Sakura Pryde: Your claim has long since been debunked by actual geologists, instead of people who want it to be true.

From Wikipedia, I bolded notable things:

"Near Dinosaur Valley State Park, in the limestone deposits along the Paluxy River, "twin sets" tracks were found in the Glen Rose Formation as early as 1908. These footprints have been cited by young-Earth creationists as evidence against evolutionary theory. However, at least one major proponent of this claim, John D. Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, now admits the claim is not well supported by the evidence, that the alleged human tracks may in fact be dinosaurian, and that the tracks near Glen Rose do not support the claim that humans and non-avian dinosaurs coexisted. John Morris and other young-Earth creationists continue to believe that humans and non-avian dinosaurs lived at the same time, a notion that is contrary to the standard view of the geological time scale. This view is the basis for displays at the Creation Evidence Museum in nearby Glen Rose. However, in a rebuttal, biologist Massimo Pigliucci has noted that geologists in the 1980s "clearly demonstrated that no human being left those prints," but rather "they were in fact metatarsal dinosaur tracks, together with a few pure and simple fakes."


"The family of George Adams, the man who originally made the claims, later admitted it was a hoax. "My grandfather was a very good sculptor," said Zana Douglas, from the Adams family who found many of Glen Rose’s real dinosaur tracks. She explained that in the 1930s and the Depression, Glen Rose residents made money by making moonshine and selling dinosaur fossils.[6]The fossils brought $15 to $30 and when the supply ran low, George Adams, Zana's grandfather "just carved more, some with human footprints thrown in."

-en.wikipedia.org "Glen Rose Formation"

And here's a link to the article in the New York Times at the time of its official proclamation as a hoax:
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/17/science/fossils-of-man-tracks-shown-to-be-dinosaurian.html

Sakura Pryde : I would first, before anything, like to address the man prints in Glen Rose Teas. Are the tracks real? Yes. Are they man? No. That was confirmed already. Here is an explanation on that. First off, the 'manprints' do not have the same anatomy of human footprints. The only reason why they were at first thought to have been man was because the middle toe was present in them. But a little more on that in a second. When comparing the footprints of both the confirmed dinosaurs and the once believed humans, you run into problems. First off, both sets of footprints sunk to the same depth in the rock. This would mean that the human that made those prints would have had to have been about the same size/weight as the dinosaurs that they supposedly walked alongside. Using the dinosaur footprints to identify what dinosaur most likely made them, it is shown that their weight is significantly different than humans, therefore those other prints could not have been human. Second, you compare the strides. The strides of the confirmed dinosaur footprints and the supposed human footprints that sunk to the same depth also showed that they had near identical stride distance. Again, after identifying the most likely dinosaur to make the dino prints, it doesn't match up. It was poor archaeology work when it was determined that those were human footprints. But aside from the depth of the rock depression and the strides, there were other factors later found. When the footprints were observed by Glen Kuban, it was determined that these were not human, but a 3 three clawed dinosaur. Of all the footprints that were claimed to be human, MOST of them showed signs of three claw marks at the front, a claw mark in the back, or both. Only a few select didn't have claw marks, and those were the ones that suffered the most erosion. At first, because a middle toe was observed in those eroded prints, it was immediately declared human. But upon inspection of the distance and position of this middle toe, it did not fit with how a human print erodes. 

But I'll take the study even further past the possible differences in speculation. Even if they were human footprints, the deposits do not make sense for the argument that they were running from a great flood. At this site, there were thousands of feet of water-deposited sedimentary rock beneath the footprints AND several thousand feet on top. Going by the creationist explanation, all that deposit below and above the footprints came from the same food the the footprints were fleeing. Here is the problem with that. For this to have happened that way, the thousands of feet deposit would have had to happen to an early high tide of the Great Flood. That flood would have then had to recede long enough for humans and dinosaurs to run across, leaving their prints in the mud. Now here is the kicker. If they were fleeing from a Great Flood, then there is no way for those tracks to have been hardened enough before the flood came through that area. The tracks made in the mud would be covered by the tidal wave and sealed with more mud without being damaged. Doesn't work like that. On top of that, the flood was supposed to have happened in 40 days. Therefore, this could not have been some single giant flood. 

