15 answers to creationist bullsh!t acusations

[UThomas]

KIAMan - Mutation is one of many tools leading to genetic change on which selection and heredity can work. It is not the only one. Others include recombination, transfiguration, migration, system of mating, and random genetic drift.

Also isnt there some proof that all the different types of dogs come from one set of parent dog.

All dogs are the same species. They can all interbreed. That is why your phenotype (appearance) is not the classification used to define a species. For example, two bats can be visually indistinguishable but be different species b/c they won't interbreed.

xirtam - First you say and I learned the "accepted definition" of a species. and then you say Scientists can't even clearly agree on what a species is . If there is an accepted definition, which there is, then clearly scientists can agree on what a species is. Its defined by interbreeding without a high rate of sterility. Yes there are exceptions, but this is the widely accepted definition. To say its not is micharacterization. The following statement, btw, is not a point that I will refute, since it is a vague, unsupported appeal to authority:

My biology teacher told me that it was just what the book said and it was actually quite worthless because nobody really understands what makes something a completely new species

Also:

so-called "empirical data" is all fine and good, but since the scientists performing the research are also interpreting it under whatever light they want, it does me little "empirical" good. Seems like most of the scientific "evidence" I see proclaimed in the magazines has to be retracted later... see National Geographic articles on Archaeoraptor

Its not "So-called" data, it is data that has been published and reviewed in some cases for over 40 years in leading journals (Nature, Harvard University Press). Just b/c you are not willing to take anytime to look at it (and I posted specific references) does not mean it is irrelevant. The data is there for all to see, thats how peer review and repeatability works. Additionally, it is a good thing for science that things *can* been retracted. You point out one article. Hmm... lets see, there have been thousands of articles a year for over a hundred years on evolutionary theory. I'm sure cell theory and the theory of gravity had to have adjustments or retractions too. Thats the whole point of peer review. I would not dismiss Creationism *solely* based on the deliberate hoax known as the Pauluxy Man Tracks in Waco.

There isn't a mechanism preveventing accumulation of microevolutions from leading to speciations. I just don't see it when I look at the evidence, and I don't see the mechanism that causes microevolutions to amount to macroevolution on such a wide scale to explain the entire range of organisms. That's a jump that I don't think is supported scientifically.

Thankyou. Exactly. There isn't a mechanism. Bottom line. Likewise, there is no mechanism that causes microevolution to amount to macroevolution. There doesn't need to be since they don't differ in type, only in degree. There also are not "jumps." The evolutionary pathways are largely straight forward.

I just don't see much that indicates that I came from a tree shrew.

If I could show you evidence of this, that would be evidence against evolutionary theory. You need to understand, we had a common anscestor. We did not come from a tree shrew, and tree shrews aren't evolving to become human.

I've tried to get all my biology teachers to show me evidence that things can evolve from one species to another and that life can come from nonliving matter and that somehow a quantum fluctuation of energy can produce the universe

See, this to me is redirecting. Evolutionary theory is a process. It is not an origin, it is not an ethics system, it is not a philosophy. You're trying to lump the Big Bang, Evolutionary theory, metaphysics, epistemology, and all sorts of stuff all into one. No wonder you're having a problem with it.

it's the byproduct of random and chaotic chance, caused by an unguided and intelligent process.

Evolutionary theory is not a random or chaotic process. It is guided by relativefitness and natural selection.

Off the topic of hard science, you're using one of Aquinas' 5 proofs for God:

A being cannot bring about a cause without itself being in act. Thus you must have an uncaused cause.

I just want to point out that, not everything has to have a cause. You have not proved that the universe must have a cause.

Madrat - Yea, use the correct terms and then you would make more sense. 2 Phyla of the same species? What?


Thomas

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

I didn't actually say that the scientist often thinks of himself as a deity although I suppose that does happen, so no science isn't beholden. And yes it is the persuit of truth as you describe. I wouldn't give such a confining definition to religion as you do. I would call myself religious but don't particularly think any proof can be given that God exists separate from humanity. There is nothing, in short, supernatural about Him.

And I never claimed that you said a scientist thinks of himself as a diety. You personified the objective observer, and in claiming it didn't exist, called it the mythical figure (aka diety) of science. Which leads me to believe that your definition of a religion is belief in a mythical figure. I got my definition of religion from dictionary.com, but it appears we are arguing semantics wherein you have come upon your own definition of religion, and then applied it to science.

