil of some animal that died while giving birth be evidence of a flood, as you seem to suggest? Or for that matter, an animal that died while eating another?

    3. You yourself mention Mount St. Helens as an example of a sudden catastrophic event. Landslides caused by hurricanes or rain or volcanic eruptions that often kill animals, plants and humans are other common examples. How is it then that you seem to assume that every example of a rapid burial is evidence of the flood?

    4. Why is a fish that has characteristics normally found only in quadripeds (such as Tiktaalik) not an intermediate, or what you call a “missing link” (other than the fact that it is no longer missing)?

    5. Why and how is human evolution “a very racist notion”?

    6. You keep talking about presumptions. Scientists test their presumptions, repeatedly! Have you tested yours?

    Thank you for your patience.

    1. Lindberg,

      Why do I keep having to explain the fact that this blog has Rules of Engagement for comments, one of which is that I feel no particular obligation to approve every comment I receive simply because you bothered to submit it? My time is rather precious as I have many obligations off-line. Regrettably, even some comments I wish to address sit in moderation for longer than I would otherwise wish.

      In any case, I’m still not sure where you suppose I’ve called you names.

      In answer to your queries, in brief:

      1. I did not state that polystratic fossils are interpreted as being millions of years old based on the fossil layers they are imbedded in; I stated that in the absence of polystrates these layers are interpreted thus. Yet based on the assumption of geological succession, rather than looking to catastrophic processes such as those observed at Mt. Saint Helens, polystrate fossils such as those at Yellowstone are interpreted as being successive forests rather than one forest stripped off a mountainside during a pyroclastic flow and deposited in a lake only to drop one by one into the lake bed which is undergoing rapid sedimentation, as observed at Spirit Lake. In other words, the assumption makes them interpret the polystrate “forests” as being much older than observations at Mt. Saint Helens’ single volcanic deforestation event would lead us to believe.

      2. In a word, scavengers. Scavengers and decomposition make quick work of above ground specimens, scattering the body parts all over the place in the process. In order to be fossilized, the fossil skeleton must be buried quickly and deeply enough to avoid scavengers and aerobic and anaerobic decomposers, making it unlikely that that the examples given occurred in the absence of a cataclysmic episode of some sort.

      3. Why would I not assume the probability of the world-covering Flood mentioned in the Bible and in traditions of nearly every people group across the globe, given the vast array of such fossils evidencing a cataclysmic origin? The Bible is actually well athenticated as a reliable archaeological source, and since it realistically relates an event that seems to have imprinted itself into the collective memory of all people groups, why should not scientists interpret the geological evidence to account for such a striking phenomenon? What is your explanation for the vast array of flood legends across the globe?

      4. Here you inevitably regurgitate the faithful assertion that there are numerous transitional fossils, but then you must make excuses for why evos actually only have a handful of disputable candidates when the fossil record should be, by Darwin’s own admission, simply replete with them. [“The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous” – Origins]. Darwin blamed the “extreme imperfection” of the geological and fossil record and was confident that if we found more fossils they would form a more perfect picture that would confirm his theory. And here we are with a handful of disputable candidates that could as well be mosaics like the red panda, the platypus or the pronghorn. Gould refered to Archaeopteryx as a “curious mosaic.” The thing about mosaics, which we acknowledge in observable biology, is that they do not possess partially-formed transitional structures or traits; the structures and traits they share of several different creatures are fully formed. Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, archaeocetes and mammal-like reptiles are all likely mosaics. Incidentally, evolutionists use mosaics in a rather ala cart fashion, choosing ones they think would make good links and ignoring ones like the red panda and the pronghorn that make the wrong links according to current evolutionary thinking. Alternately, some have taken a page from Gould’s playbook and proposed “modular evolution” to explain away the lack of partially-formed transitional traits an evo would intuitively expect to find. Lo, I have not seen such faith, not in all Christendom.

