Even though the Black Sea flood was not a global flood, but just a local flooding of a small area around the Black Sea, they are quite happy to say the Black Sea flood was Noah’s Flood. They say that the Bible got it wrong. Not so. They are the ones who got it wrong. They have dismissed the evidence for the real, global, Flood of Noah, and wrongly linked a local flood that occurred many hundreds of years afterwards.

There was a worldwide Flood (Noah’s Flood) because the Bible describes it, and does so in considerable detail. And we find evidence around us that fits with what the Bible says.

For example, all over the world, even on the highest mountains we find the remains of dead creatures that have been buried in mud and sand laid down by huge watery catastrophe. These fossils are of marine and terrestrial animals and are buried everywhere. We also find lots of vegetation that has been buried by the Flood, and this has turned to coal and oil and we use it for fuel.

Beyond Doubt – Christianity is True – Atheism is False http://bit.ly/5vtvvF

On to your questions…

1) The origin of life is still somewhat mysterious, but as I’ve covered on this blog previously, some noteworthy work at Manchester University has shown that conditions during the so called primordial soup were conducive to the formation of RNA, the precursor to DNA. There are still some gaps in our knowledge in this area (rather large gaps, truth be told), but it’s something that’s being actively worked upon and progress is being made.

2) I’m sure a geneticist or biologist could give you a better answer in this one, but as I understand it, changes to the number of chromosomes fall under the standard mutation banner. As for the rate of these changes, I have to throw my hands up and admit I don’t know.

What we do know is that differing in the number of chromosomes from your parents can be severely debilitating, but not necessarily so. We also know that the human chromosome 2 can be traced back to the merging of two ape-like chromosomes which are still present, and separate, in apes.

We know that an organism with x number of chromosomes is not necessarily precluded from breeding with an organism with Y number of chromosomes (look at Down’s Syndrome sufferers for example, who can have children with non-sufferers or the way horses with differing numbers of chromosomes are inter-bred). What’s most important is whether the genetic information can be passed on, rather than the number of chromosomes per se.

I’m sure that if I did a bit of research I could find a more satisfactory answer to your question, but unfortunately I’m short on time at the moment. In my mind, there’s nothing that jives with my understanding of evolution when it’s looked at from the chromosome point of view.

3) As I’m sure you’re aware, we share many personality traits with the great apes that tend to be fairly unique in the animal kingdom, although clearly we are further developed. Again, I’m no expert in the field (far from it in fact), but as I’ve had it described to me, there are numerous theories, most concern the evolution of human intelligence to allow us to care for our particularly helpless young (relative to most young animals). I’ve also heard of theories concerning our ability to operate within large and complex social groups.

It stands to reason that organisms that are self-aware and in control of their instincts are better suited for large social groups. That seems like a positive mutation that would be beneficial when looked at from a natural selection point of view. Especially given that the environment in which pre-humans were living during the time this development was believed to be happening was constantly changing, exposing them to new threats.

I hope that goes some way to explain my view on those points. As I said, I’m no expert although I do take an interest in these areas. I’m more than happy to admit where there’s a gap in my knowledge but I always strive to improve. It’s very comforting knowing that there are scientists out there who are also striving to improve their understanding of the world and sharing the results with the rest of us.

The idea of millions of years did not come from the scientific facts. It was developed by deistic and atheistic geologists in the late 18th and early 19th century. These men used anti-biblical philosophical and religious assumptions to interpret the geological observations in a way that plainly contradicted the biblical account of creation, the Flood and the age of the earth.

That’s just a lie. Scientists struggled for many years, centuries in fact, trying to establish the age of the earth (and subsequently the age of the universe). Before radiometric dating many theories were posited, all of which had flaws. Carbon dating, for example, was only accurate to a point (~20 million years) and was found to be altered by external forces. A particular problem with carbon dating was the contamination of samples with particles from other substances. As the sample became older, the greater the impact of these contaminations, making it particularly unreliable hen looking at older samples. You’ll also find that Willard Libby’s decay constant of Carbon-14 was off by about 3%, hence almost all dates derived from carbon dating are off by at least 3% (the constant was on the low side, so add 3% to any figures, but they’re so inaccurate it’s not even worthwhile). This, as you may or may not be aware, means that because of the decay rate of carbon-14 a single contaminate particle can throw the estimate off by 50% when looking at the oldest samples.

Radiometric dating, on the other hand, is as reliable as clockwork. In fact, the most accurate clocks in the world (known as atomic clocks) use the same technique as radiometric dating. Arthur Holmes, the spiritual father of radio metric dating as we understand it (although you could say the same of Ernest Rutherford) was a geologist and, as far as I can tell, had no religious affiliations. In fact, he ran a curio shop at one point.

The great thing about radiometric dating is it’s reliability. As Thunderf00t put it in one of his “Why do people laugh at creationists?” videos that I linked you to, if you can find a way to change the decay rate of rocks there are thousands of nuclear physicists who would like to have a word with you. You’ll be a millionaire overnight. The error rate of uranium-led radiometric dating is less than 2 million years in 2.5 billion years.

