tttia

A few points.... - Are you wanting a long-term relationship with the idea that you might stay with this person for years to come, preferrably in the form of marriage? (ie, are you 13, and just dating for something to do, or is this serious?) If this is not a serious relationship, then just skip down to the section on how to dump them quickly and thoroughly. - If this is a serious relationship then you need to be certain of this conclusion. Is it due to incompatible views on serious issues? Was it a small fight? Different core beliefs? List the positives and negatives for the relationship in two columns and be as thorough and objective as possible. Then consult with TRUSTED people who know both of you---not ones who will start talking to everyone either. It may not be popular, but I would talk to your parents too. Here are some basic areas to look at in your assesment: Views on- religion marriage ethics children (how many) in- laws/parents how much time should be spent with friends fianances views on sexual issues views on who takes the lead role in the family, how disputes are settled who does what tasks in the relationship can she cook (no joke man! or if you can cook, that is fine too) communication and personality issues health, financial, cultural barriers etc. etc. Basically years of arranged marriage, and committed couples from other types of marriages have shown that the key factors are commonly held core beliefs. The rest can all be worked out to one degree or another. - I agree with the earlier drop a bomb comment. You must do it DEFINITIVELY, leaving no hope whatsoever that there will ever be a chance again. I have too often seen my friends (all over 20 at the time, and in multi-year, serious relationships) let it drag on for ages. One even used the approach of "if I don't talk to her she will get the idea" approach. That is inhumane. And it is likely to get you verbally abused by her friends. If you are going to do it, then do it quickly. decisively and completely. That doesn't mean be a jerk. It is far worse to hint, imply, etc. - Don't make the break-up event a long drawn out thing. I don't suggest taking her on a walk, taking her to dinner, etc. Just go over there and do it. It is nearly impossible to mask feelings for a long period of time while all the while planning to dash her hopes. So the quicker you get to the point the less suffering you both go through

Doh, double

Thanks for the feedback folks. Xman, is the fur you are referencing on the lower neck or just all that around the head? Thanks.

No reference, playing with the air brush tool. It is one I had not used much before in painter, but I really find that I like it. It renders a nice, soft feel.

References should be non commercial images....usually stock images are best. Anything that applies to free use when ripping also applies to reference. However, if it is just for practice etc. then I suppose use whatever ya like. I used national geographics as references before. Just because they were handy and I wanted practice.

A representation or adaptation of an existing art work is illegal. That is the simple answer. however, I am sure you can find some type of legal use images of those folks to trace. Then again just drawing an image of a copyrighted work is illegal too. It is not the tracing, it is the basis of the original work that is the problem. That is why sites such as cgtalk won't allow images based off of a commercial photo of celebreties etc. Of course, if you do trace, you will have to post it about 10 times to keep people from digging up the original and accusing you of being a low scoundrel. I don't trace myself, but if folks state ahead of time that it is tracing, I have no problem with the basic practice of it.

Nadril, I wouldn't exactly call that the same thing. Pasting it in as a layer in the same image shows ....uncanny matching. Down to the hairs almost. I will be gone most of the day, but if I see him on messenger I will let him know about this topic. Or someone could pm him. At least the man deserves a chance to defend himself.

I don't use outlines in my paintings much anymore. I just work in patches of color. It is more natural for painting. As for texture brushes...I use standard corel photopaint brushes, or in painter I use a downloaded set called fine art 2 from http://www.pixelalley.com or I just make my own. Fine Art 2 has brushes that emulate more closely regular media brushes than the default ones. So they are not meant for a specific texture, they are just made to work like different oil brushes. (they have fan brushes, o brushes, etc. ) Check this tutorial...yes I know it is for faces and you have seen it before. But the basics are still the same. I use harder brushes now, but the essentials are still there. http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=201522 In a landscape you still map out the general values first and then fill in the details. Good luck!

True enough, but copy protection, subscription services, etc. will move things slowly away from mp3 because it can't be controlled well. Besides...the ipod is doing fine, which means the aac will still have a large market.

I don't really see evidence of brushing. It looks more like the "vectorized" photos, that people make from using the lasso and fill tool, etc.