 

[Moonbeam]

Mani, if supernatural power or powers regarded as the creator of the universe isn't a mythical being, what is?

Am I paranoid, or do they always run for cover when ya stick a syphon in their tea cup of unexamined assumptions. Oh man oh man.

So now that we have had some pretty good explanations of how absurd it is to believe in God, a la HOWITIS there, is anybody ready to come to grasp with the notion that God exists, and that's why all these Christians are so stubborn, but He just isn't exactly who they think he is. Just because there isn't a God like the Christians imagine him doesn't mean there isn't a God, right? What if, instead of a God that could be proved, or has defined properties that defy logic, all powerful all, knowing, acts in the world, etc, suppose all that were a metaphore for a parallel understanding. What if God doesn't live in the sky, and can never be found out there anywhere. What if, like I said, God is found in your own heart. What if the road to God Knowledge was a secret, the last place anybody will ever look, the end game of an inner quest, a psychological journey, the roadmap for which is entirely or almost entirely unknown. Wouldn't that be a bitch. It would mean that after you've taken out the trash, dumped all your stupid notions of who God is, I mean us non God people call them stupid right, what if after washing off the stain of a bad guilt trip, we find out that instead of having arrived at the height of wisdom and self realization, we find out that we haven't even entered kindergarten. Damn, that would hurt. That would piss me off so bad I might get stubborn in my own turn.

Just feeling around with my syphon for some fresh tea.

 

[JupiterJones]

UThomas,
Your strong take on species and weak take on phylum leaves one to wonder about you intellectual honesty. You say that we cannot put too much emphasis on the lack of new phylum due to the fuzziness of the boundaries, yet you say speciation is proof of macroevolution.

You also fail to mention the controversy over what makes a species. Morphological vs. Biological.

Morphological species concept: Oak trees look like oak trees, tigers look like tigers. Morphology refers to the form and structure of an organism or any of its parts. The morphological species concept supports the widely held view that "members of a species are individuals that look similar to one another." This school of thought was the basis for Linneaus' original classification, which is still broadly accepted and applicable today.

Biological species concept: This concept states that "a species is a group of actually or potentially interbreeding individuals who are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

How does your Biological species concept apply to asexual organisms? How about extinct organisms? Point is, morphology is the best way to distinguish species, and until the 40's was the primary way to distinguish species. The fact that the definition has been changed (weakened) does not suddenly make true concepts that were false under the earlier classifications.

Your "High School" definition might be widely known, and perhaps easier to handle, but it is certainly incomplete and suspect.

But then again, this is why I mentioned phylum rather than species. How about genus or family? Where are the examples of transitions between these classifications?

I say that the fact a St. Bernard cannot make puppies with a toy poodle is not proof of macroevolution. And in fact, the complete lack of any real examples of macroevolution makes suspect the whole concept.

BTW, before you continue to mention Peppered Moths, you might want to read up on how those beautiful textbook photos actually came into being.

"dead moths were glued to the tree"

D.R. Lees & E.R. Creed, ?Industrial melanism in Biston betularia: the role of selective predation?, Journal of Animal Ecology 44:67?83, 1975.

University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured ?a lot of fraudulent photographs?

J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35?36

The Washington Times, January 17, 1999, p. D8.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is, of course, what really happened:




Creation Story
told by Aunty Beryl Carmichael

This is the creation story of Ngiyaampaa country, as well as the land belonging to Eaglehawk and Crow.

Now long, long time ago of course, in the beginning, when there was no people, no trees, no plants whatever on this land, "Guthi-guthi", the spirit of our ancestral being, he lived up in the sky.

So he came down and he wanted to create the special land for people and animals and birds to live in.

So Guthi-guthi came down and he went on creating the land for the people-after he'd set the borders in place and the sacred sights, the birthing places of all the Dreamings, where all our Dreamings were to come out of.

Guthi-guthi put one foot on Gunderbooka Mountain and another one at Mount Grenfell.

And he looked out over the land and he could see that the land was bare. There was no water in sight, there was nothing growing. So Guthi-guthi knew that trapped in a mountain-Mount Minara-the water serpent, Weowie, he was trapped in the mountain. So Guthi-guthi called out to him, "Weowie, Weowie", but because Weowie was trapped right in the middle of the mountain, he couldn't hear him.