      Tiktaalik was disqualified as the missing link between fish and land-dwelling tetrapods precisely because landlubbing footprints that pre-date Tiktaalik [by evolutionist reckonings] have been found. So this point is rather moot, since Tiktaalik is no longer considered transitional. Before that discovery was made, we still had a viable explanation for Tiktaalik [just not an evolutionary one]: namely, that it was just a fish.

      5. Human evolution is the idea that all ethnicities and people groups evolved from a single ancestor, so that some are less evolved than another; hence, it is inherently racist by presuming that some races are inferior in respect to their level of evolution. In a word, Spencerism.

      6. Scientists cannot test the presupposition of naturalism; they can never determine whether a singularity [past nonrepeatable evnt] is the result of observable natural processes such as those we see today or were the result of supernatural agency. The assumption of pure naturalism cannot be tested, it is simply assumed. Therefore science chained to pure naturalism has become the search for all-natural answers which may or may not be true but which are most certainly false where supernatural agency was actually responsible; unfortunately the assumption of methodological naturalism prevents scientistrs from considering the supernatural; in fact, they are blinded to the supernatural as a possibility by their methodology and thus they must needs make up all-natural Just-so stories for things they ought to have given credit to supernatural agency for if such was truly warranted. Likewise, one has to assume uniformitarianism in order to postulate uniformitarianism for the same basic reason.

      Sirius Knott

      1. drlindberg says:

        Thanks for your reply. I know you are busy. So am I.

        1. You said, “If these strata allegedly represent billions of years, how did the tree survive long enough [without rotting] to become fossilized?” This is what I asked you about. Who exactly ever alleged that “these strata […] represent billions of years”?

        I did not claim that you said, “that polystratic fossils are interpreted as being millions of years old based on the fossil layers they are imbedded in”

        Observations show differences between the trees involved in polystratic layers and those involved in pyroclastic flows. For one thing, the polystratic trees, at least the ones I’ve seen, are a completely different type from those alive today. Why do you assume that geologists/palaeontologists are too stupid and uninformed to see the difference?

        2. There are many ways for a body to be buried quickly that do not involve a universal flood.

        3. There are floods all over the world, so it is not surprising that there are flood legends all over the world. The Anishinabe of northern Ontario have one that involves a giant dam built by a giant beaver. Why didn’t Genesis mention that?

        4.I didn’t say “numerous transitional fossils.” I mentioned one. Yes, as you said Tiktaalik was a real fish, but it has pretty well the same bone structure in its limbs as you do, unlike any fish seen today. Why doesn’t that make it transitional, or mosaic, if you prefer? What do you see as the difference?
        By the way, “missing link” is an expression used mainly by those who don’t understand evolution.

        5. No one today thinks that any human group is more evolved than any other. Or that any modern species in more evolved than any other. Another sign that you may not understand evolution as well as you think.

        6. Naturalism isn’t really a supposition, more like a working method, and it seems to have been quite successful, bringing us all kinds of discoveries over the past four or five centuries. We are no longer communicating by smoke signals, or walking across the continent. Isn’t that a test of the supposition that it is useful?

        You know, basically what you are saying is that virtually all scientists who have spent their lives studying these matters (many of them Christians) are too dumb to come in out of the rain or tie their own shoelaces, and people who have never seriously studied it are oh! so much more intelligent! Does studying science make people stupid, or were they born that way?


      2. Lindberg,

        1. I think you’re quibbling. I used the term “billions” when I meant millions; I think we both know that. Almost every uniformitarian geologist interprets rock layers as being millions of years old. For example, the polystartic “forests” at Yellowstone are dated at a millions years at least. And those fossilized trees [in Miocene layers], it is noted, are remarkably like the ones growing alive there in Yellowstone at present.

        2. Quickly AND deeply, mind you.

        3. As I stated, the Genesis account is much more realistic than the other accounts which strongly backs the Creationist hypothesis that the Genesis account represents the actual historical events and that other traditions are corrupted over time.