Fair enough. But you would be surprised at the number of adults around here. Honestly I am pulling 12 hour days for a while now, and still have nearly three more weeks of doing it, without a day off. So I can understand that. I don't know how much I will be able to respond either at this point. It is getting hard to process this much after a day's work :) I might not post again much after this. Honestly the only thing I want to get across is that the basic issues, despite all the various views and camps etc. are still scientific issues. I think I have accomplished that, and at least given some examples of researched studies. However, it is hard to let the posts go! Haha. But I might try it. As to 40 k years, it all depends on how you interpret the biblical data. There is obvious telescoping of biblical geneologies, but the extent of them is not known. There is also the "existing matter" theory which basically takes all of the radiological dates a acceptable, and stipulates that in fact mars and the earth were created at the same time, but that the creation of other elements on earth took place later (based on the text "the earth was without form and void", which implies existing matter which could have an ancient age. I am not sure that it is necessary to accept such an argument, but it could make some sense of why the ancient ones show little sign of erosion etc., the time clocks seem off, and yet the dating still seems to work in other cases. I doubt the telescoping would actually be 30 k years! That would be certainly absurd. But that, combined with some reliability issues already raised (different methods yielding different results, selective readings, carbon residue where it should not be expected, factors in the original ratio or half life, which you seem to think is even more flexible than I do) Pretty much means that I don't stress over that figure. In the article you posted I might mention that the reference to the radioactivity of coal being related to the rocks around it might suggest that coal is not in fact the typical example of this phenomenon. Also note the article I posted originally on this which addresses some of the natural occurrance arguments. They even mention that fossil fuels have problems that other substances don't. Since coal is not the one usually used in the argument, you might want to find an article on a more generally used substance. There is also a highly interesting part there about various native radioactive components causing MORE carbon. This seems to indicate that ratios of c14 might not be as consistent as thought. In fact, if anything the whole study casts doubt on the rate of decay ,the amount originally, and contaminating factors. They do seem to reference a full government study on the question of old materials showing carbon that is reporting before long. Should be interesting to see what they say. But since some of their comments were already anticipated in the article I posted before, and since it is in reference to what they even admit is an unusual substance, and especially since they don't seem overly sure themselves, I would say that doesn't exactly settle the issue. But perhaps new evidence soon will. Truth be told the question is pertinent only because it raises issues of the overall reliability of the process. There is still the fact that carbon dating HAS successfully dated a fair number of items. So the real question is why it seems to work sometimes, not others, and how reliable it actually is. And to answer an earlier post by you, the real reason carbon is at the center of the debate, even though it is really the others, argon, uranium etc. that are particularly problematic is simply because it is the one most easily tested because it posits dates within a range that we can test against known figures. . And since the concept in radiometric dating is similar throughout , if the one can be found to have problems, then all are in question to some degree (depends on if it is a problem specific to the nature of carbon). Actually dendrochronology has its own issues with radio carbon dating, with some suggestion that known samples don't add up. Moreover, dendrochronology depends on subjective matching of rings in various specimens, depending about conditions during the years. Of course the usual sample is the Bristlecone pine. And some of these have some outstanding ages. And some of the matches seem legitimate, given the sheer number of similar rings in similar sequence. Others are not so certain however. And I don't recall those reaching 40 k years anyway, though perhaps you meant the isocron dating. As to that, I have no knowledge of isocron dating, but will look it up. Should be interesting. I don't have time for this post ,but perhaps in a future one will address it. As to the rest of my answer ,see above on whether 10 k years is an exact necessity. Of course, if you use usher's chronology then 6k and a bit more is necessary. I don't adhere to that though at all. One thing that can be said for sure is that the various phenomena listed in my post before show that there are some strong suggestions that there were not millions of years in play here. On to some of your critiques of a few of those... Actually if you read the article I posted about the erosion experiment we find that in fact it does not take all that long. And if you throw in catastrophism, even less. Since you want it to tie to an arbitrary date of 10 k years, assumedly based on the biblical data (which I had previously not referenced because you seemed averse to it) I would simply see that we see reference to two such events in the scriptures. One was the flood. One reference shortly later referred to peleg "in who's time the earth was divided." Actually I have seen a flood model, strangely enough formulated by the CIA (no, I don't have the foggiest idea why the CIA would develop flood models), that took the biblical data and showed how the techtonic plate shifs were part of the flood event. The Bible references floods of the deep that caused water to come out of the earth in a mist before rain. This is apparently a description of a layer of water under the surface, which once vacated (the Bible makes reference to them bursting forth), by a fissure in the surface of the earth would cause two things: one a large upburst of water which could then freeze bringing on glaciation (I just saw another article on a post flood glacial age, will find that soon too for you), as well as slipping of the plates along the deposits of water. This could show why the tectonic plate shifts seem to be slowing down, would explain mountains etc. they were the rapid (at first) result of a dramatic plate shift which divided up the then known world into the various continents, then pressed them together, causing a slowing process, which we are now seeing. It has been a while since I saw that particular presentation, not on the internet, so I will see if I can hunt down the details. In any case, the biblical data, (which i use because you reference its timetable) does provide for some answers for that. Actually it is not my idea, it is that of those who study abiogenesis. You can read about it in this wikipedia article on the Urey-Miller Experiment. The experiment only produced 13 of 21 amino acids necessary for life, but some comets are known to contain others. So they postulated that comets could have hit the earth providing the materials. Some simply state that alien life forms themselves seeded the planet, and get around the problem that way. Either way it is an attempt to explain the lack of all the amino acids. A. If you look at my first post about abiogenesis, way back when we started this, I actually showed an article that indicated that the earth's atmosphere is not universally believed to be the way that some content, and that absolutely no pockets have been found of this primordial ooze, as some would surely be. But even apart from that, this condition did not last a particularly long time, or perhaps more accurately, a lot of time passed since then. While a constant rate is true, there are certainly some reasonable rates, and it is no where near close. Moreover, the fairly recent, general wide spread acceptance ideas of episodism, punctuated equilibrium, catastrophism etc. as opposed to gradualism is a win for short earth supporters. If you can't posit any rates of deposition, then why must we assume it took millions of years for these deposits? Especially when there is often almost NO erosion, etc. Evolutionists adapted their theory, which is fair enough. But they lost one of the key supports, along with radio carbon dating, that supports their theory. And at the same time it does not at all eliminate the questions asked. Because while you can't assume a CONSTANT rate, you can assume a far greater rate than what we see. This is why radiometric dating is at the center of the controversy, as it, though it suffers from some problems, is more reliable than the strata in indicating age of the earth. The posts I made yesterday of erosion, clastic pipes, insufficient eco systems, etc. all indicate problems with the strata as an indicator of age. Now maybe one or two things could be explained by exceptional circumstances...but there are many, many of these arguments, where things just don't seem to have been ancient at all. Now of course, there is also the point that current conditions were not always the condition...partially addressed above, but it is impossible to conceive of an erosion free environment. Moreover, the atmosphere was not the same for all those years that we assume in radioactive dating either. But we use CURRENT ratios and rates as a model. Seems to be the same problem, but just the camps are reversed. But I think the fact that creationists are on the defensive over radiometric dating , and the fact that evolutionists are on the defensive about various examples of strata not showing the effects of time indicate that both have their points to make on the evidence. It certainly would have some effect. But a simple trip to virgin woodlands would show that there is still a TON of erosion, which is far different from the layers preserved in the strata. The facts are that this IS more consistent with rapid deposition. Moreover, there are so many accounts from ancient history of massive or world-wide floods that it is near universal. Seems a little bit odd hm? Given that we accept many things from history on a couple of sources we know little about. There is no way around it. In millions of years, the gaps between the strata, if you don't have erosion on a fairly large scale...deforestation or not, you have a real problem with your understanding of the strata. If you have not yet read the experiment they did in Washington from my recent post. It shows that there was some fairly recent RAPID erosion from water. It didn't take long to make a big impact on the land around it. But in the same area, where the recent erosion was not present they could study strata that showed almost NO erosion, and what erosion was present was limited to certain patches, and was sheet erosion..even erosion. This is just not consistent with millions of years of elements effecting a layer. Incidentally, one layer was composed of volcanic materials...another source of rapid deposition. The 12 million year date you cite, if I understand the reference, since I am not sure of the exact origin of that figure, was the figure of the evolutionists, used by the creationists as a comparison. The point is that if there were 12 million years involved, and no erosion, etc. then it is pretty far fetched. As to sodium pollution it could effect some of it. However, it would have to be demonstrated that pollution in the form of sodium has had an effect. I will admit though that ere deforestation could have a slightly larger role as you mention, because of the fact that run off in deforested areas effect waters even in virgin areas. However, the sheer size of he discrepancy (see the summary of the figures in my post) (it is such a huge amount), still points out that pollution is an insufficient explanation to account for all of the difference in the levels. It would be interesting to find some actual evidence of sodium pollution. I take it something was lost there. The facts are there are so many of these instances, and evolutionists are required to come up with so many instances of special circumstances, abstract, complicated theories etc. that one begins to wonder if they are trying to explain it away instead of looking at what it seems to say...similar to what they feel creationists do with radio metric dating. And the similarities are instructive, because these are two of the weak points of both camps, so both tend to get defensive. I assume you are again referencing the biblical record? There are a couple of possibilities here. One, I don't see the universe being created at the same time a the earth. In fact it is not even completely clear that the stars were created at the same time. The sun is mentioned as being on the third day, so that would be an accurate assumption. However, if scientists thought that it took ages to form features on earth, and then changed their mind, moving to relatively rapid events (glaciation,and other examples of catastrophism) who is to say they are right on mars where we know very little at all about the very basics? I don't really find that compelling. If you have a problem with using current earth norms to measure the earth's past, how can you even begin to make suppositions about mars with any certainty? And if anything one would expect to find some correlation...ie...not uniform long processes, but rapid change. I agree that variation occurs. But if you find the geological observations as solid, then you must really not think much of the evolutionary evidence. And on a last note, you might want to look at the argument on the proposed timetable for evolution as it too brings up some troubling questions on this aspect. Hm...as noted above, and as you seem to imply, these responses are getting a bit tough to keep up. If you want to add to your comments, I might respond at a point down the road, but for now I am pretty busy. I am also neglecting my art! So I don't know for sure that I will respond the next night as I have been, For now I am satisfied that anyone who reads this will indeed see that the argument is in fact a debate on facts in contention between both groups. But then again, if you say something that just begs for a comment..I may give in! Or if I find particularly interesting articles that lend to the conversation. On a final note, I hope that this has not been too much of an adversarial contest. The question naturally lends to a debate type format, given our different viewpoints. I think at times you are quick to dismiss creationists, but I do think you are at least thoughtfully considering the questions involved. It has been a good discussion for getting me to read again a bit on these subjects, which was good :) Although it did seem to kill off the discussion for everyone else.

in game cash + ebay = real world money. Just wait until the time that they legalize trading of real world goods like some games do, and broker the deal for a fee. Then rune mining, rare collecting, and SIG MAKING could become part time jobs.