Guthi-guthi went back up into the sky and he called out once more, "Weowie", but once again Weowie didn't respond. So Guthi-guthi came down with a roar like thunder and banged on the mountain and the mountain split open. Weowie the water serpent came out. And where the water serpent travelled he made waterholes and streams and depressions in the land.

So once all that was finished, of course, Weowie went back into the mountain to live and that's where Weowie lives now, in Mount Minara. But then after that, they wanted another lot of water to come down from the north, throughout our country. Old Pundu, the Cod, it was his duty to drag and create the river known as the Darling River today.

So Cod came out with Mudlark, his little mate, and they set off from the north and they created the big river. Flows right down, water flows right throughout our country, right into the sea now.

And of course, this country was also created, the first two tribes put in our country were Eaglehawk and Crow. And from these two tribes came many tribal people, many tribes, and we call them sub-groups today. So my people, the Ngiyaampaa people and the Barkandji further down are all sub-groups of Eaglehawk and Crow.

So what I'm telling you-the stories that were handed down to me all come from within this country.

 

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: PastorDon
UThomas,



BTW, before you continue to mention Peppered Moths, you might want to read up on how those beautiful textbook photos actually came into being.

"dead moths were glued to the tree"

D.R. Lees & E.R. Creed, ?Industrial melanism in Biston betularia: the role of selective predation?, Journal of Animal Ecology 44:67?83, 1975.

University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured ?a lot of fraudulent photographs?

J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35?36

The Washington Times, January 17, 1999, p. D8.

The photographs were illustrative only, and were not the foundation for the research. They were not faked.
But suppose they were. Would this mean that God made moths able to adapt to there (sic) surroundings, not evolution? Not at all - it would only mean that this piece of research didn't show that evolution was the cause of the change.

As it happens, we know that there was a DNA mutation because it has been seen repeatedly - don't forget that we have much better information about DNA these days than fifty years ago.

Finally, note that even if every example of evolution were shown to be wrong, this would not prove anything about God's activity (nor does establishing evolution prove anything about God's lack of activity, but that's another matter). At best it undercuts the argument of evolutionary theory, but it proves nothing. We might all be the result of intelligent alien intervention, although that poses the question of the origins of aliens.

I say that the fact a St. Bernard cannot make puppies with a toy poodle is not proof of macroevolution. And in fact, the complete lack of any real examples of macroevolution makes suspect the whole concept.

why not? those two groups will NEVER be able to mix genes with each other ever again.

 

[UThomas]

Oh my, PastorDon, where to begin... let me try to be concise.

Your strong take on species and weak take on phylum leaves one to wonder about you intellectual honesty. You say that we cannot put too much emphasis on the lack of new phylum due to the fuzziness of the boundaries, yet you say speciation is proof of macroevolution

There is no "take" on phylum. Its a classificiation and grouping *of species*. Thus if there is speciation, it would stand to reason there would also be different phylum, classes, orders, whatever. Species is the lowest common denominator, so that is what I addressed. Additionally, speciation is not PROOF of macroevolution, macroevolution IS speciation.

...This school of thought was the basis for Linneaus' original classification, which is still broadly accepted and applicable today...

Uhhh... not exactly. Dogs are all one species. If we went by morphology there would be hundreds. The issue is this: evolution can occur without morphological change; and morphological change can occur without evolution. Humans are larger now than in the recent past, a result of better diet and medicine. They are not a new species as your mophological definintion would state. You are correct in some of the weaknesses of the biological definition of species. The biological defininition of species doesn't work on fossils. Do you think morphology does either? No. The biological definition is by far the most strongly accepted standard among vertebrate zoologists and entomologists, but not as strongly by botanists (who deal with asexual organisms as you mentioned). No surprise, since I stated in one of my original posts that there was no perfect classification systems. But no matter how you slice and dice it, ALL rules of speciation, from the standard and leading biological definition to folk, morphological, genetic, paleontological, evolutionary, phylogenetic or biosystematic definitions support evolutionary theory.

But then again, this is why I mentioned phylum rather than species. How about genus or family? Where are the examples of transitions between these classifications?