        4. If “missing link” is a term used by those ignorant of evolution, I’ll expect you to write National Geographic it touts the so-called discovery of one in its headlines [only to retract demurely in small print a few months later]. In any case, In regards to Tiktaalik, I ask you to consider the following web link: http://www.icr.org/article/2962/

        The salient points are as follows: 1. We have only an incomplete fossil skeleton. The hind end could reveal it to be either a lobed-finned fish or an amphibian. 2. Similarly, we have no idea what the soft tissue looked like, so it’s pretty much speculation that it is in fact a transitional form; in fact, it looks like it’s much more in line with another cautionary tale of failed transitional candidacy: the Coelacanth. There was much speculation that the Coelecanth, a “living fossil” once known only from the geological record, was a walking fish based on skeletal anatomy. Both species of living Coelecanth since discovered are very much fish and do not walk at all.

        5. “No one today,” you say… this is only an admission that things were much different in the past. Nowadays, evolutionists and creations hold to the same basic idea: that all humans are inter-related and are merely variations of the same species with differing shades of melanin, etc. This was not always so in the past, and I suspect you know of Darwinism’s racist roots. In any case, while not overtly biggotted now, the theory is in itself racist as it does imply that some humans are closer to animals than others, whether you think this is so or not. The creation model, of course, views humanity as a separate creation from the animals, so there is no stigma of racism, implicit or otherwise.

        6. Useful. Of course it’s useful. The scientific method has been attributed to a Bible-affirming scientist, Sir Francis Bacon. The majority of the scientific disciplines were established by Bible-affirming scientists. And as I noted in More On Why Creation Is Foundational To Science, I noted only the Biblical Creationist has a consistently rational basis for the uniformity we find in nature. Dr. Jason Lisle, author of The Ultimate Proof of Creation, has given this line of reasoning quite a bit of thought in a post called Evolution: The Anti-Science:

        “The biblical creationist expects there to be order in the universe because God made all things (John 1:3) and has imposed order on the universe. Since the Bible teaches that God upholds all things by His power (Hebrews 1:3), the creationist expects that the universe would function in a logical, orderly, law-like fashion. Furthermore, God is consistent and omnipresent. Thus, the creationist expects that all regions of the universe will obey the same laws, even in regions where the physical conditions are quite different. The entire field of astronomy requires this important biblical principle.

        Moreover, God is beyond time (2 Peter 3:8) and has chosen to uphold the universe in a consistent fashion throughout time for our benefit. So, even though conditions in the past may be quite different than those in the present and future, the way God upholds the universe (what we would call the “laws of nature”) will not arbitrarily change.8 God has told us that there are certain things we can count on to be true in the future—the seasons, the diurnal cycle, and so on (Genesis 8:22). Therefore, under a given set of conditions, the consistent Christian has the right to expect a given outcome because he or she relies upon the Lord to uphold the universe in a consistent way.

        These Christian principles are absolutely essential to science. When we perform a controlled experiment using the same preset starting conditions, we expect to get the same result every time. The “future reflects the past” in this sense. Scientists are able to make predictions only because there is uniformity as a result of God’s sovereign and consistent power. Scientific experimentation would be pointless without uniformity; we would get a different result every time we performed an identical experiment, destroying the very possibility of scientific knowledge.”

        The key difference is that these scientists who get it wrong have chained themselves to PURE naturalism and thus have no nonarbitrary, noncontradictory explanation for the preconditions of science. Only the Biblical worldview provides such an explanation, and to be consistent we would have to allow for supernatural agency where supernatural revelation [the Bible] has indicated, though we could expect uniformity [and this naturalism] otherwise.

        In chaining itself to pure naturalism, science is in the arbitrary position of denying the validity of intelligent design to prevent the possibility of supernatural agency which, if they were consistent, would in turn negate our ability to determine whether Mt. Rushmore was created by erosion or intelligent design of the human variety.


  • drlindberg says:

    There’s one thing that’s always puzzled me about “Flood geology.” We have hundreds of oil companies hungrily searching for oil all over the world, and an even greater number of mining companies looking for minerals of various sorts, as well as gold, diamonds, all sorts of fun things.

