How do you know God isn't dead?

[pocaracas]

And how did you measure such short periods of time?

What do you mean?

I mean, if you only accept measurements of age that reveal short ages for the Earth's rocks and fossils, how are they measured?

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.

And that is why creationists expect to find fossils which aren't there...

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.

common creator... yeah, we can't also exclude the possibility that we were created overnight, with all our memories already inbuilt, so as to make it indiscernible from having been born and raised the way we have.
Why do you discard the answer that is right in front of you, and replace it with the super assumption of a creator thing?

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.

aye... have you heard of a storytelling book which some proponents claim to have science in it... what was it called?... arrgggg...

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.

The ability to solve practical problems, develop tools, develop a social structure is probably the same ability which allows us to solve mathematical problems, develop theories, develop new tools...
Wouldn't you agree?

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?

I don't... it's not my field of study.
I leave that to those who do study it.
Here's two simple explanations of how they do it:
How do scientists determine the age of dinosaur bones?
Radiometric Dating

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.

Why do you reject the methods that yield old ages?
Do they not function on the same principle?

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.

You know, there are humans who are born with an extra chromosome.
The result isn't too pretty, so it doesn't tend to lead anywhere, evolutionarily, but it does happen quite often.
Seeing as humans are among the species with the most DNA information, it seems quite easy to add new information.
Now imagine you take an organism that has only 2 or 3 chromosomes.... What would change if it was born with an extra one?

Is it not reasonable that such things could occur? not entirely one chromosome at a time, but a few DNA strands at a time... Some innocuous, some damaging, some improving.

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?

What is this thing you call "genetic entropy"?
And why would it yield "catastrophic effects"?

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

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

You need to warn people when you do that!

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.

AH, so... dating rock layers where fossils are found, cataloging these fossils, trying to piece them together and producing an educated guess at what they looked like when alive is not empirical?... then what is it?