Replies

I see: So any theory about who invented baseball must also explain how the universe got started!

I don't follow what you are saying here. What I am saying is that evolutionists since Lyell (and actually Hutton) have claimed the earth to be old. They have claimed that dinosaurs are some of the oldest species on earth and went extinct millions of years ago. They have claimed no man has seen a dinosaur. They don't say "it is probable that no man has seen this" or "it is probable that dinosaurs lived X amount of years ago." Rather, they state it as fact. Lyell was known to have fudged his dates. One example is Niagara Fall's gorge. Lyell asked a local about the rate of erosion but what the local said would have created a much younger earth. So, he made up his own date. Lyell's assumption is what got published. Fossil layers are dated by the ages of the fossils in them and visa versa (never mind the circular reasoning). If these fossils are proved to be much younger and could even be the fossil of a species that died a few years ago, the geological column is messed up. Men assumed an old age. C14 dating can not confirm an old age because after less than 40,000 years it isn't measurable. Helium confirms a young age. K Ar data doesn't work on samples of known age and yet we are told it works on older samples. All of this science is based upon assumptions that certain men's theories of an old age are correct. If living dinosaurs and fossils of dinosaurs with blood cells in them (which is a possibility) are true, it suggests that dinosaurs are younger than imagined (it doesn't prove it and hypothetically I guess you could have 200 million year old species living on earth, though it is doubtful) and all of the scientists assumptions are wrong. It also means that the millions of years needed for macroevolution to even theoretically occur are missing.

Of course, all of this doesn't matter for those who are so committed to the theory. Living dinosaurs just ilicit responses such as "wow, isn't it neat that this dinosaur survived 70 million years!"

They have claimed that dinosaurs are some of the oldest species on earth ...

I doubt that seriously. Dinosaurs appear about 220 million years ago. Complex life on this planet came into existence 600 million years ago, and simple life goes back about 3.8 billion years. To claim that "dinosaurs are some of the oldest species on earth" stretches the truth to nearly the breaking point."

I see: So any theory about who invented baseball must also explain how the universe got started!
I don't follow what you are saying here.

The point is, you keep bringing up arguments against the Big Bang as if they were arguments against biological evolution. Evolution got started when the first replicating self-contained biochemical set ("protocell" or whatever) first split in two. That was something like 10 billion years after the universe came into existence.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe! If the universe came about because of a Big Bang, then evolution would still be the best scientific explanation available, given the clear evidence before our eyes. If the universe always existed (the steady state theory), evolution would still be the best scientific explanation available, given the clear evidence before our eyes. If the Big Bang came about as a result of a prior Big Crunch, in an infinite progression of Big Bangs/Big Crunches, then evolution would still be the best scientific explanation available, given the clear evidence before our eyes.

So why do you insist on arguing against biological evolution in an area in which it says nothing? It's like thinking you can discredit some mainstream theory of the origin of baseball by discrediting the Big Bang. (Was baseball invented by Abner Doubleday? No, because the Big Bang never happened, so there!)