On point number 3, they have not actualy come up with all of the base amnio acids. Moreover their is a limited environment that could even support the senthesis of the others. The remaining ones that were not present were believed to be brought by meteors or even aliens. You are quite right though that even if they assume all of them, they have not been able to actually make something grow, give it life. On point number 4, it is true that many dog breeds occur. It is interesting to note though that they are all still dogs :)

Some articles showing further evidence of a short chronology. This article "THE MIOCENE/PLEISTOCENE CONTACT IN THE COLUMBIA BASIN: TIME IMPLICATIONS" shows an original research project that once again calls into question long periods in the strata. You will note they are quite careful to spell out all of their methodology. http://www.grisda.org/origins/53039.pdf Here is another treatment of the gaps in the strata, and the lack of deposition or erosion during long eras: http://www.grisda.org/origins/15075.htm This article notes the incomplete eco-systems present in strata if interpreted as long periods. http://www.grisda.org/origins/21051.htm This one demonstrates not only residual carbon but residual dna and amino acids call into question long time periods: http://www.grisda.org/origins/18089.htm This article looks at the formation of clastic pipes, and the low likelyhood of that happening in the traditional long earth model. http://www.grisda.org/origins/19044.htm An article with 7 other questions about the long earth time table, , a couple of them repeats: 1. Rate of Erosion of the Continents 2. Sediments Carried to the Ocean 3. Rate of Sediment Accumulation 4. Rates of Uplift of Mountains 5. Emission of Volcanic Ejecta 6. Human Population Growth Rates 7. Time Required for Biological Evolution Here is a summary of the data, but reading the whole article is quite helpful:

Since everyone else seems to have ceased posting, this is a response to Death by Pod, and quotes are by him unless otherwise noted. You have not yet presented evidence that the presence of carbon 14 in 1 million + year old samples is logical. If it is so easy, post the evidence. The facts are that if half lifes don't work, the whole theory should be thrown out. And the carbon presence is clear evidence that it doesn't workÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâor they are simply not that old. Either way you have shown no evidence. Talking about high school shows nothing. If a high schooler can do it, why haven't you? You have yet to counter any of their research or methods, and the only thing you have questioned so far is that they admit what they DON'T know, or in the one case mentioned mistakes made by other creationists. Are some sloppy? Sure, but you already said some evolutionists are too. Why not go to the GeoResearch page and find what exactly you find wrong about their information? You still have not done that, but continue to call them biased. Until you find some problem, they are not biased, you are. And who do you think sponsor such sites as talkorigins? The whole point of the site, in your own words, is to provide responses to creationists. That doesn't sound like bias to you? As to research...go read the two articles I posted already. The one on Junk DNA was based on the man's doctoral research. It is truly research, not just collected items from others such as you would find at talkorigins most of the time. They in fact do research in the field all the time because they work in the teaching field at universities, and part of that is often doing research. They are not just staff theologians, which you would see if you looked at their credentials. Those at Geresearch are a part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. However, there are teachers and scientists within that body that accept evolution and a long earth, just as there are those who accept creation, and short earth. So until you can show inconsistencies in their actual research, I am not entertaining any more notions of bias. As I mentioned before, everyone has bias. If you doubt it, keep looking, you will find theirs. Ok, so you just assume that any creationist is stupid, under-educated, or has been preached at endlessly by their parentsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâbut you are not biased? Yes I have had high school chemistry, I have a college degree, with biology ,etc. I am working on master's level intensive classes while working in my field, I even took philosophy classes, and a class specifically about the origins and evolution questions at the university level. I had a grade point average of 3.98, neither of my parents had any interest in religion. I came to my religious conclusions by studying the Bible myself, and I came to my scientific ones much the same way. What does education have to do with it? Even if someone had an 8th grade education, if you couldn't answer their actual logic then all that would prove is an under educated person got the better of you. People should not have to post their credentials just for your sake. You might want to rephrase that. If the whole thing is random then radioactive dating is pointless. I assume you mean a statistical average. In fact your whole argument to this point has been " contamination, random elements, etc." Why not simply say it doesn't work? Your choices are simple. Either it doesn't work, or they are not that old. Or there is some element you have not come up with yet that effects it. In which case, feel free. But if it such that it is effected by how much is less, then how can it be reliable at all? And why use it at all? Again, here is a case where we KNOW that if the theory is true we should see a specific result. We simply don't see it. So how can we then have confidence in a sample where there is no expectation? We can't. This is in fact fascinating evidence. Evidence once again that either you can't read, or you twist everything far more than creationists. The confession you state is true enough. But it is the second point out of three, and refers to the ONE CASE of lunar dust. The example of lunar dust does not even appear in the list of 11 in the other article. Let's look at the whole quote: As a professor used to say, when you see the word THEREFORE, you ought to see what it is there for. The unifmitarian assumptions referred to are the rate of deposition of lunar dust. By the way, who was it that debunked this lunar dust theory? Two CREATIONISTS. Oh no, they are so unscientific ,they even point out other creationist's mistakes! Give me a break. Unless you can disprove the 11 arguments on their own merits they are still quite valid. The problem with the other argument was that the rate was simply not correct. Was it bad science? Sure, but no worse that those evolutionists who faked fossils, and the text books that in some schools still list them as evidence. I think you should be proud that the creationists pointed out the error of their less careful brothers. But no, it is all about bias to you. As for agriculture and historical records...actually I agree with you there. I don't mind giving credit where it is do. You can't prove anything from non-existence. So the arguments are not particularly valid. I do think it unlikely that 100k years would pass without them, but that is not proof. But I liked the other arguments so quoted the whole article. As for the complexities of agriculture...it can be as simple and as complex as we make it. Modern techniques are in fact intricate. But even the plant killer that I am can grow a garden with absolutely no chemicals or anything. Sure the rabbits get their share, but it still works. They have not been disproven by what you have shown so far. So why should they take them down? You took a specific statement about the rate of lunar dust deposition and applied it to every argument out there. Sorry, doesn't work. Post specific refuting evidence. It may be there, and if so, then you have a valid argument. But so far, sorry you don't. They didn't even list the lunar dust one. Sure I would. So should I put you down as one of the few who think abiogenesis worked not only once but multiple times? (Never mind that by that time the atmosphere was not even right for it. That bad place you mentioned was the only possible way to get even some of the amino acids necessary..that is if it ever existed, which is quite in question). Bad? Good? Oh, but I was quoting your favorite source!ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâtalk origins. Surely they are not wrong? I would say from the bat's perspective a mutation which made them clumsy would be bad. For that matter, they reference "bad" mutations that result in death. Now of course, it is all a value judgment, but if I were the animal, I would call that "bad" too. For that matter, if flying bats were so cool, why didn't they wipe out the...normal mice? Your whole argument is nice, but I see no facts. Just a fantasy about how it might have happened, including contradictions of your own theory of selection. Of course good and bad are all determined by their environment. If you can't handle good and bad, then look at it as advantageous or disadvantageous in selection in the specific niche. But it is certainly easier to say...bad. The whole argument is silly. You have no proof of how the bat evolved anyway, and trying to get out of it by saying that no mutation is good or bad is dodging the issue. first of all, the fact that devolution might lead to loss of material in no way effects the complexity of those who don't have that mutation. If someone loses sight, or even color perception, that does not effect the complexity of the those who did not lose it. Again, this is a nearly illogical smoke screen. Talk origins discusses their view of how biochemical reactions could have come about. But can you find what I asked for? A list of the specific steps in the (all theoretical of course) evolution of the human eye to the last detail? And can they show all of the steps to show that it actually happened, in every step? If not ,then all they can do is throw a possible step by step summary that shows nothing...a sensor in some animal....a little better in another...not that the two were even related.... And above all, they must show that it happened within the time table they have assigned to primate evolution. And it has to be realistic...not 360 k straight generations where absolutely everything went right, with one good mutation every generation...which doesn't even make sense given the mechanism suggested for evolution. Afterall, the eye is supposed to be stumbled on to purely by accident. It would not have had time tables or progression at a steady rate. Until you show me that article that accounts for all those variables, then I am sorry, you are still not proving anything. You are simply rationalizing. This is just more on how mutations are not bad or good. Actually they are. The ones you listed were good, or advantageous in that niche and under those circumstances. But the whole thing is a diversion. Either they are more apt to be selected or they are not. It is good or bad. And I already linked to an extensive article on "junk dna" by a ...creationist scientist. No need to find me the other. But it does show that you don't read what I put. Hm, so now you actually have people choosing long armed people on purpose? This isn't your classic understanding of selection is it? The point is that it is a range. You are not going to have people with arms three times the lenght of their body. The facts are that my arms are longer than my dads for a simple reason. I am a foot and one inch taller! It is not like I have these hugely abnormal arms hanging past my ankles! His own dad was taller than him. What is your point? It is variety within a range. When did I ever ask you to accept a non-natural theory? I asked you to consider the short earth model. That is as material as it gets. Either the evidence points to a short earth or a long one. Simple as that. Is it so hard for you to see this point? The issue is ....short age vs. long age. It is pure science. And no matter what organization people come from, if you can't refute the evidence, then bias really doesn't matter does it? So lets focus on evidence, not philosophy, bias, etc. Everyone is biased. Even me. Even you.

