Flood Geology?

[MrSpooky]

The earth's population is currently at approx 6 B people. We know that the tendancy for humans, as with most organisms is to reproduce geometrically. With the rate of growth we've experience since we started keeping count there is no way we would only be at 6 billion in the 30 millions years or so we've been around. We'd be at more like 6 trillion. And its not due to over population we could fit the entire poplation of the earth in Charleston South Carolina.

 

Ugh. Absoballylutely false.

 

I've been studying agricultural sciences this semester, and I've seen the growth curves of the human population. Up until 50, 60 years ago, we've been at a terribly slow crawl, with many fluctuations up and down. You simply can't look at the growth rate of the human population today and assume it holds for civilizations 5000 years ago or even 5 million years ago.

 

The human population growth rate is, at present, pretty astronomical, true. However, this is ONLY because of the advent of the Green Revolution which provided modern agricultural genetics, cheaper nitrate compounds, better breeding techniques, and novel new organisms such as the semi-dwarf wheat plants. You can see quite clearly that population curves have an incredibly strong correlation with the explosive improvements in agricultural sciences, falling food prices, and skyrocketing crop yields.

 

Our current growth rate exists because natural restrictions that would've kept our population size stable have been removed.

[MrSpooky]

Oh yeh, about the salt thing...

 

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html

[Matthew]

It took Hayward's book Creation and Evolution as well as Glenn Morton's book to finally open my eyes to "flood geology". The worst problem is that the geological column was formulated by creationists before Principles of Geology applied the Enlightenment concept of "uniformitarianism" to geology. It was the pre-Darwinian catastrophists who tested "flood geology" and found it very wanting. This, more than anything else, is enough to prove to me that "flood geology" is a farce. It doesn't matter how badly the arguments of Henry Morris, Steve Austin, Andrew Snelling, and Johnny Sarfati are flawed- the fact remains that Christians tested and refuted "flood geology".

 

Contrary to what creationist spin-doctors like Sarfati will tell you "ancient-creationism" was not born out of a intimidated compromise with "uniformitarian" methodology. These guys will have you believe that creationists were intimidated by the likes of James Hutton, Charlles Lyllel (I hope I spelled his name right), and Charles Darwin to compromise on their ideas regarding the biblical flood. It's simply not true. "Ancient creationism" was born out of a in-depth study of geology by scientists who knew it better than most creationists today do. This is why I believe that biblical catastrophism is complete nonsense and that the Bible is errant on this matter.

 

Matthew

[Guest Ramona]

I dont get the whole evidence thing. The whole book of the Bible is based on faith in God, not evidence. My question to the "frantic Creationists" that persist to prove Gods miracles, and creations are correct is;Are they higher than God? Can they prove anything that represents Gods word without his willing to do so? Is Gods hand to short to get ample evidence to what He would want known? I guess people would coim me a "creationists" because I do believe everything in the Bible.But what is a "creationist" really?Sounds more like a debat team to me. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Jesus said, "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things." John 3:12

 

Indeed, the Bible is not a scientific document. You believe that people should trust the Bible on purely blind faith? Can you please name a biblical doctrine which does not find its roots in Genesis? If creation is the means by which the universe came into existence, there will be evidence. If there was a flood, there will be evidence. If there is no evidence of these earthly things, why trust the spiritual precepts that are presented since the supernatural cannot be proven by natural means. But, if the Bible is wrong on the natural things that can be tested, there is no reason to believe the supernatural.

 

"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly divinding the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15

 

Also, you are supposed to always be ready to give an answer for the hope that is within you. What reasoning do you have that the Bible is valid?

 

Creation says that there is a God that transcends his creation.

 

Evolution says that everything came into existence apart from any deity.

 

It is the difference between an atheist and a theist.

 

No need for debate, but you should be able to tell me what you believe and why you believe it. If you don't know, "Study to show thyself approved..."

[Mr. Neil]

Evolution says that everything came into existence apart from any deity.