    If main-line geology is such nonsense, why do no many hard-headed, hard-nosed businessmen invest so much money in it?

    If people REALLY believed in flood geology, why aren’t they putting their money into oil and mining companies that use flood geology to find what they are looking for. If it’s really better than main-line geology, why aren’t you or others organizing money-raising campaigns to found such companies if there aren’t any? If it worked, that would surely help fund your mission.

    1. Lindberg,

      Flood geology is simply an interpretation of the geological record that is more consistent with the Bible.

      Both creationists and evolutionists agree that oil and coal are found in sedimentary layers, but we disagree on how long they take to form. The fact of the matter is there is research to suggest that coal and oil can be formed quickly [There are a few examples at this link: http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=51 ]. It matters little whether companies currently invest in this idea, but rather whether it is possible. It should be noted that companies go with the predictions of mainline geology because they don’t want to take risks.

      Speaking personally, I’m not raising money for an oil- or coal- making business because I think biofuels would be a much cleaner alternative. Had I money to invest, I would invest it in finding ways to more economically make biofuels out of non-food plant matter. Of course, this would require me to have money to invest and I don’t have any, so the matter’s entirely hypothetical.


  • ashley haworth-roberts says:

    I know that statistics can sometimes mislead. Also, I’m about to cite exclusively creationist sources for a statistic. Here we go (I’ve not read these articles in full):

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/human-and-dino-fossils-together [Bodie Hodge – Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?]
    “~95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.
    ~95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants.
    ~95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects.”
    “The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. (95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone …)”.
    “The number of dinosaur fossils is actually relatively small, compared to other types of creatures.”

    http://evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/fossil_illusion.htm [Fred Williams – Exposing the Evolutionist’s Sleight-of-hand with the Fossil Record]
    “The evolutionist is failing to mention to his audience that vertebrates constitute less than .01% of the entire fossil record, and of these fossils, most species are represented by a bone or less!”

    Is this not a little curious? Well probably NOT if you are pro-science (though you probably don’t believe in a recent WORLDWIDE Flood anyway) and are not a Bible literalist. It’s the YECs who ought to be bothered. Why? Because this appears NOT to square with Genesis 6:7.

    Which says what I hear you ask?
    “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth – men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground – for I am grieved that I have made them” (New International Version)

    See also Genesis 7:21-23 (also quoted in the NIV):
    “Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the Ark”.

    Yet – unless there are still many fossils to be found (human fossils and human-like fossils are always found near the surface) – God seems mostly to have wiped out corals and shellfish – rather than humans and land animals! Why doesn’t the Bible mention this?

    (Bodie Hodge of AiG also claims rather bizarrely that “95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age after the Flood.” A fictional and not even Biblical event! But presumably this is a standard underhand creationist ploy to explain away human fossils NOT being found alongside dinosaurs, even though – according to YECs – the Bible says that both would be wiped from the earth ie killed by the Flood. Besides the physical evidence for past ice ages is incontrovertible – so the YECs have to fit one into their ‘earth history’.)

    And then Hodge makes the pseudo-scientific claim (pseudo-scientific because he reaches a non-scientific conclusion first and then seeks to make the evidence ‘fit’ it): “Since the Flood was a marine catastrophe, we would expect marine fossils to be dominant in the fossil record”. Excuse me, but these marine creatures only drown through lack of oxygen, not through becoming immersed in fast-flowing deep water.

    Maybe the corals and shellfish died a ‘natural’ death instead?

    And once again, whilst there is the account in the Bible, I’m a bit confused about the nature of the Flood according to YEC-ism as it developed over the 40 days in particular! Hodge says: “Fossilization is a rare event, especially of humans who are very mobile. Since the rains of Noah’s Flood took weeks to cover the earth, many people could have made it to boats, grabbed on to floating debris, and so on. Some may have made it to higher ground”. But then he says: “The 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia was a shocking reminder of the speed with which water and other forces can eliminate all trace of bodies, even when we know where to look”. Fortunately for Hodge he doesn’t suggest that the Flood was tsunami-like (the Bible does not refer to a wall of water or a huge wave) – after all humans cannot outrun a tsunami and are only likely to escape one if they can get to high ground quickly enough.

