[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

This has been explained by countless Creation Scientists. The account of the flood says that 2 of every kind was kept with the exception of a few species where more was kept. In other words the Ark didn't need more than two members of the canine family or deer family and so on. The variations we see since the flood are the variations within species we see today. Also it would make sense for the young to be taken which would require less space. If God drew all these animals to the Ark it would follow that He would have also had a hand in preserving them and dispersing them.

Not really, there's a wide variation among creationists as to if kinds were on the ark, or all species were on the ark.

And has been asked of countless creation "scientists" a) define kind (there is no rigorous definition, it all goes back to hand waving) so that this can be examined and b) the rate of evolution required after the flood FAR exceeds any observed rate of evolution. So on one hand creation scientists say that there is insufficient evolutionary change possible to create new species (or kinds even though to say something can't happen when something hasn't been defined makes no sense) even given millions or billions of years, then in the next breath they claim that tens or hundreds of thousands of new species evolved rapidly over a few hundred years, without identifying the mechanism behind such a rapid evolution, or providing any evidence that such a rapid rate is even possible.

I've never seen anything remotely close to actual science referring to "kinds" or actually demonstrating how any of what you claim is possible. And these are PERFECT claims with which to make inroads on, if there was actual scientific data to support them then they should be published.

Though I know your answer to that, that there's a grand conspiracy among atheistic scientists (ignoring the fact that a large # of scientists aren't atheists).. and when you get into grand conspiracy theory territory, well it's easy to see how credible those kinds of claims are.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

That's because when you look at layers beneath the earth's surface you see millions of years of slow evolution. I see layers of sediment left over by a world wide flood. After all that's how a fossil is formed: the Animal or plant must be quickly covered by sediment to avoid scavengers and allow the minerals to slowly leech in to the space where the bones are slowly disintegrating.

What you or I see doesn't matter, what you can demonstrate through a coherent theory in geology matters. And your view is based on ignorance of geology; the idea that the various layers (google varves) could all have been laid down by a global flood has been seen as foolish by geologists for over a hundred years. By Christian geologists.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Science doesn't have genetics to work with; They have fossils.

Incorrect. If you notice the words I used I said "extant" species, that means species that are alive today. Through genetics you can analyze the genes in a living population and if there was a bottleneck in the past.. i.e. if the population was reduced to a very small number of individuals, you can see it in the genetics of every individual that is alive. This has been show in various species at various times, but what is lacking is a genetic bottleneck in ALL species at one specific time in the past. So again that either means the flood did not happen, or that someone messed with all the genes after the fact in such a way to hide the evidence and make it look like the species didn't have a bottleneck far past the time of the flood. If the latter, that's an important theological question.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Fossils are not produced except in extraordinary conditions. If they were and evolution was true one would expect to easily track the evolution of mankind.

So first you say fossils require extraordinary, then you say it should be easy to track.. seems like a contradiction. Either way, they have tracked the evolution of mankind, quite extensively. I've provided some resources for you if you want to actually learn about it.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Beyond the flood those conditions have been rarely met. I suppose the floods produced by Mount Saint Helens is a contemporary example of such conditions being produced but, they don't happen enough to show any bottleneck.

Nor would they unless most of the individuals in a population were wiped out. I don't know of any species that resides around only Mount Saint Helens that could have had 99% of its individuals wiped out. However there are other species where similar situations occured around volcanoes where you can see the genetic bottleneck in modern individuals.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Your problem as always is in your interpretation of the evidence. History is 5% evidence and 95% supposition based on that 5% evidence. Any science based on history cannot be embraced with the same confidence as science confirmed by the scientific method. It's too easy to see something in your grilled cheese sandwich that's not there.

That's because you are unaware of a huge amount of the evidence, and a huge amount of the actual science that goes on, as well as the methodologies themselves. You can't make conclusions in science based on 95% supposition. When assumptions are made there are CLEARLY defined and very clearly shown how they impact the results.. that is basic science, of those things are not included then a paper wouldn't be published.

If there wasn't a single fossil and the only thing we had to work with was the genetic evidence, then evolution would still be undeniable. This is the same kind of genetic evidence that proponents of the death penalty trust to condemn someone to be executed.

Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish" is a very good read for non-genetics experts about the genetic evidence.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Legions of scientists and billions of dollars have been spent over the last 100 years looking for evidence to demonstrate this Universe could come into being without a Creator. Today we know much more about the natural world. It's too bad the lines between what we know and what scientists are hoping they are seeing has become so blurred.

Incorrect, legions of scientists and billions of dollars have been spent following the evidence to it's logical conclusions, regardless of the outcome. You are projecting your own method (presume the conclusion you desire then look for evidence to support it) onto others.

There's even proof for what I say. Before, cosmologists thought the universe was steady-state; it had always been there forever. Then Hubble came along and all the new data pointed to an expanding universe. Many scientists didn't like the new model because it implies a beginning of the universe, which can be viewed as having religious connotations. However because of the data and science done, they were FORCED to accept it. Now no reasonable scientist rejects the big bang history. A few do, but do so based not on the evidence, but on their dislike of the religious implications. No one takes them seriously because they don't base their views on the evidence, but on the implications of the evidence.

Just like most "creation scientists". They're not ignored and marginalized because the scientific community doesn't like what they say. They're ignored because those creation scientists reject things in science based on if it agrees with their specific interpretations of a book written thousands of years ago, evidence be damned.

So why don't you read those books I've recommended and learn what the evidence really says? If cost is an issue, I can get copies for you.