No it doesn't.

[crazy-tiger]

Creation says that there is a God that transcends his creation.

I'll agree with that... (for now, anyway)

Evolution says that everything came into existence apart from any deity.

And I have to disagree with that. Evolution says nothing of the kind...

It is the difference between an atheist and a theist.

Is it?

 

Then what about the millions upon millions of THEISTS who believe that evolution is true?

[Guest Ramona]

I'll agree with that... (for now, anyway)And I have to disagree with that. Evolution says nothing of the kind...

Is it?

 

Then what about the millions upon millions of THEISTS who believe that evolution is true?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Okay?

 

Creation would speak to an Intelligent Designer.

 

Evolution supposes that everything came into being independently by chance and that it took millions of years of natural selection and positive mutations in order for such specialized creatures to evolve. I suppose that is more "miraculous".But if this were the work of a Designer, it would seem the Designer was not so intelligent. This would also refute the biblical God, who is said to have created everything in a six day period. But, the "Big Bang" theory, is possibly good for creationists since it says that everything came into being very rapidly.

 

Of course, I am not speaking of micro-evolution of which both evolutionists and creationists agree.

[crazy-tiger]

Evolution supposes that everything came into being independently by chance

NO NO NO...

 

It says nothing about things coming into being, just what happens AFTERWARDS.

and that it took millions of years of natural selection and positive mutations in order for such specialized creatures to evolve. I suppose that is more "miraculous".

Only if you believe the bad maths that most creationists use...

But if this were the work of a Designer, it would seem the Designer was not so intelligent.

What?? You think that it's proof of LESS intelligence to design life that can adapt and change as the environment does?

 

Have you sat down and thought about this?

This would also refute the biblical God, who is said to have created everything in a six day period.

Oh, the usual "God created everything in 144 hours" routine... Nice of you to LIMIT God by insisting he couldn't do it by snapping his fingers.

 

Don't forget that it took so much out of him, he had to rest on the 7th day. Pretty poor for a "supreme being" if you ask me...

But, the "Big Bang" theory, is possibly good for creationists since it says that everything came into being very rapidly.

Rapidly being several BILLION years...

Of course, I am not speaking of micro-evolution of which both evolutionists and creationists agree.

And what is the ONLY difference between micro and macro evolution? TIME!

 

Creationists, by agreeing with MICRO evolution, also agree with MACRO evolution. They just disagree on how much time has passed.

 

That's why Creationists are all YEC's. (young earth creationists)

 

 

And judging by your "six day period" statement, I'd say you are also a YEC. Go and research all the stuff about the age of the Earth before you make a fool of yourself. (Calling Dr Neil... Calling Dr Neil... YEC sighted)

[Mr. Neil]

Evolution supposes that everything came into being independently by chance and that it took millions of years of natural selection and positive mutations in order for such specialized creatures to evolve. I suppose that is more "miraculous".

Boy, it would be miraculous if it actually said that, but fortunately, it doesn't!

 

Why don't you try actually learning about evolution before you argue against it?

 

 

Of course, I am not speaking of micro-evolution of which both evolutionists and creationists agree.

The only difference between micro and macro evolution is the gradation between the two due to time. Otherwise, they're exactly the same. It's only the ignorant boob creationists who try to pretend as though there's a difference.

 

Tell me something. What phenomenon do you attribute to the separation of micro and macro evolution? What is it that allows for allele changes below the species level, but not above? Oh wait, do you even know what an allele is?

 

 

I have a great idea! Go to the following page and listen to the the interview with Ex-C mod Zachary Moore, as he debunks everything you just said and explains, in detail, what evidence exists for macro evolution.

 

http://www.hellboundalleee.com/archives.html

 

It's show #51: The Molecular Proof of Evolution. Listen to it, and don't come back until you do!

[Guest Ramona]

It says nothing about things coming into being, just what happens AFTERWARDS. Only if you believe the bad maths that most creationists use...  What?? You think that it's proof of LESS intelligence to design life that can adapt and change as the environment does?