    To me this article shows the extent of ingrained brainwashing involved in YEC-ism. It asks questions that apply to unproven and probably totally fictional scenarios – whilst ignoring some rather obvious and glaring inconsistencies that regularly crop up within the YEC approach to ‘understanding’ earth’s geological and environmental past. Which result from trying to make an ancient pre-scientific ‘history book’ into something that is both ‘scientific’ and ‘infallible’.

    1. Mr. Ashley Haworth-Roberts,

      I will begin my response to you by noting that you in no way address the points I’ve made here with your comments. My guess is you’d like to sweep them all under the rug by one grand display of irrefutable logic. Unfortunately, you do not yet seem up to the task, so my points stand and your counterpoints fare little better.

      I should also begin by noting that your admission that you only skimmed the articles in question in no way excuses you from the willful ignorance your remarks evidence. To the contrary, it underscores your intellectual apathy to the specifics of the origins debate and reminds us that your argue from dogma rather than critical analysis of the evidence and claims being made. Of course, if you hope to remain an unbelieving humanist, your approach is probably best. As C.S. Lewis once put it, “An atheist can never be too careful of his reading.”

      You beg the question by your insinuation that Biblical Creationists are not pro-science and that you are pro-science based solely on whether one affirms millions of years of microbes-to-man evolution. The lack of gratitude and respect, much less mere acknowledgement, with which modern atheistic science which seeks to prevent a Divine from from entering the door conveys upon the accomplishments of the founders of the scientific disciplines, Bible-affirming scientists who desired to “think God’s thoughts after Him” is frankly shameful and dishonest. Modern Biblical creationists continue in the tradition of their forbears and continue to contribute to scientific understanding without the need of embracing unobservable millions of years of microbes-to-man evolution.

      Your assertion that the scarcity of vertebrate fossils somehow fails to square with Genesis 6:7 and/or Genesis 7:21-23 is a curious non sequitur. Do the Scriptures state that the seas would remain untouched by the Flood? Of course not. In addition to rainfall, the Scriptures note that the fountains of the great deep were opened up, which speaks of great geologic upheaval. Any geological mechanism capable of flooding the entire Earth would likewise have a catastrophic impact upon the seas. The Bible doesn’t mention the collateral destruction of sea life and corals because His main focus was upon land-dwelling life forms, especially the men for whom this judgment was for. You argue from silence which is always the weakest position.

      Creationists find support for a possible Ice Age in Job 38:29.

      Your willful ignorance of the creationist hypothesis of a single Ice Age after the Flood is quite simply breathtaking. You seem quite opinionated about matters with which you have but passing knowledge of. The physical evidence for past ice ages [plural] is anything but incontrovertible. There is evidence that there was a big freeze in the past: if we interpret the geological record from the POV of uniformitarian geology, there were likely several Ice Ages. If we interpret the geological record from the POV that a Biblical world-wide Flood really occurred then the data is more consistent with a single Ice Age. Any claim that the evidence for several Ice Ages is incontrovertible is a statement of absolute dogma and therefore an unscientific claim.

      You also offer us the standard canard that one should expect to find human and dinosaur fossils together, but no creationist has ever stated this. We do not expect to see humans and dinosaur fossils together for the same reason I would not expect to see a lion and a kangaroo buried together – they occupy different habitats. As to why human Flood fossils are so rare, we point out that God’s intent was to utterly destroy them. There are many hypotheses that have been offered as to why this should be so. Bodie Hodge gives two possible hypotheses, which you cited. Multiple working hypotheses are standard fare in geology. I recommend that you do more than skim an article looking for flaws next time. That said, the only reason to reject a reasonable hypothesis for why human Flood fossils are so rare is an a priori rejection of the Flood itself.