So you want a frog to turn into a tree or something. Do you understand how the evolutionary pathways of the common descent thesis are suppose to work? Common anscestors, not cross genus jumps. If they happened they would discount evolutionary theory, not confirm it.

say that the fact a St. Bernard cannot make puppies with a toy poodle is not proof of macroevolution. And in fact, the complete lack of any real examples of macroevolution makes suspect the whole concept.

Do you not read? They can. They are the same species. And I have put up more than one documented and peer reviewed examples of speciation/macroevolution.

BTW, before you continue to mention Peppered Moths, you might want to read up on how those beautiful textbook photos actually came into being.

Again, do you read? I mentioned them specifically to point out that it was NOT speciation. And however they got the photos in the textbook is really irrelevant isn't it? What does that have to do with anything at all?

Thomas

 

[Chooco]

creationists keep going back to 2 things "how do you explain the soul" and "how does the universe exist then"

i don't understand what a "soul" is exactly. can one of you religion zealots please explain to me what a soul is and how i can prove it exists?

why can't people just accept that the universe has always existed, it's a scientific fact that you can't get something out of nothing. the universe has always been here and humans have just sort of evolved into it. with that bacteria they found on Mars. creationists should get their heads out of their a$$es and finaly realize that they are not the center of the universe and that they are just along for the ride.

 

[JupiterJones]

As it happens, we know that there was a DNA mutation because it has been seen repeatedly - don't forget that we have much better information about DNA these days than fifty years ago.

Actually, what we know is nothing. The best current assumption is that both varieties of the moth have been around a long, long time. Much earlier (by eons) than the industrial revolution in England. The fact that these moths are only active at night and that when they are captured in cages (at night) we catch more of the wrong kind leads one to wonder. However, we know nothing here.

What this is, potentially, is an example of the political motivations of the naturalist. My point has always been that the naturalist overstate what they actually know. High School and Undergraduate students are taught things as FACT that only MIGHT be true.

Finally, note that even if every example of evolution were shown to be wrong, this would not prove anything about God's activity (nor does establishing evolution prove anything about God's lack of activity, but that's another matter). At best it undercuts the argument of evolutionary theory, but it proves nothing. We might all be the result of intelligent alien intervention, although that poses the question of the origins of aliens.

You show an open-mindedness here that I would have not expected. I agree fully with this paragraph.

why not? those two groups will NEVER be able to mix genes with each other ever again.

IMHO, there is no reason to think that St. Bernards and toy poodles are on the paths to different family, genus, etc. Thus, while they cannot interbreed, morphologically they are so similar as to be classified together.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Mani, if supernatural power or powers regarded as the creator of the universe isn't a mythical being, what is?

Moonbeam, so let me get this straight: you're saying that scientists regard the objective observer (a mythical being as defined by yourself) as a supernatural power and creator of the universe. I'm just gonna have to disagree with you on that one.

 

[Moonbeam]

That would not be exactly wnat I mean Mani. You have to apply charity when dealing with analogies. they are never perfect. But since you whant to be such a stickler, let's just pretend that yes that is what I mean. Check this out. The scientist by imagining himself to be objective and independent of his experiment is actually creating an alternate universe like xirtam's God is in. It exists outside this universe and is uninfluenced by it. There the scientist is outside of his experiment and has nothing to do with the results. The power to create this alternative universe and inhabit it is a super power of tremendous creativity and fits your bill for a religious belief. It just happens that it's a figment of the scientist's imagination.

Try to grasp what is core to my thesis, that we are part of any experiment we do and have no absolute objectivity. That opens the door to the question of what it means to be certain. Is it possible. How do you feel?

 

[linuxboy]

Moonbeam, I feel just great. I was in my car going home today and realized that my tie was on tight so I took it off and unbuttoned my shirt.

What you have done is personified scientific objectivity, and then used it as a mythical figure to fit it into your own definition of a religion.

Hello. My name is Obje Beats Reallt. You may know me by my other names, Cy Ense, Una Biastta, and De-De Tached. I can be found everywhere an argument breaks out. I argue for both sides, that's only fair. You can tell I'm around when you start talking and are suddenly distracted by a lovely "piece of ass" sashaying by. You know you can't avoid me when you begin to feel all happy knowing more than the poor, benighted souls comprising the majority of the population. When I'm around, the craziest shoit happens, like systematization and efficiency and tools and planning and using people as workhorses because that's just the way things are. You may try to avoid me, but I'm everywhere.