 

Life does adapt and change as the environment does, but it only changes according to the present genetic information. A cow may get an extra limb, but it will not grow a feather or fin.

 

Have you sat down and thought about this?  Oh, the usual "God created everything in 144 hours" routine... Nice of you to LIMIT God by insisting he couldn't do it by snapping his fingers.

 

He spoke the Word.

 

Don't forget that it took so much out of him, he had to rest on the 7th day.  Pretty poor for a "supreme being" if you ask me... Rapidly being several BILLION years...

And what is the ONLY difference between micro and macro evolution? TIME!

 

He sat back and enjoyed his creation. As man is supposed to take off to enjoy their hard work.

 

Time! And several google positive mutations.

 

Creationists, by agreeing with MICRO evolution, also agree with MACRO evolution. They just disagree on how much time has passed.

 

They don't see in observed nature such positive mutations taking place.

 

That's why Creationists are all YEC's. (young earth creationists)

And judging by your "six day period" statement, I'd say you are also a YEC. Go and research all the stuff about the age of the Earth before you make a fool of yourself. (Calling Dr Neil... Calling Dr Neil... YEC sighted)

 

I'm not worried about making a fool of myself. I have basic knowledge of both creation science and evolutionary science. But I know more about evolutionary science since I was taught its basic principles in school and everywhere you turn, when it comes to science, evolution and millions of years is referred to. I am a student, not an expert, and I learn best through discussion. Before I was ever a Christian, while I was in school, I had difficulties with assimilating the "theory" of evolution into my thinking. But I thought of it simply as theory. I do realize though that a large part of the scientific community see the "theory" of evolution closer to scientific fact than simply a "theory".

[Guest Ramona]

Boy, it would be miraculous if it actually said that, but fortunately, it doesn't!

 

What is the overview of what it says?

 

Why don't you try actually learning about evolution before you argue against it?

The only difference between micro and macro evolution is the gradation between the two due to time.  Otherwise, they're exactly the same.  It's only the ignorant boob creationists who try to pretend as though there's a difference.

 

I once was an ignorant boob evolutionist. I believed it because that is what I was taught. Now I've been exposed to a theory which contradicts the evolutionary theory of which I compare. And, based on what I've learned so far, it seems to be a valid theory. I do not wish to stay an ignorant boob on either level. Yet, I am not planning on becoming an expert. I'm just looking to lessen my ignorance.

 

Tell me something.  What phenomenon do you attribute to the separation of micro and macro evolution?  What is it that allows for allele changes below the species level, but not above?  Oh wait, do you even know what an allele is?

I have a great idea!  Go to the following page and listen to the the interview with Ex-C mod Zachary Moore, as he debunks everything you just said and explains, in detail, what evidence exists for macro evolution.

 

No, I don't know what an allele is. Sorry, I can't listen to that on my computer at this juncture, but I can look it up. I'll do that now.:-)

[Guest Ramona]

Okay Mr. Neil. I did my homework.;-)

 

Now I have a general idea of what an allele is. I clicked on the link about a mutant allele as well.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutant

[Abiyoyo]

Ok Yo Yo or other believers,

 

I would like to ask, since you believe 'everything in the bible'. Could you tell me intelligently;

 

1) Which version do you believe?

2) Why is it that Evidence wouldn't matter?

 

I personally wonder why this god, represented in the bible, relies so much on 'faith' of it's followers. Yes I agree that having your minions believe for the sake of believing is a clever tactic to maintain infallibility but why not give a few concrete articles of evidence? Or more believable explanations.

 

Maybe a diagram of the giant tank that held all of the sea creatures on the ark. Because according to the story for whatever reason they died off with everyother thing.