As for Carbon-14 dating, you are right. Something like prolonged exposure to saline solution would render Carbon-14 dating ineffective for dating samples. But the thing is, Carbon-14 dating isn't even remotely the only radioactive decay system used. Many others are not affected by saline solution. It isn't like they just stick with Carbon dating. The correct radioactive decay measurements are taken in the appropriate situations. 

As for the possibility of a great flood, it breaks way too many impossibilities to have happened. The amount of water needed to make a flood like that of Global proportion is WAY more water than we even have on the planet. The amount of water on the ground we have here would only have 1% of the water needed. That means 99% of it would have to have been sky water. Simple knowledge of the water cycle shows that that couldn't happen unless the planet somehow received 99 times the amount of water it already had from somewhere else, and then all that water would have had to have left the planet completely, which doesn't happen as long as we have an intact atmosphere. Water couldn't just leave the Earth. But that detail doesn't even matter compared to the next problem. For every mountain to have been covered by rainfall over a period of 40 days, it would have to fall at 6 inches per minute. For a level 5 hurricane, you are looking at 6 inches of rainfall per hour. No way an arc built with comparatively primitive technology would have been able to survive through that. It would have been torn apart. On top of that, the heat generated from water traveling and impacting at that speed on the food surface would have been more than enough to boil the flood water. That would cause it to not be able to rise anyway, therefore the world could not have been covered by the Great Flood. In all honesty, I have about 8 more topics focusing just on the water part alone that show that a Global Flood could not have happened. But I'll only continue that if you really want me to.

So that takes out the possibility of a flood being a cataclysmic geological event that could have thrown off back mapping. As far as back mapping, as you asked about, it doesn't matter if it was witnessed to be written down in text. As far as continental drifting goes, that is constant. Our planet, as any rocky planet, has fault lines. That is where crust emerges in the rock cycle. Those fault lines don't change position, therefore continental drifting does not change direction. Therefore, different lands will move into desert climate, out of desert climate, and there is no way around that. Even though there are some cataclysmic geological events can throw off something, thereby making our estimation on where certain parts of continents were at given periods of time before history could be recorded, it doesn't change anything as far as things changing. All backmapping does is give us an estimate of climate under the assumption that some outside force didn't alter anything. But if there was, that just means that there was a different change that we can't know about. But the changes happen regardless. None of those changes can be explained by a global flood scientifically speaking. The only way that a flood like that could have possibly happened is if God put the water on the Earth temporarily, and took it out after the flood was supposed to be over. That is not science. 

I understand what you are saying, and I am not trying to say you are wrong in believing the flood. But it does not belong in the science classroom because scientifically, it could not have happened. It could only have happened under divine orchestration. But there is no scientific evidence to support the flood.

I would like to add that while I don't think that talking about different spectrum of creationism would be appropriate in the pure science classes (physics, chemistry biology, etc) since they are putting focus on the concepts and the methodologies in these fields, I also don't think that professors and teachers should suffer some consequence, even lose their jobs just because they talk about creationism. There is some discrimination in how these types of educators and scholars are dealt with in the public world and that needs to stop.

rcarter2 : Actually, there are several things to consider about the footprints: how DEEP was the mud at the time the tracks were made? There's solid ground underneath mud that would stop the foot at one point or another, offsetting weight difference to some extent. Also... you talk about people seeing what they want to try and prove creation. There are creationists like that, not gonna lie, but there are also evolutionists who are like that, so to some extent I tend to listen to common sense when looking at these things. Yes, I know, that's not technically 'scientific', but in many cases good science STARTS with common sense, and despite what's said I can't look at those tracks and think that they're anything but human. They said themselves they couldn't identify the dinosaur that made the human-like footprints. And to explain the stride and what not, according to canopy theory humans were larger prior to the flood due to a much richer oxygen content, of the which a richer oxygen on Earth at some point is proven by examining air bubbles trapped in amber. Sort of a greenhouse effect if you will. This would make for larger human, larger stride. Would also account for similar weight, chucking out how deep the mud was or was not. As for the claw marks? The frontal ones could denote running whereas the toes dug a bit into the mud (And generally, the middle and two outside toes tend to tuck in the others from personal observation, explaining the three 'claw marks'.) or some erosion.The few backs ones, possibly erosion.