This is precisely the problem we were discussing in Jeppoz's post. Some think we are being stuck-up-, snobbish elitests because we want a seperate board from the money grubbers. Truth be told, I really don't care if they want to money grub. I just don't want to have to wade through all the countless questions about the best WAY to money grub on the media DISCUSSION board. I want a board to discuss media. Not a board to discuss people's loosely artistic schemes to invest the least amount of effort humanly possible and still get "mad cash" in runescape. And jak, I don't play rs anymore, but yes, I am a rune miner on my char.

Sorry, my work schedule has been hectic, so I never finished my previous reply. I will start with the new one then back track. Radioactive decay. Decay rates may be statistical, but that very fact shows again that evolutionists are not without bias. In most college text books you would think that there is no variation whatsoever in decay, that nothing effects halflife, that there is rarely any real problem with contamination etc. Moreover, once again your point completely fails to address the real issue. Statistical variance is not the problem. When you have things that are supposed to be 22 million years old, they should have NO carbon. Or else it is not just statistical variance, but a completely botched theory. Now there may be contamination, but if you read that article they addressed that, and frankly, that would not be to that level. The absence of carbon in a sample over 1 million years old should be a CERTAINTY based on the whole premise of radioactive dating. If you can't even get samples that show that ...ever....then how can you trust the ones that you have no reliable baseline for? What you are saying basically is that the system is so flawed it can't be trusted at all. If that is the case....why use it? Scientific theories. Thanks for the review....yet again...of the concept of a scientific theory. May I remind you this is YOUR hang up, not mine. It is you who becomes touchy, by your own admission when someone says it is a theory. I have been careful to avoid such usage just because you seem to be hyper sensititve, so please, spare the lecture. I recognize evolution as a SCIENTIFIC theory. My argument is that they dismiss the competing answer, which is by the way, not creation. I have said before, but you ignored it, that evolution is not competing with creation. Let me say it again , so you don't miss it this time. Evolution is not competing with creation. Evolution, like abiogenesis is a model for the START of life. Evolution is instead competing with the concept that life came into being rapidly not over millions of years. Or put more simply, evolution is competing with short earth theory. Now that we have that out of the way we will once again disregard your hang up with abiogenesis. However, I will once again state that while the theory of evolution is not dependent on an origin of life, the facts are scientists who support evolution want a MATERIALISTIC start to life. And so far abiogenesis is their best hope, thought not much hope so far. Now, the point is we have both conceded that abiogenesis offers no real answers yet, so let's move on from there and discuss the real issue, evolution vs. short earth theory. Now I will list the problems with evolution, and some strong points for short earth theory. First off, this little article shows 11 evidences for a short earth, though it is hardly exhaustive, or even an exhaustive treatment of each. http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html Those six are: -Comets disintegrate too quickly -Not enough mud on the sea floor -Not enough sodium in the sea. -Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast -Many strata are too tightly bent. -Unsolidified sandstone raises questions of dating -Fossil Radiohalos show shorter time span -Insufficient helium to account for radioactive decay over time -Not enough Stone Age undecayed skeletons -Agriculture too recent -historical records seem too recent. To this list I would add: -The cambrian explosion...though dismissed before raises real questions as to why many organisms, some with different dna trees suddenly appeared at once. - the problem of insufficient time for primate evolution...see my first post, and the clarification about the non validity of "junk DNA" -The aforementioned presence of carbon in all samples - The now well accepted idea of catostrophism which creationists have been on board with for a long time...given their concept of the geologic column being deposited by the flood. Punctuated Equilibrium may be an adaptation of evolution, but the fact that change is often rapid is hard to argue. These are certainly not exhaustive. In fact, nearly every one of those origins magazines points out another one, complete with scientific references, etc. But I think this, along with your list, is sufficient to demonstrate that both have some explaining to do. And both are trying to show scientifically that the earth is either young or old. As to motives. Do you think there are not professional apologists for evolution? Even talk origins is simply a defense of evolution. I think the motives exist on both sides. As to why evolutionists would defend it...because it sucks to admit you are wrong. The very fact that competing theories, even competing science, is not allowed to be presented side by side evolution in schools shows that there are people in the debate who are not simply worried about the science aspect of it. And as for "helping" you not be biased. Sorry, I can't do that. You are biased because you choose to be. You asked for a scientific source. You can't find anything wrong with it so you say they MUST be biased because of their goals. Ok, so show me the bias. So far all they have done is admit what they know and what they don't know. And you...being totally unbiased...only listed what they didn't know. Who is the biased one? Moreover you could find not one problem with evolution? That alone shows you are not looking too hard. There is another important note here. It surely doesn't apply to all, though maybe to more subconsciously than realize it. If evolutionists are eventually forced to recognize evidence for a short earth, they might have to give up on a purely physical, materialistic view of the world. This could reverse two centuries of new found freedom to scoff at God, and His eventual judgement. It is simple, and perhaps even sounds arrogant of me to mention it, but more than one have admitted it... many people comfort themselves that they will not have to face God because evolution explained Him away, along with the moral absolutes he provides under the Christian model. Now, back to your former post...I had responded up to the point of my understanding of mutations, so I will start there. Perhaps you could start by granting that the people you talk to might have some rudimentary understanding of basic topics. I already posted, and even listed a talkorigins article that mentions (somewhat deceptively, but mentions anyway) the many mutations,.....most of which are neutral as to function, a lot of which are deleterious (bad), and a very few are good. And even all of those are not passed on, due to death before hand etc. So why exactly do you once again need to review material already in play? Simple except that most mutations are bad..ie they don't help...don't get passed on..and my point was not that mutations don't happen, but that mutations are mostly bad, and you don't have enough good ones to complete the changes necessary for primate evolution during the time table. In fact, most of the mutations we see happen within a range, up and down, given the conditions...just as the deer weight illustration I mentioned before shows. But even the idea of darwin's finches, in open niches, is fine with me. In fact, you will notice I mention similar things in my thoughts about the post-flood world. The problem all along is that fixity of the species is not an inherent theological tenant. It was simply assumed by the Catholic church. So admitting to variation is not a big issue to me. A long earth of millions of years is. And I think there is sufficient evidence to bring it into question. One slight problem here. There have been many generations of humans in my family, and there is NO trend that just because I have long arms my son will. My dad was 5'11 for crying out loud. You assume our arms will get longer and longer. I think if this were true we would have some funny looking people. The truth is people just vary within some fluctuating standards. Now you go against natural selection and say that a clear disadvantage will not kill off the non flying clumsy bats. Ok, but then you admit that it is not a POSITIVE mutation at all. It is not progress at all until right at the end. Which is precisely the whole point of irreducible complexity. It is not just that the positive doesn't take effect until the tipping point..as you stated above..merely waiting around until something good happens. It is that in the meantime in the case