 

PR

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I read through the kjv, nkjv, niv, message, and any that I can be informed better through. I already know this trick question, and I am aware of the history behind the Bible. I use a "big picture" mindset when in study in the scripture. If one depicts the Bible, and not use common sense and reasoning, then it is useless. The Bible has many different authors from many different times and veiws, It is not a work to be analized word for word, but rather a guide for a Christians life in general.

 

Evidence doesnt concrete my beliefs in Christianity. If I based my belief upon the evidences of this world I would have to renounce the entire book of Revelations, and the "coming of Christ" to a still unbelieving nation.

[Mr. Neil]

Life does adapt and change as the environment does, but it only changes according to the present genetic information. A cow may get an extra limb, but it will not grow a feather or fin.

Again, if you actually knew something about evolution, you'd see the fallacy in what you just typed. No one is arguing that a cow will just suddenly begin growing feathers, fins, or other extremely specified adaptations. Rather, these features will develope over several generations of functional and morphological changes, and each of these changes must every bit as advantageous to the creature as the most recent adaptation.

 

For example, no one thinks that feathers just evolved for flight one day. Rather, the evidence indicates that feathers began as a form of fluffy, downy insulation for homeothermic animals, and only later did feathers develope into the structured feather and then the asemetrical flight feather. Feathers serve many functions in biology other than flight. Aside from insulation and flight, the other most common use for them is sexual display.

 

 

Time! And several google positive mutations.

Positive mutations happen in "micro evolution" too, Ramona. OOPS! You didn't know that.

 

 

They don't see in observed nature such positive mutations taking place.

You're going to eat those words.

 

Here's an observed positive mutation: Apo-AIM Mutation - Positive Mutations in Humans

 

And since you didn't know what an allele was, I'm sure you haven't read this: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

 

So what hasn't been observe? Hmm? Did you make an assertion that you thought would go unchallenged? Are you embarrassed now? I'd be.

 

 

I'm not worried about making a fool of myself. I have basic knowledge of both creation science and evolutionary science. But I know more about evolutionary science since I was taught its basic principles in school and everywhere you turn, when it comes to science, evolution and millions of years is referred to. I am a student, not an expert, and I learn best through discussion. Before I was ever a Christian, while I was in school, I had difficulties with assimilating the "theory" of evolution into my thinking. But I thought of it simply as theory. I do realize though that a large part of the scientific community see the "theory" of evolution closer to scientific fact than simply a "theory".

Considering that you've clearly shown signs of difficulty in understanding some basic evolutionary concepts, you either weren't paying attention in class, or you had a very poor teacher. I mean, you didn't even know what an allele was. Your "cows can't grow fins" statement shows that you know nothing about evolution.

 

If you're here to learn things, then you're in for a treat. If you're here to challenge that which you clearly have no understanding of, you're going to get embarrassed. Badly.

 

I encourage you to stick around, since it will help you learn, but you can drop the attitude as though you understand evolution. That's been shown to be the contrary.

 

 

What is the overview of what it [evolution] says?

That allele frequencies change over time.

 

 

I once was an ignorant boob evolutionist. I believed it because that is what I was taught. Now I've been exposed to a theory which contradicts the evolutionary theory of which I compare. And, based on what I've learned so far, it seems to be a valid theory. I do not wish to stay an ignorant boob on either level. Yet, I am not planning on becoming an expert. I'm just looking to lessen my ignorance.

Well the first thing you're going to learn quite quickly is that creationism doesn't have a theory. Theories are functioning hypothesese in science. A theory says that if A is true, we could expect B.

 

For example, evolution states that if evolution is true, many species should share not only common fuctioning genes, but also common psuedo-genes. Psuedo-genes are genes that no longer function. In other words, species of common descent share bad mutations!

 

A good example of such a gene is the human gene for the production of vitamin-C. As I'm sure you're aware, humans don't produce vitamin-C. People in the field of genetics have identified the broken gene in humans and found the same gene in primates. There is no reason for humans to share broken genes with the primates unless there was a time when a distant common ancestor had the gene, and a negative mutation rendered the gene inactive.