As for there not being enough water here to cover the entire Earth? Well, the Earth was much more flat at the beginning of the flood. There were no truly high mountains. When the 'fountains of the deep' broke open, water once trapped underground now very forcefully escaping (Hydrothermal eruptions, much similar to what's feared at Yellowstone, but on a nigh worldwide scale as this would have been water from deep running underground reservoirs close to the mantle.) attributed to the flood waters and as it did, water force and erosion carved paths, raised some land, lowered some land, etc. thus making for mountains that would now come above water level and valleys that would now hold the water where oceans are now. Its not a matter of the amount of water, its a matter of where its now obstructed from going after a large portion of it blew from underground. That's why we find things like, again, fossilized closed clams on top of mount Everest. Funny thing about clams, they pop open when they die because the muscles they use to keep their shells closed relax and release as they lose strength. In other words, they died in a hurry.

Sakura Pryde : Mountains form due to plate tectonics. They're the result of the earth being pushed together and upwards. Fossils that were buried on the ocean floor were shifted with the rock, and were locked into place when the mud from the ocean floor condensed into rock. Fossils can't find their way into solid rock unless they've been there for millions of years, not several thousand. There is no way that they could have been embedded in the rock after it formed. When India crashed into Asia due to plate tectonics, the himalayas rose from the sea. The sea did once cover the areas where the fossils are found, but because they were shallow seas then. You apparently know nothing of geology. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by the sea. Also, floods erode mountains and deposit their sediment in valleys.

And your supposed human tracks are not an argument. They have already been proven a a hoax, even though creationists still try to scramble to find some excuse. The man who made the discovery even admitted that it was a hoax. Look it up on wikipedia.

There is no evidence for a worldwide flood in the 4.5 billion years after the moon was born, and certainly not in the 800,000 years of history recorded annually in the arctic ice pack, as a flood would have melted the ice at that time.

Sakura Pryde : Sorry, but as epic-san already stated, you don't seem to know much about geology if you truly think that the earth was significantly flatter only 6,000 years ago. Mountains don't form that quickly. That has been confirmed and nothing has been able to successfully suggest otherwise. At least naturally. The only way entire mountains could have formed in 6,000 years is by divine intervention. Possible, sure. Scientific, absolutely not. Taking supernatural possibility out of the equation, the crust (not Earth. The Earth was never flat) above sea level was not 'flatter' 6,000 years ago. Therefore, you actually do require about 99 times the amount of water the Earth currently has to cause a global flood that could cover the mountains. As for mountain formation, your entire explanation is far off from how a mountain could form. And that is heat generated as heavier oceanic crust is pushed under lighter continental crust through convergent plate boundary movements. That heat generated travels upwards, pushing land upward forming volcanoes. Mountains, on the other hand, are formed in the way epic-san already explained. That has already been confirmed. It has absolutely nothing to due with water escaping, carving land here, lowering land there. It simply doesn't work like that.

As for the humans being larger, higher oxygen levels do not mean larger humans. If anything, the opposite is happening right now. As we become more technologically advanced, O2 gas levels in the atmosphere have decreased in comparison to other molecules such as CO2, CO, and methane gasses. Yet humans are actually taller now than the average human a few hundred years ago. So increased O2 gas does not automatically mean larger humans.

As for your point about there being rock keeping the mud from being further depressed, there is a detail I forgot to put in. In that same area, there are other prints that were depressed farther, showing that the mud could go down farther. Rock was not keeping that form happening. As for your erosion explanation, there is a difference between claw marks and eroded toe marks. The marks were claw.

Every evidence you are bringing up completely ignores how things work on an atomic level. That is why it is bad archaeology. That is why the only place you can find things that make these claims are on sites devoted to saying the Earth is 6,000 years old. It completely ignores how everything works atomically.

Again, I want to stress that I am not saying that what you believe couldn't have happened. But if it did, it could only happen through divine placement. In regards to non supernatural, there is no real science that supports a global flood happening naturally 6,000 years ago. All of your explanations thus far completely ignore how our natural Earth works on a geological and atomic level (atomic being the more important). So again, as far as a science classroom is concerned, creationism has no justification to be taught. The only thing any of that could happen is by supernatural, not natural occurrence. Science is the study of how our natural universe works. Now, in a class in which understanding a culture is important, then the topic would be more than appropriate.

I do not think that Creationism should be taught in Science in public schools, as they are ran by the government, and the US Constitution says that the government shall not respect any religion, so we have freedom of religion in our country.

