You constantly reiterate your point that civilisation has gone downhill due to atheism, equating religion's utility with its truthfulness, and ignoring my point (e.g., Santa Claus may be a useful myth for keeping children nice, but that does not make Santa real). If you propose that any version of science and prehistory that is useful must also be true, please do so explicitly, else accept that your arguments about the decline of civilisation have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of evolution.
Further, you have continually refused to propose any specific Creationist version of prehistory, knowing, I suspect, that there is no possible such Creationist version which is not many times more problematic than the reigning evolutionary paradigm.
I kick myself for wasting my time in the belief that you actually might care to debate the nature of prehistorical reality, as opposed to what you want to be true, or what some authority (Newton, the Bible) stated is true. If I do so any longer, it is not in the hope of having an actual debate with you Creationists, who appear to be postmodernist nihilists (the truth is whatever you want it to be), but so that those in the middle will not be swayed by an absence of a response to your continuing idiocy.
IMHO, because the various sides are well settled on their points of view --- it is the Lurkers (general public, parents, school boards) who are the target audience to this and similar debates. In that regard, you may find VadeRetro and my ongoing discussion of methods helpful.
In the end, my prediction was and is that neither Young Earth Creationism nor Evolutionary Biology will win the hearts of the Lurkers - instead, Intelligent Design will win "hands down" because they know how to win.
The Intelligent Design debaters approach the conflict as if they were in a court of law. They never badger the witness, they embrace the good ideas of the opponent, they don't try to impress the jury with their superior credentials, they keep it simple and appeal to common sense.
The juror-Lurker is only half listening to what you are saying (especially if you are being technical) - but they are observing closely how you say it. The stronger, louder, faster and more angry the reply - the less weight they will give it, i.e. if counsel "protests too much" - what is he hiding?
Just my two cents ...
Well said - nice job so far.
Oh, and welcome to the funhouse.
I have refuted the above several times and given examples for my position. Since you keep evading responding to the evidence I have given you my guess is that I am correct and this post is a somewhat ungletemanly concession. Good day.
Well DNA evidence backs up the Bible.
NOVA Online | Lost Tribes of Israel | Tracing the Cohanim
According to biblical accounts, the Jewish priesthood began about 3,000 years ago when Moses anointed his older brother Aaron the first high priest. Ever since, the priestly status has been handed down from father to son through the ages.
If this hereditary tradition has been closely followed, the Y chromosomes of the Cohanim today should bear some resemblance to one another because of their unbroken link back to a common ancestor, Aaron.
Genetic studies among Cohanim from all over the world reveal the truth behind this oral tradition. About 50 percent of Cohanim in both Sephardic and Ashkenazic populations have an unusual set of genetic markers on their Y chromosome. What is equally striking is that this genetic signature of the Cohanim is rarely found outside of Jewish populations.
...
Cohanim chromosomes coalesce at a date that corresponds with when the priesthood is thought to have begun.