So just give it up. Don't rock the boat. And enjoy the ride.

This is your captain speaking. Have a banana.


Cheers !

 

[TheWart]

nice to know that so many of you all jump into support of an op-ed from a NON-peer reviewed journal written by a gentleman with only a B.Sc. HAHA. also nice to note that most of the "creationist" arguments were simply straw-men set up to fail from the beginning. but if it fits with what you are predisposed to believe, i guess it might work as "evidence."

God rocks, the Bible is the greatest book ever written, and I hope to see everyone on AT in heaven one day.

why don't y'all sit back and read from some REAL scientists responding to the SA article Here. yes they are Christians but look at the letters after their names you petty people.


EDIT 1: of course I am not saying that letters always = truth, but dang when so many people treat this editor like the smartest man on the planet while sipping latte and saying to themselves "that sure proved 'em wrong" then i start to wonder...

 

[Moonbeam]

 

[Moonbeam]

Cheers Captain, I got you a present:

Seventy-three men sailed up
From the San Francisco Bay,
Rolled off of their ship
And here's what they had to say.

"We're callin' everyone to ride along
To another shore,
We can laugh our lives away
and be free once more."

But no one heard them callin',
No one came at all,
'Cause they were too busy watchin'
Those old raindrops fall.

As a storm was blowin'
Out on the peaceful sea,
Seventy-three men sailed off
To history.

Ride, captain ride
Upon your mystery ship,
Be amazed at the friends
You have here on your trip.

Ride captain ride
Upon your mystery ship,
On your way to a world
That others might have missed.

Seventy-three men sailed up
From the San Francisco Bay,
Got off their ship
And here's what they had to say.

"We're callin' everyone to ride along
To another shore,
We can laugh our lives away
And be free once more."

Ride, captain ride
Upon your mystery ship,
Be amazed at the friends
You have here on your trip.

Ride, captain ride
Upon your mystery ship,
On your way to a world
That others might have missed.

Ride, captain ride
Upon your mystery ship,
Be amazed at the friends
You have here on your trip.
____________________
A bunch of friends.

I forgot that nothing we say means anything without our letters.

Moonbeam PhD SOHK & ATOT WA

 

[Mani]

That would not be exactly wnat I mean Mani. You have to apply charity when dealing with analogies. they are never perfect. But since you whant to be such a stickler, let's just pretend that yes that is what I mean. Check this out. The scientist by imagining himself to be objective and independent of his experiment is actually creating an alternate universe like xirtam's God is in. It exists outside this universe and is uninfluenced by it. There the scientist is outside of his experiment and has nothing to do with the results. The power to create this alternative universe and inhabit it is a super power of tremendous creativity and fits your bill for a religious belief. It just happens that it's a figment of the scientist's imagination.

Try to grasp what is core to my thesis, that we are part of any experiment we do and have no absolute objectivity. That opens the door to the question of what it means to be certain. Is it possible. How do you feel?

Moonbeam, I don't dispute your point about science not always being objective, and that labelling itself as unerrantly objective is a subjective and arrogant judgement in itself. But I do not agree that is just another religion. Science is primarily based on repeatable and observable events, and if it goes outside of that realm, it says so by calling those deductions theories. And it differs from religion in one very important way. But it does not hold any absolute belief in something supernatural - its purveyors and followers do not worship or regard any supernatural power as the creator of the universe. If you dispute this, then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Howard]

LM, don't post inflammatory stuff anymore. I repent for my temper.

 

[Moonbeam]

Mani, you say you don't dispute my point that scientists aren't always objective, but I think my point is that science, for several hundred years or so, can't possibley be objective because it relies on the impossible notion that there is such a thing as an observer that is outside and has no effect on the experiment. What difference does the nature of the delusion make when neither will acknowledge it and procedes along as if it weren't there? All you are doing, I think is saying they are more deluded than you. I just think it's more equal. Both rely on faith. The scientist, it seems to me is just more hesitant to acknowledge that.

 

[josphII]

also nice to note that most of the "creationist" arguments were simply straw-men set up to fail from the beginning

thats not true at all. the author chose those argumetns because thats what creationists often use as 'proof' against evolution or to support their creationist thinking.

