Replies

Evolution on the other hand is obvious on it's face, and is supported in many cross correlating manners. So why should evolutionists "admit to/show the problems" where there aren't any?

Just stating that it is really impossible to know what happened 100 million years ago on this planet is a good start. All historical sciences (evolution, big bang, continental drift, etc.) should have a big disclaimer on them since their results cannot be directly tested or verified.

And it is not the fault of the science. It is just the reality of the situation. If we have a theory about gravity we can test it today. If we state we all evolved from a single celled organism, we cannot test that.

200

All historical sciences (evolution, big bang, continental drift, etc.) should have a big disclaimer on them since their results cannot be directly tested or verified.

And what disclaimer should we put on the global flood?

Just stating that it is really impossible to know what happened 100 million years ago on this planet is a good start. All historical sciences (evolution, big bang, continental drift, etc.) should have a big disclaimer on them since their results cannot be directly tested or verified.

Evolution is a present tense process occurring in real time. Because dishonest creationists constantly seek out extreme tangents in lieu of opening their eyes and seeing biology in the present doesn't demonstrate that your own extreme 100 million years ago tangents somehow casts doubts on the obvious.

Just stating that it is really impossible to know what happened 100 million years ago on this planet is a good start. All historical sciences (evolution, big bang, continental drift, etc.) should have a big disclaimer on them since their results cannot be directly tested or verified.

You are incorrect.

It is not impossible to "know what happened 100 million years ago", it's just not possible to know what happened with video tape resolution.

It's possible to determine ancient riverbeds and ocean coasts. It's possible to read fossils for what species existed, and chart the changes caused by evolution.

Your other big mistake is lumping evolution, continental drift and the big bang into the same "impossible to know" pile. Of the three, evolution is by far the most confirmed, with multiple cross verifications.

I believe the big bang is the the most speculative, with multiple layers of guesswork piled on one another, and with no resolution between competing views of physics like quantum mechanics vs. relativity. Physicists don't even understand how gravity works yet.

As for continental drift, it's not rocket science to match up sediment layers in various places, and correlate current movement with RTK-GPS systems. Continents do drift, because the real time GPS demonstrates it, the only question is how far they've drifted, from where, and for how long, and the sediment matching tells us.

The bottom line is you believe that historical science is not valid, and you are wrong about that. The different forms of historical science have different reliabilities and accuracies, but they are genuine science. Which is more than Genesis is.