 

What would render such a mutation adaptable, though? Probably an environment in which the food supply is rich in vitamin-C. Lots of orange trees around, possibly.

 

 

No, I don't know what an allele is. Sorry, I can't listen to that on my computer at this juncture, but I can look it up. I'll do that now.:-)

Well, it's actually quite crucial to understanding evolution, which is why I suspect that you had a poor teacher.

 

 

Okay Mr. Neil. I did my homework.;-)

 

Now I have a general idea of what an allele is. I clicked on the link about a mutant allele as well.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutant

What is it with Wikipedia all of a sudden? Wikipedia, although neat and helpful, is not a scientific resource.

 

Try some of these:

Talk.Origins

The National Center for Science Education

Berkeley's Evolution Wing

[Abiyoyo]

jcismyhomeboy

 

yoyo, brother, your really hurting the cause more than helping it.

The belief of faith by the Word of God and not evidence is not hurting the cause. The funny thing about it is the fact that I have veiwed the last 10-15 comments regarding this comment and I have been given more faith to know that witnessing to peoples that proclaim scientific evidence rather than creation, is based around other factors, than a debate or discussion. Most of these types of arguements are a matter of agreeing to disagree. I have my POV regarding facts of science every once and a while, but I dont base my belief on it. Jesus didnt come into this world to bring evidence. Jesus acyually said that He came to save the world(His death in transgression for our sins) and He has come to bring a sword(The Word of God)(refer to Hebrews)My question is that if God truly wants you to proclaim evidence ,then keep steady in what your heart weighs toward. Remeber though, sometimes our good ole' human thinking becomes overzealous in the event that one becomes more debateful about the whole point of being right, than the cause. In actuallity, the cause is not about science if used to prove a point or show a path of proof, but if science is used when "prompted" then this will be lite by the glory of God. The main question :Is Gods hand to short? Of course not, but what is short is our own intensions. In that, "brother", pray earnesty about what God wants you to minister and go from there. If you have already, then great, and Race the race that is set before you. Race it, dont yern to win, just race the race set before you. Race with endurance.

 

God Bless fellow servant of God.

[crazy-tiger]

Life does adapt and change as the environment does, but it only changes according to the present genetic information. A cow may get an extra limb, but it will not grow a feather or fin.

And how long have you been listening to Hovind?

He spoke the Word.

Says who? The Bible... And who says the Bible is the truth? The Bible.

 

If you cannot see the problem with that, then you need to work on your logic.

Time! And several google positive mutations.

Not quite up to speed are you?

Mutations are a factor in micro and macro evolution. (incidentally, from now on I will be refering to them by the proper terms... see if you can spot the difference.)

They don't see in observed nature such positive mutations taking place.

Boy, are you in for a shock...

I'm not worried about making a fool of myself.

And you seem determined to do just that.

I have basic knowledge of both creation science and evolutionary science.

So basic that you seem to think creation "science" is science...

But I know more about evolutionary science since I was taught its basic principles in school and everywhere you turn, when it comes to science, evolution and millions of years is referred to.

Are you surprised? All the evidence shows that evolution is fact.

I am a student, not an expert, and I learn best through discussion.

Not doing very well, are you?

Before I was ever a Christian, while I was in school, I had difficulties with assimilating the "theory" of evolution into my thinking.

Obviously.

But I thought of it simply as theory. I do realize though that a large part of the scientific community see the "theory" of evolution closer to scientific fact than simply a "theory".

Let me explain something for you...

The Theory of Evolution is the best explaination for the FACT of evolution that we have.

 

Why do I say fact? Because evolution happens.

All the crap about "micro" and "macro" evolution is just that... crap. The only difference between the two is TIME. (apart from this strange biological mechanism that Creationists insist exists... the one that somehow stops evolution from going to far. They need that unknown mechanism, one for which there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, for their constant division of evolution into 2 halves to work.)

 

Creation "science", in a strange way of finding the truth, comes to a conclusion first, THEN tries to find evidence to fit.