God rocks, the Bible is the greatest book ever written, and I hope to see everyone on AT in heaven one day.

the bible is fiction. and you can't prove othewise! furthermore WHY do you believe the bible to be fact?

why don't y'all sit back and read from some REAL scientists responding to the SA article Here. yes they are Christians but look at the letters after their names you petty people.

well i read that AiG article and it didnt say much at all, it said, well, nothing in fact. the author completely missed the point of the article. he starts off by calling the SA author an 'elephant hurler' then procedes to completly miss the point of the article. the point of the SA article was to point out that those 15 arguments are in fact null and void. the article WAS NOT proving evolution beyond a reasonable doubt or saying creationism is false beyond a reasonable doubt. the author of the AiG piece clearly misses this point as he often states "this isnt an argument we recommend creationists using" (that statement is actually in fact a one sentence synopsis of the SA piece!) why is it that creationists continue to try to validify their own beliefs by attempting to bash others beliefs?? dont they realize that they dont bring any more validity to creationism by making evolution look less and less likely (which they havnt done)

 

[TheWart]

josphII:

"well i read that AiG article and it didnt say much at all, it said, well, nothing in fact. the author completely missed the point of the article. he starts off by calling the SA author an 'elephant hurler' then procedes to completly miss the point of the article. the point of the SA article was to point out that those 15 arguments are in fact null and void. the article WAS NOT proving evolution beyond a reasonable doubt or saying creationism is false beyond a reasonable doubt. the author of the AiG piece clearly misses this point as he often states "this isnt an argument we recommend creationists using" (that statement is actually in fact a one sentence synopsis of the SA piece!) why is it that creationists continue to try to validify their own beliefs by attempting to bash others beliefs?? dont they realize that they dont bring any more validity to creationism by making evolution look less and less likely (which they havnt done)"

get a clue dude, if u really think that is all the SA article tried to do (i mean look at the title of the SA article) then fine. i just think a whiny editor putting like 4 paragraphs in bold at the end of his rant is hardly doing more than pushing an agenda. and in that case HE LOSES because you know what, he didn't get enough edumacation.


also, if you would like to discuss how current archaeology is continually connecting events in the Bible, then i'd love to point you to some worthy resources. what an ignorant statement that was.

finally, do you even know what a straw man is? the reason you think those are real arguments is because people like the SA author continue to put them in people's mouths.

have a nice day all.

 

[UThomas]

josphII is correct about the article. They misrepresent the original article and act like it was written to their website.

Raise your hand if you find it interesting that there are no creationist studies published in professional science literature. Its often a bunch of guys with "titles" in dissimililar fields (say chemistry and physics) posting on web sites.

Thomas

 

[Degenerate]

I havent had time to read all the posts but basing arguments on a bible which is no credible than a book of storied wrtten in the past is a weak as nothing.

so we need this "first cause"... so we go create something called god and then try and reject other explanations. How can a entity created without evidence, without explnation, be more convicing than evolution. In fact, it does not matter how did the first matter came from, the important thing is that evolution is here and in control. Why bother think that god has control over what is happening now? what intelligence does it provide? How does thinking that there is a person in control be benificial? Why not live a life where you are in control?

the Bible is the greatest book ever written,

It may have good examples of how to be a "good man", but it is not more than a book. I find it futile to argue against people who use the book to try and win arguments. And when more evidence is needed, let's interpret it another way. Time to crawl out of the box. the world is bigger.

 

[Rob9874]

The best argument I've heard for creationism is this: No one would believe their computer was built by chance, without a creator or design. Even over millions of years, there is no way the parts of a computer could form together, in a working manner, without input from a creator. So why do we believe that the human body, or the universe for that matter, was formed by chance? Surely, it is more complex than a computer.

 

[Degenerate]

That is old....Natural selection speeds up the process much faster. It was through about 3-4 billion years. this would have given plenty of time. the complexity of organism also increase exponentially sometime and sometimes not. HOwever, evolution goes on no matter who or how things were started.

 

[josphII]

also, if you would like to discuss how current archaeology is continually connecting events in the Bible, then i'd love to point you to some worthy resources. what an ignorant statement that was.

sure. amuse us all!