of the bat, and perhaps some others, it is not only neutral, but positively BAD, giving a disadvantage. Now you could speculate that this happens in appropriate niches. Maybe so. But speculation is not proof. And I thought you only dealt with proof and left the speculation to us? Ok, then you posit that the flying bats killed off the non flying ones, even though the non flying ones could not kill off the normal...mice? And survived just fine. Okie dokie. At least you apply selection consistently. And actually it doesn't show that they develop from slight changes. It shows that we have fossils of rats, and fossils of bats, and some really good imagination which seems to argue against what you really believe. You don't really believe this is evidence do you? This is rationalization. Is this for my benefit or yours? You just argued against this very thing with the clumsy bats. Sure, it is a good example, which is why I used it. It is devolution in action. Since I think this happens, and think that adaptation happens on a limited scale...what is your point? it is unclear why you keep reiterating that good mutations help have more children while negative ones don't. Because all the many examples of irreducible complexity argue that you would have to go through many many generations of purely pointless modifications for something good to actually happen. Just as with the bat. In the meantime not all mutations are passed on, most are not good in the first place, and basically all of them would require countless generations of coincidental mutations to eventually produce anything decent. All at a rate which cannot account for primate evolution, etc. Now I would really like to take this one and run. Why don't we create a super race? Kill off the cripples? Oh wait, we didn't like it when others tried that. But then again, that implies some moral standard. Why would natural selection bring about morals? Why would humans TRANSCEND survival of the fittest? Why wouldn't scientists propose survival of the fittest now? Have they been lulled into unscientific, soft notions that we are more than just little blobs of carbon? I think there is a simpler reason. First of all, there are more unfit children in DEVELOPED nations. And it might have something to do with people EATING SO MUCH. I think you can find this under the category of people who eat more calories than they burn get fat. Of course, there are disorders and such. But most diseases these days are directly translated into lifestyle choices, not simply genetics. But I even support the idea of sickly children, sickly adults...sickly everything, even super viruses etc. Why? Because I believe in devolution, that the world is getting worse..that the world is dying under the weight of sin. As to irreducible complexity in general, I read through the link. Here is how they generally show it to be flawed. 1. They claim it is unscientific because it is not proveable through experimentation. Sure, but neither is macro evolution. 2. They claim that it is unscientific because he does not specifically prhrase a hypothesis. Ok, fine, he didn't play by their rules. They seem to understand the point enough to try to go to great lengths to debunk it. 3. Things can form gradually in a haphazzard way that creates beneficial, but not related results. An example of this is the bombadier beatle. I have heard some eleaborate possible explanations for its development. Here is the problem. A. They don't seem to have one for every example. B. They often simplify, like Darwin's little eye chart where we have...simple sensor...little better sensor etc. They don't actually show the steps, and they certainly don't show actual existing evidence that it ever happened. The latter is the real problem. Again it is all possible conjecture, with no facts. I thought you liked facts? See, any wild theory that evolutionists can come up with to possibly say something happened is then christened as how it must have happened. Now I recognize that IRREDUCIBLE means it can't possibly be. And part of the problem with the whole term is that it confuses the issue, because there are some that could possibly be. So his specific idea is not true in all cases. Fair enough. But that hardly means that it did in fact happen how evolutionists claim. I thought you all dealt with evidence, not wild theories that could maybe have happened. And I am not sure they have sufficiently addressed all examples. The real challenge is for evolutionists to not just sit around endlessly coming up with highly contrived ways things could have happened assuming endless time (which is the whole problem, you don't have endless time), but is to show that things DID happen a certain way. The way they do this is often a circular argument. "Well, it must have happened some way. After all we have BOTH bats and mice!" Hm, perhaps there were just both mice and bats to start with. They assume their own theory, explain how it MIGHT have happened then declare it so. A few cases of this MIGHT be true. But when it is done again and again, it is looking a bit doubtful. In fact, most examples of the evolution of the eye only go so far,....to a fairly primitive model, and then stop. But most eyes, even of ancient species are fairly complex. They fail to go all the way, assuming all the steps are eventually possible. On experiment that your article linked to showed that a very primitive structure could arise in about 360 k generations, or half a million years. That is certainly a short enough time to fit into the timetable of evolution. But one must consider that they were a "continuous series of transitions." Real mutations do not go in endless progress, straight through. In fact, most never make it anywhere. Most are bad. Many die off, killing whatever mutations the organism might have had. If evolution is really the haphazard process that they explain it would take far many more years for it to happen in actual fact. And that is just the very basic eye... even the 150 million year old trilobite eye had a double len's and was fairly complex. Plus it is all based on theoretical developments among unrelated species....one has a light sensor...one has a bit of an eye...etc. Show me an article that shows even a far fetched (as many of these are) possible explanation of each of the separate processes needed for sight in the human eyeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâand then show me how they fit it to the evolutionary time-table: The point was not that things didn't diverge into different lines. I think everyone who believes in evolution would agree with that, and a degree, I would even agree with that. The point is that the Cambrian explosion shows that MULTIPLE STARTS to life come about with no previous chain to connect to. There is a sudden influx of already complex forms with no chain. IE. ...organisms come on the scene with no explanation, no predecessor. Some could say that they were by multiple instances of abiogenesis. This could make sense of it to some degree. But evolutionists are not willing to say this because they realize how difficult even one instance is. See the editorial I linked to earlier for a fuller explanation on this. Ok, so you admit that it is a place to store responses to those who argue against evolution. You don't think any of those people might....actually want to promote evolution do you? I mean...what are their motives? Of course, they are the same as the creationist sites. They want to push for their view. If anything they have LESS of a bar for evidence. You say they must be good because they are referenced...and they wouldn't be responses otherwise. My source listed 50 sources for each article. How were they not good arguments? You are obviously biased simply because you choose to be. The sooner you admit it, the sooner we can get to the real argumentÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâthe specifics of the short earth vs. long earth battle. Gee, at least you have some humility. You only want to explain how the world works. Good to know that. Wouldn't that also be an admission that you are a proponent of ONE view, and therefore are biased? I think so. It is time for you to acknowledge what most people come to intuitively--everyone is biased. It is simply the way life works. But that doesn't mean that there is not evidence to look at. And that is why we SUSPEND bias long enough to try to weight the evidence. Some succeed at this better than others. But to say that one is biased in their actual treatment of facts strictly because they are on one side or the other is illogical. Is their PROCESS biased? That is the question. Incidentally, my goal is to get you to see that you apply a double standard across the board, and are afraid of any source that comes from a "creationist" or short -earth proponent, regardless of whether they use scientific methods. As soon as you can see that there are two competing theories, both applying evidence to support their internally consistent views of the age of the earth, the sooner we can start weighing the evidence on both sides.

