How do you know God isn't dead?

[Statler Waldorf]

And how did you measure such short periods of time?

What do you mean?

I guess it can happen, although I'd expect that the most common mechanism is phyletic gradualism.

That’s a huge debate amongst Darwinists; Creationists align themselves with the punctuated equilibrium side.

Not relatives, huh?

Both of those articles you provided (thanks by the way, they were interesting) assume that homology between organisms demonstrates a common ancestor. That’s an assumption that has never been established and can just as easily point to a common creator as it can to a common ancestor. The actual similarities between Human and Chimp DNA has been reducing more and more the better we get at mapping genomes.

sciences sucks....

No, I love science; it’s what I chose to do for a living. Masking storytelling as science is what sucks in my opinion.

Define "stone-age minds".

A Stone Age mind would be a mind that can only comprehend that which is necessary to survive in a Stone Age culture.

Homo sapiens developed in the stone age, so called paleolithic.... well before the supposed split... you've acknowledged this... I don't see your problem with those developing minds... :-s

I have acknowledged this for the sake of argument. What would drive a Homo sapiens’ mind to develop the ability to do say advanced mathematics even though such analysis wouldn’t be developed until thousands of years later? In Evolution, traits are only developed and preserved when they provide a survival advantage. You’re asserting that early Humans possessed such mental abilities and yet there’d be no survival advantage to having the ability to do calculus prior to the invention of calculus.

Well, if you find a fossil in the middle of rock that is dated as several hundreds of millions of years old and no mammals in such rock.... but you then find mammals at a few tens of millions of year old rock... and humans and apes on rock that is only a few millions of years old.

How are you dating sedimentary rock?

Now you proceed to tell that the dating methods are all faulty... go on.

No, they’re not all faulty; I accept the ones that yield young ages.

I see....
It is a nice idea, but does not match with the geologic dating of fossils, nor the dna evidence.

I think it matches quite nicely with the DNA evidence, we do not observe hardly any cases where natural selection has increased the amount of semantic DNA information in the organism; it’s almost always a reduction in information. Natural selection is a downhill mechanism, and that’s completely consistent with the Creation model.

No shit?!
Did you know that some 200 million years ago, crocodiles were pretty much the same as they are today?!

Yes, I was aware of that.

They evolved all they had to. Millions of years of attempts at coming up with something new yielded nothing that much better.

How did they survive the catastrophic effects of genetic entropy?

Wait, are you suggesting fossils of plants are accurately dated?

Nope, just putting on your hat for the sake of argument.

Indeed they are not... by repeatedly refuting findings with more research.
Don't you think paleontology is a legitimate science?

It’s not an empirical science, no.

PS: I'd like to commend you for all those chained up quote tags without missing one. It seems to be on it's way to become a lost art.

Haha, I am a savvy vet when it comes to the quote function :-P