Science, on the other hand, takes the evidence THEN tries to find the "best-fit" hypothesis, tests it, checks the results, tests it again, goes back to see what mistakes were made in the hypothesis, modifies it, tests the new one, checks it, etc. etc. until they are at the point where they can formulate a theory to explain the results. (and that's the VERY SIMPLIFIED version of it...)

 

You do understand it, don't you?

The theory fits the evidence (which is science) rather than making the evidence fit the theory. (which is creation "science")

[MrSpooky]

Five hundred years ago, "faith" told the clergy that the Earth was the center of the Universe and everything revolved around it.

 

Faith is pretty damn inaccurate, if you ask me.

[white_raven23]

This was your justification for God taking a day off after creating everything in six days. Nevermind that anything we could consider a god would never need to take so long creating everything in the first place.

 

He sat back and enjoyed his creation. As man is supposed to take off to enjoy their hard work.

 

There is a word you need to look up.

 

"Anthropomorphism"

 

Simple definition available on websters.com

 

The only evidence you have for any sort of god being anything like man comes from the very book we hold questionable (the bible). I'm referring to the whole "in his image" thing.

That is a literary save that keeps listeners of the story from asking thoughtful questions like, "How do we know the nature of God?" and "Why should we believe anything you say about the rest of the stories in this book?"

 

You can't use the bible to prove the bible.

[Guest Ramona]

A few questions -

 

Are there millions of fossils in existence which demonstrate transitional species?

 

Why are their trees horizontaly within layers of rock that took hundreds of thousands to millions of years to form?

 

I've heard that the amount of helium should be much higher in the atmosphere if the world were millions of years old. Is that true?

 

I've also heard that the world has only enough carbon 14 for a world less than 20,000 years old. Is that true? Why or why not?

 

With evolution, should we see a net increase in the quality and quantity of genetic information? If so, do we see that?

 

Is this mutation math accurate?

 

1 mutation 10 to the seventh power

2 " " 10 to the fourteenth

4 " " 10 to the twenty-ninth

 

a single cell to be birthed by the roll of the molecular dice -

10 to the forty-thousandth power

 

How many years can our best dating method estimate?

[Guest Ramona]

I've listened to most of what Kent Hovind has to say and also Dr. Gary Parker.

 

It would probably be a better idea for me to read up on the plain science and not those who conclude either evolution or creation.

 

Maybe I'll get around to it someday :-/

 

 

white_raven23,

 

I know what anthropomorphism means. I'd look it up if I didn't. I suppose it is similar, but not equal to attributing human qualities to God. I would say we can attribute godly qualities to humans not necessarily the other way around. The whole "made in the image of" thing.

[white_raven23]

Why do christians ask multiple questions in one post?

Why can't they ask one question at a time?

Doesn't it seem like we're being given an examination?

What value do our mass answers have?

 

And....

 

What if anything, are the christians going to do with our essay answers anyway? Enroll us into college?

[Mr. Neil]

Are there millions of fossils in existence which demonstrate transitional species?

I don't know about millions, but yes there are transitional fossils. But I think it's necessary to point out that the creationists have an extremely distorted idea of what a transitional fossil is. Creationists expect a smooth, seamless morphology of fossils, which no biologist expects to find. Things don't literally evolve like that. It would be like demanding to see a record of fossils that smoothly show the transition from a wolf to a chiwawa.

 

Second point, technically all fossils are transitional fossils. There are no ends to evolution. Species are sort of like a family of animals that can maintain stability long enough to be considered one type of animal. But if something happens in nature to throw off the stability, then the rules change and only those best suited for the new environment get to stick around. And as a result, the most adaptable of mutations becomes "selected" (environmentally compatible), and that's what causes species to change.

 

But I think it's most important to point out that this question is based on a falsehood that creationists like to blather about, in which transitional fossils are actually necessary to prove evolution. The molecular evidence is a lot more important. And a lot more convincing.