Didn't we already cover this? This is the second time you have COMPLETELY FAILED to read what I said. I already said that abiogenesis is a question about ORIGINS not evolution. What is your point? I am not disproving evolution by disproving abiogenesis. I am disproving ABIOGENESIS. People were discussing BOTH origins and evolution here. Why not talk about both in my post? But at least we cleared this much upÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâthat you have no answers on origins, and apparently are a bit sensitive on the point. However, you are dodging the real question. People always say that creationists are unscientific because they posit that God is involved, which is an unscientific position. However, creation itself is a question of ORIGINS, just as abiogenesis is. Let me put it this way abiogenesis vs. Creation short time/polyphyletic origin of species vs long time/monophyletic origin of species In other words, the actual creation is just the same as abiogenesis in its goalÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâto explain how life started. But the real question is how old is the earth? Did all life start from one organism and adapt from there? Or from many and simply adapt less? The real question is did life happen in multiple instances with varying characteristics, or did it evolve. Those are the very questions in contention. And that is the SCIENTIFIC part of the creationist argument. And in fact, it has a lot going for it. Holes in evolution do not disprove evolution? Actually what you have just said is that evolution is by default correct. Holes in any scientific law, which is pretty much how it is regarded, should be of concern, because they tend to cast doubt. That is the nature of science, it does not make absolute claims. The real point of what you are saying however is highly illogical. I would summarize it like this: "As long as evolution is logically consistent it must be what really happened." When you say that the only way to disprove it is to find a contradiction in the theory, you are saying that NO EVIDENCE can actually disprove it, only a poor formulation. Logical consistency is not the hallmark of truth. FACTS are the hallmark of truth. And if evolution and short earth theories both have holes in the facts then both have some explaining to do. I could say that short earth theories are also logically consistent. Therefore they are true. Are you buying that? No I don't think so. In fact what you have done is to say that : a. Creation has holes...it must be wrong b. Evolution has holes....it can't be wrong, because they will be explained soon. And you accuse creationist sites of lying and bias? Give me a break. You asked for a SCIENTIFIC source. I gave you one. So you quoted the questions they don't have answered yet. Let me ask you, why didn't you list the questions that your side has not answered yet? You say they are there, but don't list them. The site I posted lists tons of scientific, reputable sources, and they have the INTEGRITY to say that they don't have all the answers, and even to list the questions they want answers to. That is what you asked for, a TRUTH TELLING site. Then when you get it you complain. In fact, you completely distorted the source by taking pieces from each section? Why didn't you note that all of those were at the end of sections which answered many of the difficult questions? It was a faq meant to tell what is known, and then conceded what we don't know. Where does your side do this? Then you have the gall to say that they So let's get this straight. You want a scientific source, I give you one. One that does not presume all knowledge or even claim that they have all the answers...one that follows the scientific method, and does their own research based on that method, as well as looking at other's work. Then you say they MUST be biased because of their goal. What is the goal of talk origins? I think you will find they quite clearly are apologetics for evolution. So they must too be biased? So let's review your argument: You find no examples of bias but imply that they might be biased because they are creationists, after they have been very careful to be scientific. You rip things from the context, citing parts of a faq as thought they were a whole section of a document, you vaguely mention the questions evolution hasn't answered, you do not list them. Finally you make a double standard that the holes of evolution mean nothing, but the holes of creationism are fatal. I think my friend you are prepared to start your own creationist site any day now. You are distorting big time. Both the short earth folks and the evolutionists are taking EVIDENCE and applying it to their logically consistent theories. If you look at one as automatically flawed, while not listing your own faults, you are the one being biased. Now let's turn to your brief carbon dating explanation: There you a source you provided did answer the carbon question quite simply. Actually it doesn't answer anything. When I made my initial post I used the term RADIOACTIVE dating for a reason. I even made references in my examples to methods other than carbon dating. The quote above that you just posted is the VERY BASIS of the question I posed earlier. Since carbon's half-life is shorter than most, it is only used for short time periods. Therefore, if something is over 1 million years (and often over 100k) there should be NO CARBON LEFT. Yet we don't find this at all. Go read the article I linked to again. I think you will find it informative on the subject. The strong suggestion is that either the radioactive dating model is wrong, or those items are not millions of years old. Now of course, they are careful to make it a scientific argument, and note that it does not stand on its own. Does talk origins do that? Not usually. I have read the rest but am out of time. I will address them later in the day.

Pc magazines recent issue now says the ps3 will launch in Japan in the Spring and holiday season 2006 in the US. So that article so far is dead on with their estimates. They quote the theroetical 2 teraflop processing power. twice as powerful as the x box, so they do give some hint of having bought the more powerful line...but also note that the performance will show the real difference. A big factor might be backwards compatability. Ps will be backwards compatible with all ps1 and 2. The MS system will be only backwards compatible with the most popular titles, and the Nintendo system will actually allow download of classic nintendo titles from the early days (now that would be cool, finally a legal alternative to the emulators). I don't own a console, and with the price of games, not sure I will. But how much do media hub features mean to you all? Because they are both packing them in.

Please post new information in a new post once a reply has been made by someone else. I missed your edit on your post about sources for some time. So far you addressed none of my specifics other than to agree (while pretending not to) with the first few paragraphs. Rather than say how easy it is to refute it, why not actually do so? I generally do not read a lot of online material, but fortunately I now found that one of the journals I really enjoy, from a more scholarly bent, is online. The site is ugly, but at least the info is there. They have the back issues from 1975 to the present there (strangely with 1975 first, but just scroll down). It is bi-anual, and is a great little informative source. http://www.grisda.org/origins/ndx-yr.htm Each issue generally deals with at least one specific issue, such as reversals of the earth's polarity, or Dedrochronology compared to carbon dating, etc. They also have an editorial and some literature reviews. For instance, this article is a look at the issue I raised at one point, the fact that there is residual carbon remaining in very old samples. You seem to have covered it in your edit. http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm You will find that it does list all of the scientific sources so that you may look them over. Although sometimes it makes references to earlier experiments or articles by the same group. You can always look those up to see their base line sources, since they are also in the index. In all the bibliography includes over 50 sources. The article explains how contamination is not likely to be all that great ,etc. They look at three forms of contaminiation. I suggest you take a look at it. Another article deals with the functionality of what was once thought to be junk DNA. This would reinforce my discussion of Heldane's Dillemma etc. (not that actually agree that Heldane's formulation is the best, I noted that in my first post, but it does raise the issue). http://www.grisda.org/origins/53007.pdf This Editorial sample deals with the argument that science is always proving religion wrong over time...(Gallileo, etc.) Here is a brief excerpt:

Your challenge here makes no sense: Do you mean evolutionary sources? That would make more sense to your overall argument. On the question of origins, I already said that origins was sepereate from evolution, but often taught along side it. What do you prove by posting a definition as though it were a novel thought? You just sound condescending, when actually you simply restate my own point. The rest of my post goes on to deal with evolution. But since a large amount of the debate within this thread has dealt with origins, and blended it with evolution, my post was completely justifiable. I differentiated between the two. However, you ultimately have to show a materialistic beginning to this life that evolved. So the two theories are not completely seperate. a. they both suppose a purely materialistic world. b. they both depend upon long time periods, which of course many creationists dispute anyway. There fore it makes sense to dispute both if you have a radically different viewpoint on these presuppositions. I will also note , that I find it frequently happens that evolutionists will NOT chellenge this view of origins until someone actually presents good evidence that even scientists don't really accept it. Then they back away and say "oh, I can see that you are dense because you confuse this with origins." Why didn't you say anything all this time with the other posts? Why was everyone content to think that the production of amino acids was proof of it before? Surely you knew all of this. The two are linked, and if you can't defend it, just say so. As for sources, You quoted a few articles from talk origins. I find however that they tend to simply do what every other site, Christian or otherwise, does. They justify their own position, even if they have to do some rather obscure reasoning. This is EXPECTED. Now some might indeed be more scientific in their approach. But what I was referring to was that some consider ANY creationist source to be by default wrong. Incidentally, I referred to your using talk origins, but I was referring to someone else when talking about people rejecting all creationist sources. I don't think you necessarily doI actually prefer to take both sides, assume they are biased ,and see which points are accepted by both as a spot for starting. Here is one short quote from a talk origins article on mutations. It shows the kind of reasoning I am talking about. Of those that have significant effect [mutations}, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial. So they initially at mid that the most are harfmful. But then they try to turn it around and say, most are good. No actually most are NEUTRAL, some are harmful, and a very small few are good. But they take that and turn it into good ones are really plentiful--which is the only way to show that certain parts of evolution could happen within the time frame (see the rest of my earlier post). I await your thoughts on the rest of my post. And try to at least give credit where we agree, instead of citing that we don't and then piling on because of it, when in fact we do. I will give you credit on your strong points, but not if you gloss over anything else. Which is precisely what most articles on both sides do.

Paul. agreed, that is IF you accept the Genesis account. You might read the last three paragraphs or so of my post right above yours as it addresses the issue And all 8 pages only took roughly 30 minutes :) It won't hurt you!

lol, well THAT is sure to get you respect. Mad cash....why not just go get rune mining ? worked for me.