      What I most strenuously object to is your self-serving definition of pseudoscience, for it betrays a fundamental ignorance of how presuppositions affect scientific inquiry and holds evolution to a different standard than creation. Creationists do interpret the data in a manner consistent with the revelation of Scripture; likewise, evolutionists interpret the data in a manner with pure naturalism. Furthermore, no evolutionist would interpret or accept an interpretation of the data which was inconsistent with evolution being true. As many evolutionists have said, they do not argue whether evolution itself is true, but how it works. Likewise, creationists do not argue that Bible’s account of history and origins in true, but how it happened.

      You are correct in noting that marine creatures only drown through asphyxiation, not through becoming immersed in fast-flowing deep water. No one in creationism is saying that marine creatures drowned due to turbulence. You really should have done more than skimmed these articles. Have you no intellectual integrity? Don’t you want to understand what it is you so vehemently object to? We believe that the sediment-rich waters of the Flood would have been sufficient to asphyxiate marine creatures trapped within them, quickly buried them and then fossilized them.

      Your final comments reveal the utter superficiality of your knowledge of the Bible. No wonder you object to the Flood account if you are under the misapprehension that it lasted a mere 40 days rather than covering the earth for a period of one year and ten days, as the Bible records! Please, please, please, seek to understand first, and disagree afterwards!

      Think about it,
      No, really, actually THINK this time,

  • ashley haworth-roberts says:

    My comment has been awaiting moderation since 28 Jan. Why?

    1. I’ve been busy, Ashley.

      Patience is a virtue.


      1. ashley haworth-roberts says:

        Ha Ha

  • ashley haworth-roberts says:


    I have just discovered that you made a lengthy response to my post of 28 January (which only appeared sometime after 10 February) on 20 February – I did NOT receive the normal automatic email notification although I’m pretty certain I requested such back in January.

    Other people have addressed your points made in 2008. But my comments did NOT ignore yours about fossils and sudden burial. See my penultimate paragraph.

    I see you are ranting about me allegedly being ‘wilfully ignorant’ and worse without explaining how. A standard YEC technique.

    You appear to assume that the ‘fountains of the great deep’ were all/almost all under the sea for some reason. Job 38: 29-30 refer to frozen water so YECs clutch at straws and postulate a ‘rapid Ice Age’ (because they MUST explain all the geological feautures caused by repeated Ice Ages probably triggered by Earth’s orbital changes in the past). Did you hear about the wintry weather in the Near East – early in 2012? At the same time the eastern USA was virtually snow-free this same winter. North Polar ice continues to shrink.

    Your claim that I was and am ignorant that YECs postulate one single post-Flood Ice Age, and WHY they do this (lack of time!) is 100% FALSE.

    “You also offer us the standard canard that one should expect to find human and dinosaur fossils together, but no creationist has ever stated this.” Why not? What you call a ‘canard’ is mere common sense. (Unlike your lion and kangaroo example.) And it’s YECs who claim that Job observed dinosaur-like creatures (behemoth and leviathan). Not me, I hasten to add.

    My point about pseudoscience was clear. YECs put conclusion FIRST. Mainstream scientists do not. By the way you allege “no evolutionist would interpret or accept an interpretation of the data which was inconsistent with evolution being true”. I would point out that ‘evolutionists’ published a Nature paper in January 2010 suggesting that Tiktaalik was around earlier than previously thought so may not have been a transitional species between fish and tetrapods.

    On marine creatures that we find fossilised eg plesiosaurs not all of them live in shallow water where they might be ‘suddenly buried by sediment’.

    You also – I suspect wilfully (unless you just ‘skimmed’ my comments) – misunderstand my comments as stating that the Genesis flood only lasted 40 days. I HAVE read the early chapters of Genesis – AND discussed them on the BCSE Community Forum. I suggest you check there if you don’t believe me. I DO know that the rain was meant to have stopped after 40 days but the floodwaters lasted for months according to Genesis. Here are my words again: “as it developed over the 40 days in particular…”.