It’s also worth pointing out that there was a significant amount of resistance in the scientific community to the age of the earth as determined by radiometric dating. One of the problems is that it put the earth as being far older than originally thought. In fact, the figures were saying that the earth was significantly older than the universe. of course, the age of the universe has since been recalculated. You’re right that they didn’t understand the geological facts, in fact there was some debate as to where all the “old” rocks had gone (a man called Clair Patterson was the first to attempt to date the earth using radiometric dating, and he had problems finding old rocks). Now we know that “old” rocks are subsumed by plate movements and drifts.

Radiometric dating methods do not prove millions of years. Radiometric dating was not developed until the early 20th century, by which time much of the whole world had already accepted the millions of years assumption.

You’re absolutely right! At the time, the most popular estimates for the age of the earth based on numerous techniques (e.g. carbon dating, thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance) was somewhere between 20 and 200 million years. Radiometric absolutely did not prove the millions of years theory, but rather the billions of years. This new, infallible, technique meant the world had to change its accepted figures.

I’d whole heartedly recommend looking into how scientists get the figures the get for the age of the earth, it’s truly fascinating and sits rather uncomfortably between physics and geology.

This is what really hurts your worldview of Darwinian Evolution and millions of years. Noahâ��s Flood would produce exactly the kind of complex geological record we see today worldwide: thousands of feet of sediments clearly deposited by water and later hardened into rock and containing billions of fossils. If the year-long Flood is responsible for most of the rock layers and fossils, then those rocks and fossils cannot represent the history of the earth over millions of years, as evolutionists claim. Without your millions of years, that gives more reason for God to really exist and you don’t like that do you?

The idea of millions of years did not come from the scientific facts. It was developed by deistic and atheistic geologists in the late 18th and early 19th century. These men used anti-biblical philosophical and religious assumptions to interpret the geological observations in a way that plainly contradicted the biblical account of creation, the Flood and the age of the earth. Most church leaders and scholars quickly compromised using the gap theory, day-age view, local flood view, etc. to try to fit �deep time� into the Bible. But they did not understand the geological arguments nor did they defend their views by careful Bible study. The �deep time� idea flows out of naturalistic assumptions, not scientific observations.

Radiometric dating methods do not prove millions of years. Radiometric dating was not developed until the early 20th century, by which time much of the whole world had already accepted the millions of years assumption. For many years creation scientists have cited many examples in the published scientific literature of these dating methods clearly giving erroneous dates (e.g., a date of millions of years for lava flows that occurred in the past few hundred years or even decades). In recent years creationists in the �RATE project� have done experimental, theoretical and field research to uncover more such evidence (e.g., diamonds and coal, which the evolutionists say are millions of years old, were dated by carbon-14 to be only thousands of years old) and to show that decay rates were orders of magnitude faster in the past, which shrinks the millions of years dates to thousands of years, confirming the Bible.

CLASS: Mammalia (mammal)

ORDER: Carnivora (meat-eating)

FAMILY: Felidae (cat kind)

What part of “cat kind” do you not understand? Did you not read the later part of my last reply? Children understand it.

Cats have always been and will always be cats from the cat kind. One can observe different species within a group or kind (usually at the family level of classification)�but that has nothing to do with changing one kind into a different kind, which is ultimately what Darwinian evolution is all about.

Textbooks present evolution in two different ways�small, observable changes (natural selection, speciation, adaptation) and large, unobservable changes (molecules-to-man evolution). They show evidence for the former and then conclude that this proves that the latter took place as well.

As our understanding of genetics has improved, it has become increasingly clear that mutations + time + chance do not equal evolution. All observed mutations demonstrate a loss of genetic information from the genetic code, or they are neutral. Evolution claims that the process has no direction or goal. If you look at the complexity of the �first� organism, it must be accepted that a massive amount of information has been produced to explain the variety of life we see today. Mutations cannot generate new genetic information; so they cannot be used to explain how evolution has proceeded from a cell with less information than is present in modern cells.

“For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” Charles Darwin, “Origin of Species”

I agree with most of what you say. You may be surprised that the father of geology was a Catholic Bishop! His biography is enlightening in coming to understand how faith and science are not in opposition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Steno

As I understand it, there are still 3 basic problem areas with evolutionary theory:

1) the origin of life itself (life from non-life). I accept that there are many theories about this around, but that there is, as yet, no scientific consensus let alone proof.

2) The problem of “kinds” (sorry I don’t know the technical word). In particular, how an animal with X chromosomes could evolve into something with a different number. This is a chance to educate me: is it true that this would have to be a sudden increment? If so, how does this square with a gradual mutation type theory. [Incidentally the father of genetics is also a Catholic priest, Gregor Mendel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel ]

3) The specific problem of human intelligence. There is a lack of continuity here with the capacity of self-reflection which allows a “gap” for free will between instinct and its expression. (eg we don’t just eat when hungry or even in a genetically-determined way, but can decide to go on a hunger strike, or spend the whole day preparing a meal etc, can use knives and forks to make it easier for us etc……)

In other words, there is still plenty of work for scientists to do before evolution is established definitively. I think we all accept natural variation… even @GospelToday. I am genuinely interested in your thoughts.