I find it fascinating that talk origins is taken as a credible source but any pro-creationist one is not. Let's at least be consistent. And I have seen some logical leaps in the talk origins stuff too. More on that later for those interested. As to my views (sorry this will be long) ..there may be evidence for evolution (adaptation), without doubt on the micro level, but there is not much evidence for spontaneous generation of life, which is often taught along with it. This is why origins are certainly separate from evolution. I don't buy into the usual theory of evolution though. I actually think what we see today is the result of DEVOLUTION (see below). First on to the origins question. Someone mentioned earlier the Urey-Miller experiment where they replicated amino acids. This is true...however, they didn't replicate ALL of them. Then they still had to speculate that some components were brought by extra-terrestial influences, whether meteors or actual aliens. The real problem is that, once formed, would these actually continue to develop or even survive? The ideal environment includes vast oceans for the necessary oxygen in the formula. But the physical presence of water and specifically oxygen seems to be problematic for forming life. So they speculate that the whole process took place on rocks floating in the water...hm....seems a bit convenient. The earliest life happened with elements from space, some natural ones, the proper gasses in the environment, a bit of lightning...and....viola. Now we have life which takes off and develops. A few quotes from wikipedia's article on spontaneous generation theories illustrates the unlikelyhood of the whole scenario: Moreover, the whole process breaks down with oxygen present which there are some indications it was (especially with all that ...water). ie. You don't have the required materials, you may not have the right conditions, and even if you did there is no evidence it would work anyway. In short scientists who speculate about the spontaneous generation of life have made a god out of gas, scum, water and lots of time. Just because you stipulate tons of time does not mean something is going to happen. Some evolutionist scientists are recognizing this and are simply falling back to alien seeding as the only...ahem, rational.... solution. Now we won't get in to where the aliens come from. And as sad as I see this explanation to be , it is at least intellectually honest. But it points out a typical formulation for those who hold this view of origins. If you can't explain the data as it is then postulate that lots of time, or some unkown conditions on another planet will make sense of it. If the only way life could form spontaneously is for there to be a certain combination of gasses, water, etc...then it must have been that way. Kind of like evolutionists accuse religious folks of using religion to fill in the gaps of knowledge. Only scientists do the same with time and aliens. I think of the two I prefer God. Origins are by far the weakest argument of the evolutionist...though the two are really separate. One refers to creation of life, the other to properties observed in life. I would say the strongest argument evolutionists have would be radioactive dating. Even then carbon dating for instance, when compared with other forms of dating such as dendrochronology etc. seems less than accurate. Of course carbon is not the one used to substantiate long periods due to the half life, but it does raise questions about the process in general. For that matter, when you can only see a minute part of the whole time frame how do you know that there are not factors which radically adjust what we assume are very set principles. With radioactive dating there are two variables that we really have no empiracle data concerning. Those are 1. whether half lifes are the same no matter what the factors. In fact there seems to be evidence that under certain conditions half lifes do change. 2. Are the actual original proportions of isotopes consistent? Are there factors which change them? This one would be impossible to know in the remote past. Here are some other sources which raise questions about the methods: You also have the problem that known items don't match up... Another dilemma: there are many, including the fact that various dating methods don't match up on the same item. For more information on these and other problems, including the vast array of indications of a young earth see here: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html The geologic column itself could actually favor creationists due to lack of transitional forms, the seeming reversals of strata in various locations, the presence of species in strata where they don't belong, seeming rapid changes in species, etc. These factors have indeed led to changes in the theory of in gradualism, such as punctuated equilibrium, or catastrophism, the idea that we don't see gradual ultimately predictable changes, but long periods of little change with sudden times of much change. The change of animals, even species level change, might be verifiable. Why not teach that? What is debated is whether animals can change beyond their Genus. While we have the time to observe the one, we don't to observe the other. The fact that birds could change their beaks over time is a bit different than a dinosaur turning into a bird for instance. We even have cases of sterilization when some animals with different characteristics mate (mules for instance). This might indicate an upper ceiling on diversity. In fact, since I am on that subject, I think that the observation of Darwin on the changes that take place rapidly due to niches could have a definite application to the concept of a Genesis flood event. Let me lay out what I see as the likely scenario, along with a few explanatory principles of the scenario. a. mutations tend to be deleterious, not beneficial. The likelyhood of a single beneficial mutation being prolonged, and actually becomging dominant is unlikely. It would take many generations to happen, and often times would mean that the whole group of creatures who previously occupied that niche would have to be so disadvantaged as to dissapear completely. An unlikely event. One well adapted creature with a slight evolutionary change is not going to suddenly displace droves of nearly as well adapted creatures and then become the model. b. devolution is more likely than evolution. This is related to the above.if most mutations are bad. And the majority of those that actually take are bad, with only a precious few being good, then I think devolution is what we should expect to see. This is the case with say cave fish or dodos, that once had sight, or flight ability, but because they didn't need it in their new environment they lost it eventually. Moreover, the big buzz term among creationists lately is irreducible complexity, folowing Behe's work on the subject, "Darwin's Black Box." The classic scenarios are of course blood clotting, the eye, etc. A system which requires multiple, interdependet, irreducibly complex structures, all of which must be functioning for one part to have any meaning can not come about through gradual change. Because their would be no advantage whatsoever to one part of an eye without another. So then rather than expound how these came into being Darwin simply charted the various stages...a sensor...a bit more complex here, a bit more color there, etc. But he doesn't explain how these intricately designed systems in later eyes, that need every part to work, suddenly came onto the scene fully working. You can't evolve parts that all need to be there to work. Because a partial system gives no genetic advantage at all. the idea of irreducible complexity comes from Darwin himself, in his book "Origin of the Species." He wrties, The eye is the most popular argument polemically speaking because Darwin supposedly referenced this concept in the following quote, in a letter to a friend, though the reliability of this I am not qualified to say: The upshot is that there are parts of the complex eye that require all other parts to be there to have any function whatsoever. There would be no reason to gradually develop those parts that had no function until all were combined. Darwin's succession of simple eye concepts ignores the fact that even the 150 million year old trilobite eye had a double len's and was fairly complex. Early eyes don't seem to be all that simple. They require a system which cannot come about slowly because they give no benefit until complete. A simpler example of the concept is the bat. Now some would note that vampire bats actually do get around on the ground fairly well. True enough...but BETTER than if they had wings? I don't think so. They would be an obstacle. So we see an enigma. Mutations happen slowly. But you have then to answer why they would happen at all? Why would they take hold in a population when a small change makes no difference? So for instance, lets say a creature with a slightly longer limb would have a greater chance of survival. But would a microscopic change per generation make any difference? Of course part of the answer is that you are using averages. The idea is that there is variation all the time, and those at the longer end would be prolonged. rather than a .005 change per generation you would actually see....one with a fairly longer limb...which stays...then another eventually with longer yet...which stays.. But all of this assumes a ton of rather unlikely conclusions. That the new creature would even survive to further this new mutation...that it would successfully mate, especially given it is a mutant...that it will take hold in the population...or even that creatures with longer limbs give birth to more creatures with longer limbs. We see that doesn't even happen today with regularity. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I am 6'11, but my dad was 5'11". There is no readily available reason for why my brother and I are so tall as none of our immediate ancestors are, other than genetic diversity. So even if we go on to have kids ( I have some, but the data is still out! )...what guarantees that this genetic mutation would in fact be preserved? Diversity might simply be a phenomenon which has fixed limits, rather than a means to further develop new traits. Let's take deer populations. It is readily observed that deer populations go through changes in weight, stature etc. sometimes based on adaptations to environmental conditions. But we certainly haven't seen a change over time to say...giant deer. What we see is they fluctuate over observably short periods of times from larger to smaller, etc. based on the already present diversity. Those that are best suited to survive based on their already present diverse traits stay for a generation...but conditions might change the next generation and they are not favored. We don't see even nominal changes towards lasting genus level changes, but instead we see continual fluctuation within parameters to meet the situation. In other words, diversity within limits. For that matter I saw some referring to the transition from apes to men. This is of course actually not what evolution claims. They instead claim that we evolved from a common pre-human ancestor. But there is debate about whether the time given for the change from pre human man (Australopithecus, etc.) is sufficient to account for the change in the genome. See, it is fine and well to say that over millions of years you can have one species change to another. But once you tie it to a timetable, as you have to do by dating pre human fossils, then you have to prove that the time table is real. The famous case being the roughly 3 percent difference in the genome between chimps and man. It was proposed that there was not near enough time in the proposed fossil record for mutations to result in 3 percent change to the genome. This was then debated by evolutionists, and is to this day. Haldane's delimma is the classic formulation. You can find the actual delimma and its would be debunkers on a simple web search. Here is the dilemma in a nutshell: Now of course the actual dilemma has some flaws. a. it assumes only one mutation per generation..ie that they would only happen one at a time. b. It assumes that the whole non- mutated population must die off and be replaced by mutated specimens. These are problems, but they don't really address the real issue. It is still rather COMPLETELY unlikely that you would get one positive mutation per generation. That is why he states he is giving a rather impossible scenario that favors evolution. They of course say his scenario was unrealistic...but that was the point. It is unrealistic in a way that favors evolution. Getting one positive one is absurdly unlikely. Getting one that lasts and predominates is even more unlikely. Having all that happen still doesn't allow time for the scenario presented. Second whether the population dies off or is substituted immediately doesn't matter. You are still postulating one positive net mutation per generation which actually is preserved in some population. Even then you are WAY short of the necessary 2 to 3 percent of the genome in the required time. Of course the other solution some offer is to say that we don't know the actual genome difference between humans and their ancestors millions of years ago. It is not necessarily true that they were the same as a chimp. True enough. But given that both the chimp and the human had a common ancestor a ways back, wouldn't it make some sense to say that the ancient common ancestor was LESS EVOLVED THAN EITHER THE CHIMP OR THE HUMAN? Otherwise evolution sure isn't doing it's job. A more substantial answer is that some of the 3 percent difference, perhaps a great deal, involves neutral, non beneficial differences. This could well be. But the point is the evolutionists have to show how that kind of change could in fact happen in that amount of time, whether beneficial or not. c. The biblical account fits better with devolution than evolution. You have the degeneration of creatures due to the introduction of sin. They go from perfect to imperfect. From a genetic standpoint we would say that the original creation, according to its Genesis "kinds" would be more genetically diverse than that of today. Over time animals have devolved. We see this phenomenon in sightless fish, flightless birds etc. It is especially true when a niche does not provide competition. Only because, as the evolutionist would agree, the devolved creatures would be killed off otherwise. This is in fact precisely the type of situation we would see after a Genesis type flood. You have a very limited population that would spread out over large areas of now competitor free niches. It would lead to a huge amount of seeming diversity, which would really be devolution into various new forms due to lack of competition in new niches. Creatures that could not survive before now could. Certain creatures would be lost in a flood...dinos etc. And certain species would simply die out, perhaps after the flood etc. By the way devolution from very diverse genetics to less diverse, with new species created by niches would explain why all the animals could fit in the ark as well. Their was less diversity among actual creatures, but more genetic potential diversity which eventually expressed itself in various species and sub-species. So my general view would be that the earth is short-aged...not tied to exactly 6k years. We also see definite variation at the species and even genus level, and adaptation as well. But I see a fixed limit to this variation, and I don't see new genus level creatures being formed over time. Rather I see variation based on competition within a fixed scheme. In fact on a whole we see a process of devolution, and the inescapable conclusion that things are getting worse, not better. Not only does this make sense to me from a scientific view, but also from a biblical view which shows the earth subject to the decay of sin. The upshot is that all the pieces of evidence are just that. They are evidence which both sides disagree over. Both have strong points and drawbacks. To me creation makes more sense, both by my faith and by science, so I go for it. There are also a good number of people here discussing theistic evolutionÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâthe idea that God created THROUGH the process of evolution. That is fine, but if you accept that then you have trouble reconciling it to the biblical account (which I realize is only a problem for Christians or Jews who take a literal reading). How can you have a perfect man (Adam) with no sin, no death in the world, no decay, if everything everything evolved based on a system of death and decay and imperfection? Was there a fall? How did sin start? How can God blame man for acting out on millions of years of evolutionary process? I don't doubt by the way the translation of the Hebrew "Yom." It certainly is ambigiuos in some settngs. However, given it lists numerical references that does limit it, given in that context it is always literal days in the scriptural usage. Not only that but the whole "evening and morning" thing is pretty clearly indicating literal time periods. This whole issue though pales in comparison to the endless problems one has in reconciling evolution with theological understandings of a. the nature of man (in the image of God) b. The nature and origin of sin c. universal depravity, etc. For these reasons I am not big on theistic evolution. It is a theory meant to reconcile religious people to the view of evolution because they think the evidence is overwhelming. As the rest of my post states I don't think it is overwhelming at all, and skewing what the Bible says to fit theories is not good theology OR good science. Having said that, if Genesis is not a foundational document to you, then I can see how theistic evolution makes good sense.

Quer skull did a couple of walkthroughs. Check these links. http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=207080 http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=82865