    Apart from your comments about scripture and human fossils I think your arguments are all DESPERATE. Why? Because the evidence is not on the side of YECs. So you – like others – resort to unsustained allegations that I lack ‘intellectual integrity’ or do not understand properly what I am criticising.

    Perhaps you have encountered such people in the past. It is unwise to stereotype your critics if that is what you are doing.


    1. Ashley,

      I’m sorry you’re having trouble with the comments notifications, but I can assure you that your troubles are over. It has come to my attention that you are simply using my responses to your comments as blog fodder for the BSCE forums. We discourage such trolling on this site. As a result, you’ve been banned from all future comment.

      A few further notes:

      If you had a “penultimate paragraph,” I can only suggest that it was greatly understated.
      Your willful ignorance was amply demonstrated in the fact that you freely admitted that you had not fully read the two articles you cited, yet you presumptuously attempted to make your case from your willfully inadequate comprehension of the content of these very same articles! Furthermore, your arguments consistently demonstrate a criminal lack of comprehension of the actual creationist viewpoint, though you seem well-acquainted with various straw man arguments.

      I actually responded your charge that Biblical Creationists have no Biblical citation for a single Ice Age. Had you read my response more carefully, this would have been apparent.

      Unless you can demonstrate that humans and dinosaurs would have co-existed in the same habitat, there is no reason why anyone would expect to find their fossils together. You are making a rather bad straw man argument because you have not bothered to hear what creationists have to say on the subject because you have already made up your mind. As pointed out already, Bodie Hodge addressed some of your concerns in the self-same article you cited but did not bother to read fully… precisely because you are WILLFULLY IGNORANT. By the way, the Book of Job was written a few centuries AFTER the Flood and therefore would have no bearing on the question of pre-Flood habitats.

      Re: “My point about pseudoscience was clear. YECs put conclusion FIRST. Mainstream scientists do not. By the way you allege “no evolutionist would interpret or accept an interpretation of the data which was inconsistent with evolution being true”. I would point out that ‘evolutionists’ published a Nature paper in January 2010 suggesting that Tiktaalik was around earlier than previously thought so may not have been a transitional species between fish and tetrapods.”

      Mainstream scientists assume both pure naturalism and microbes-to-man evolution and they will not accept any other interpretation of the evidence. Your objection is irrelevant to this point, because the Nature article does not question either of these presuppositions but rather argues about particular details of how all-natural microbes-to-man evolution might have occurred. In other words, you really missed the point.
      If you meant to state that you knew the Bible claims that the Flood lasted more than 40 days then you failed miserably.

      I think all of your arguments are borrowed and bleating. I don’t think you’ve given the origins argument any amount of serious thought – and I doubt you ever will! You do lack intellectual integrity and you have evidenced only a superficial comprehension of what it is you object to. If I’m the desperate one, why do you argue so poorly? Why would you be so dreadfully lazy as to cite an article that answers some of the very objections you then raised, and all the while admitting that you did not bother to read them fully, if you really hoped to make a decent argument? And why should I give you a soapbox on this site?

      I bid you adieu,
      Tony Breeden

  • Anonymous says:

    You’ve got one group who think everyting is the work of a supernatural entity, and the rest who believe that a well evidence theory presents a good argument for how things are. One is prepared to see what they believe modified, and in fact, don’t accept everything as absolute, and the other twists the words found in a work of fiction to fit an antiquated model.

    1. Not true. The evolutionist interprets the evidence according to their presuppositions like everyone else. An evolutionist will never interpret the data in a manner inconsistent with evolutionary theory any more than a Biblicist will interpret the evidence in a manner contrary to the Bible.