 

 

Why are their trees horizontaly within layers of rock that took hundreds of thousands to millions of years to form?

Because they didn't fall? I could just as easily ask you why standing petrified trees are usually preserved with their root systems petrified in the rock as well.

 

 

I've heard that the amount of helium should be much higher in the atmosphere if the world were millions of years old. Is that true?

Dubious assertion. Find the reference from which you got that and what work they did to come to that conclusion, and then maybe we'll talk about it.

 

 

I've also heard that the world has only enough carbon 14 for a world less than 20,000 years old. Is that true? Why or why not?

Same as above.

 

 

With evolution, should we see a net increase in the quality and quantity of genetic information? If so, do we see that?

 

Is this mutation math accurate?

 

1 mutation 10 to the seventh power

2 "        " 10 to the fourteenth

4 "        " 10 to the twenty-ninth

I'll let somebody else answer these, since math isn't my thing. I suspect that we can probably exect a response from Crazy Tiger. My short answer to this is that these seem to presume that a positive mutation is somehow defined before it's selectability in nature can be determined.

 

Creationist logic goes something like this... At the rate of positive mutations observed in nature, millions of mutations could occur before a single positive mutation shows up to preserve a species' survivability. Therefore evolution via positive mutation is unlikely.

 

But that's based on a bit of a strawman of evolutionary theory. The real figure is probably more to the effect of out of millions of mutations occuring, thousands produce morphological changes in a species. Of those thousands, perhaps only two or three are adaptable.

 

Maybe someone has a better analogy that than, but I think this demonstrates the blatant errors that creationists make when talking about evolution.

 

 

a single cell to be birthed by the roll of the molecular dice -

10 to the forty-thousandth power

This is an easy one, because it's just a blatant strawman. There isn't a competent scientist on the face of the earth who thinks that a single cell was birthed from a single roll of the molecular dice.

[crazy-tiger]

A few questions -

 

Are there millions of fossils in existence which demonstrate transitional species?

Believe it or not, the answer is yes. (even better than that, despite what people like Hovind love to spew, EVERY fossil is transitional...)

Why are their trees horizontaly within layers of rock that took hundreds of thousands to millions of years to form?

This crap again? I can't be bothered looking for the relevent links to debunk this. What I will say is, don't believe what Hovind says... He's a known liar.

I've heard that the amount of helium should be much higher in the atmosphere if the world were millions of years old. Is that true?

Nope.

I've also heard that the world has only enough carbon 14 for a world less than 20,000 years old. Is that true? Why or why not?

Now... where did you hear that? (like I can't guess)

No, it's not true. What is true is that carbon dating (which uses carbon 14) is inaccurate on items OLDER than 20,000 years...

 

An extremely fast and simple google search turned up that little gem...

With evolution, should we see a net increase in the quality and quantity of genetic information? If so, do we see that?

no, and no.

Is this mutation math accurate?

 

1 mutation 10 to the seventh power

2 "        " 10 to the fourteenth

4 "        " 10 to the twenty-ninth

Nope... Mutations happen in every generation.

a single cell to be birthed by the roll of the molecular dice -

10 to the forty-thousandth power

Nope... single cells are not the start or the chain. (those last two are very typical of Hovind and his pechant for mis-leading figures...)

How many years can our best dating method estimate?

How many years can it estimate??

 

Shouldn't you be asking how ACCURATE the estimates are?

[crazy-tiger]

I'll let somebody else answer these, since math isn't my thing.  I suspect that we can probably exect a response from Crazy Tiger.

Am I that predictable?

[Asimov]

Are there millions of fossils in existence which demonstrate transitional species?

 

There are a lot which demonstrate transitional. Fossils aren't exactly necessary to know that two species share common ancestry though...genetics does that better.

 

Why are their trees horizontaly within layers of rock that took hundreds of thousands to millions of years to form?

 

because they were buried slowly.

 

Why are their entire forests buried in situ, one on top of another?