Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

You can type until your fingers bleed for all I care. But since the question was asked, I've indicated the type of evidence I expect. I'm looking for the same type of evidence that is required for a scientific hypothesis to become a scientific theory.

simply that we perhaps have no correct understanding of it.

Thank you for providing the evidence that Wilso's standard of evidence is a routine, and not a special, standard of evidence.

I think the soft tissue that has been discovered in the bones of numerous dinos is quite interesting , don't you? How is it that 65,000,000 year old tissue is still in this condition?

Numerous cultures on earth give testimony that their recent ancestors co-existed with dinos.

Don't try to tell us again that they reconstructed the fossils. That's too funny. Do you really think that ancient peoples knew the difference between a reptile bone and a mammal?

Thank you for providing the evidence that Wilso's standard of evidence is a routine, and not a special, standard of evidence.

real life wrote:

I think the soft tissue that has been discovered in the bones of numerous dinos is quite interesting , don't you? How is it that 65,000,000 year old tissue is still in this condition?

It is a fascinating find. I don't know how it is that tissue this old is still in a good condition. But as long as radiometric dating measures it to be that old, it doesn't challenge the current story of dinosaur evolution. It only challenges the current story of dinosaur fossilization.

Setanta wrote:

Thank you for providing the evidence that Wilso's standard of evidence is a routine, and not a special, standard of evidence.

It is routine to ask for 'natural' proof of natural processes.

However , asking for 'natural' proof of a 'supernatural' process/event (creation) is more than special, it is specious.

It is a theory, Neo. You seem to have missed the news for about a century and a half. Wallace and Darwin hypothesized that the diversity of life was a product of descent with modification by natural selection from common ancestors, on the basis of morphology. Since that time, chemistry and genetic biology have produced the same evidence of descent with modification by natural selection from common ancestors. That makes it a theory, not an hypothesis, in that it is implicit in any such theory that other forms of evidence will support the original hypothesis. I know of no one who asserts that there is a "law" of evolution, except perhaps creationists who are engaged in denying that evolution occurs.

I've asked you before, for example, how to account for the water which covered the world in the alleged Noahic flood--which would be naturalistic evidence for a supernatural event. You just claim it is still there, claiming that mountains have arisen since the event. Beside doing incredible violence to every bit of evidence we have on geological uplift and the results of plate techtonic events, it ignores that the Genesis account claims the flood waters covered all of the mountains of the earth to a depth of 15 cubits and then receded. So where did the water go when it receded? Answer that question in a logical and a scientifically valid manner, and you'll have naturalistic evidence for a supernatural event.

parados wrote:

Well RL.. you won't even admit what your position is concerning the 2nd law.

Is the 2nd law of thermodynamics violated by evolution? A simple yes or no would suffice.

Hello?

Yes, naturalistic positions such as abiogenesis and evolution are not in accordance with the 2nd Law.

Energy alone is not sufficient to overcome entropy to the degree needed to generate life from non-life, nor to generate extraordinarily complex and interdependent biological systems.

You must have a mechanism to harness and regulate energy.

Simply adding energy alone will not overcome entropy and produce complexity (think: explosion).

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

Well RL.. you won't even admit what your position is concerning the 2nd law.

Is the 2nd law of thermodynamics violated by evolution? A simple yes or no would suffice.

Hello?

Yes, naturalistic positions such as abiogenesis and evolution are not in accordance with the 2nd Law.

Oh? Yet when shown the mathematical proof that disputes your claim and clearly shows how evolution does not violate the 2nd you failed to point out the errors in the math. Please show us the errors in the math that you were given. Failure to present any evidence of errors shows you are blowing nothing but hot air.

Quote:

Energy alone is not sufficient to overcome entropy to the degree needed to generate life from non-life, nor to generate extraordinarily complex and interdependent biological systems.

You must have a mechanism to harness and regulate energy.

Yes, and life does have that mechanism. But if you remove energy from life then you no longer have life so the transfer of energy IS very important for life. The transfer of energy REQUIRED for life to exist also negates your argument that the 2nd doesn't apply.

Quote:

Simply adding energy alone will not overcome entropy and produce complexity (think: explosion).

That would be a statement that shows nothing but simple thinking. Is a helium atom more complex than a hydrogen atom? No one can disagree that it has more parts yet an "explosion" with hydrogen fusion creates helium and other more complex atoms. Your statement is false and even you have to admit it is false if you believe in hydrogen fusion.

As usual, changing the subject to the Flood is a dodge.

This question I've answered for you more than once.

The water presently on the earth is sufficient to cover the landmass.

In fact, nearly every area of the world shows evidence of having been undersea.

There is coral atop Everest, the world's highest mountain.

The India or Indian Plate is a minor tectonic plate. Part of the major Indo-Australian Plate, it contains the subcontinent of India and a portion of the basin under the Indian Ocean.

About 90 million years ago, in the late Cretaceous Period, the India Plate split from Madagascar off the east coast of Africa. It began moving north, at about 15 cm/yr (6 in/yr), and began colliding with Asia between 50 and 55 million years ago, in the Eocene epoch of the Cenozoic Era. During this time, the India Plate covered a distance of 2,000 to 3,000 km (1,200 to 1,900 mi), and moved faster than any other known plate.

The collision with the Eurasian Plate along the boundary between India and Nepal formed the orogenic belt that created the Tibetan Plateau and the Himalaya Mountains, as sediment bunched up like earth before a plow.

The India Plate is currently moving northeast at 5 cm/yr (2 in/yr), while the Eurasian Plate is moving north at only 2 cm/yr (0.8 in/yr). This is causing the Eurasian Plate to deform, and the India Plate to compress at a rate of 4 mm/yr (0.15 in/yr).

There are numerous sharks teeth in fields in Kansas, many miles from present day oceans.

Numerous examples could be (and have been) cited.

Relatively shallow seas and low hills were once the norm on earth, as any scientist can tell you. No scientist believes that the high mountains we now see were there when the earth was formed.

The thing we DISagree on is WHEN this happened.

But , as I said, changing the subject to the Flood is just a dodge.

Will the samples be tested for C14?

Don't hold your breath.