  • Some statements are made up of misinformation or are incorrectly portrayed-
    1. Just as the bible is a composite of Books, the geologic time scale is also constructed from a composite of rocks – unlike the Bible, this time scale is continuously being tested and refined. Experience has shown the time scale works in applications not only in paleontology but also energy and mineral exploration. And your statement that the geologic time scale is inferred from evolutionary presuppositions is also not correct. In modern science, this time scale is largely based on radiometric ages.
    2. The fossil record does NOT show that “billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth.” I don’t know who Ken Ham is, but many fossils are found in sedimentary deposits that formed on land, not underwater. They are comparatively more rare, but they exist.
    3. The Cambrian Explosion is an observation, it is not an idea, or an interpretation. There are many ways to determine the age of a rock that does not involve fossils. In rocks older than “Cambrian” (older than 542 million years), you cannot observe abundant fossilzied hard-parts.You can find fossils of diverse of organisms with soft soft-tissue however.
    4. The proposed alternatives don’t withstand scientific testing. If they did, mineral and energy companies would be using them to make their money, people who make money finding then selling fossils specimens would be using them, engineers who need to assess mechanical strength and stability of the substrate for buildings and roads would use them. The reason the alternative time scales aren’t used is because they don’t work.

    I really do not care one way or another about your belier of how or why life originated. But please don’t misrepresent the geological record in doing so. The general population has generally such little exposure to natural sciences that misinformation like on your site really sticks and leads to poor civic choices regarding stewardship of natural resources.

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      1. The old earth geological time scale is constantly being tested and refined by methods that presume largely uninterrupted uniformity and pure naturalism. At best, the scientist who chains himself to pure naturalism in this manner can only say that IF processes were largely uniform and IF no supernatural agency was involved, the age of the earth is thus, for science naturalistic science can only give us an all-natural answers that may or may not be true and is certainly false wherever the supernatural was involved [as the Bible claims]. Sadly, being restricted to consideration of only natural answers, science has willfully blinded itself to any interpretation of the evidence which supports a supernatural answer. Or did you not realize there was a certain bias inherent in your method?

      2. Your ignorance of who Ken Ham is [CEO of Answers in Genesis [arguably the biggest creation ministry on the planet], founder of the Creation Museum in KY and the forthcoming Ark Encounter] just shows how comfortable you are in your ignorance of the opposing view. Your comments also admit by default that Ken ham’s general summary of the fossil record is largely true; speculated exceptions do not disprove the rule. Dr. Weislogel.

      3. You just told me that there are many ways to determine the age of a rock without using fossils and then used fossils to tell me how to find pre-Cambrian rock based on the type of fossil one finds in them. ;]

      4. The geological time lines proposed have nothing to do with the strength and stability of substrates [that would involve their composition etc] so thanks for that straw man. Both creationists and evolutionists agree which layers the fossils are found in because that is a matter of observation. How we interpret these observations is another matter entirely, so again straw man. The same line of argument can be leveled against your remarks regarding oil companies. Over and again, you confuse observations with interpretations because you fail to make a distinction between observational science that utilized the scientific method [its observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable] and origins science which employs more of a forensic method on singularities that are not directly observable, repeatable, and often not falsifiable or even testable.

      5. You do care or you would not have bothered with this comment. Feigned tolerance does not become a professor of your station.

      6. Dr Michael Zimmerman makes a similar claim about the “ignorant” public’s attitude towards stewardship of natural resources in his ill-informed book. Most of his conclusions were supported by the same sort of willful ignorance of actual creation arguments and claims. I see the same sort of ignorance in your comments, but I do hope I am wrong in supposing they are willful omissions of information. In the interests of avoiding the charge of credulous scientific dogma, might I suggest you do a bit of research into what your opponents actually believe BEFORE you object to them? Ken ham and Tas Walker are actually good places to start. I’d google that for you, but you are a professor of science and science is about investigation, after all! ;]


  • tim says:

    Hi please can I quote you about 30 words just a snippet from this page as part of a youtube video.. also please, do you know the original sorce of the black and white polystrate tree pic you have here as is the best example of the pic ive seen…

    God Bless


    1. Tony Breeden says:

      You may quote me so long as you credit the site [i.e., DefGen.org]. I found that image in a copy of Earth Science [BJU Press, p. 306]. I’m not sure who the original photo credit belongs to.

  • Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s