I do think that it should be taught in Sunday School by having a lesson on it, as it belongs in a Church or between family or friends. I also think that parents should be the ones to teach the children about how things work, not the schools shoving it down your throat if you do not believe in it.

epic-san : I think we should teach it as an option, though not as an absolute truth. Like a "While this is the scientifically based theory, it can also be considered that religious people believe the universe was created by a higher power."

Evolution, in no way whatsoever, contradicts the Christian scriptures or undermines God's place as creator. Intelligent design has nothing to do with biology class. For a public school to teach it, they would need a "cultures and religions" course that covers all sorts of things, including intelligent design theory.

Txgangsta: I think it does...as the Bible states that God created each creature, while evolutionism is commonly thought of as all creatures coming from a common ancestor. Although there are different deviations of the two, the core beliefs is that Creationism is based on God creating each animal separately and Evolutionism is based on every species coming from 1 or very few common ancestors. People have twisted the ideas and shaped them different ways, but the core beliefs of each theory does indeed contradict each other. 
   As for the actual question, I would like to point out that it is no way the governments fault. People have stated that it shouldn't be taught as "an absolute truth", but that was not the governments intention. If that is what is happening, that is the teacher's fault. It's about how they teach the material, not who and what the material is (this is, of course, about the material given to teach evolutionism). My very own teacher was very strong-minded, and she very often changed test question's to favor the idea's she agreed with. We butted heads often, and due to the fact that the way I worded short-essay question's to favor ideas that she proposed, she did not like me very well. What I am trying to say is that very often it is the teacher's fault, not the governments, about how evolutionism is taught. I believe evolutionism should be taught in science classes, but they should definitely be taught much better. 
   As for creationism, I do not believe it belongs in science classes. As a semi-christian (yaaa, I kinda just made that up) I see the flaws in much of the beliefs (this is obviously not the thread for that topic though) and so it is my own personal belief that teaching kids creationism is not a good way to teach kids to use evidence to form beliefs. 

Slythion :

God did create each creature. And evolution has creatures coming from common ancestors. There is no problem here.

How did God create each creature? Through the process of evolution. Let's say evolution is wrong. Who cares? God is Creator. Lets say evolution is right. Who cares? God is Creator. To believe that "God [creates] each animal separately" would also mean that you would believe the world is, at most, 10,000 years old and God poof'd it into existence. While that's totally possible for God, it seems very disorganized and illogical. It would make more sense for God to be orderly, logical, patient, etc. Did God only take 6 days to make a universe for us? I put more effort than that in some of the papers I write.

Evolution ties all of God's creation into one, cohesive picture. "Creationism" is nothing more than stubborn Christians that refuse to budge when logic dictates otherwise.

As for anyone saying, "Genesis 1 doesn't say evolution, it says he spoke and things were", you're totally right. That's exactly what it says. And Psalm 17:8 says God has wings. And Exodus 33:23 says Moses saw God's butt. Some things in the bible are less historical, but still completely true. Like Genesis 1-11.

Txgangsta :

Jesus, and all Jews never taught evolution once, because it is a modern theory made up so that atheists don't have to believe in God.

Christians accepted the Theory even though we had historical accounts that stated otherwise just to get along with the people who believed in evolution.

"God [creates] each animal separately" would also mean that you would believe the world is, at most, 10,000 years old and God poof'd it into existence. While that's totally possible for God, it seems very disorganized and illogical. It would make more sense for God to be orderly, logical, patient, etc

Why would God spend thousands of years creating what he could make within an instant, using death, pain, and tons of suffering for animals alone. A big waste, and it doesn't amount to anything. So if you were God, then you would have used Evolution?

No, I would say that God using evolution, is much more illogical than making things immediately.

Sword legion :
"Jesus, and all Jews never taught evolution once, because it is a modern theory made up so that atheists don't have to believe in God."
That is as vain as stating all non Christians worship the devil, or that Christians adopted Judaism to get one over on the Jews.

"Christians accepted the Theory even though we had historical accounts that stated otherwise just to get along with the people who believed in evolution."
There are accounts of unicorns and dragons too, they are not fact unless presented with evidence.

"Why would God spend thousands of years creating what he could make within an instant, using death, pain, and tons of suffering for animals alone. A big waste, and it doesn't amount to anything. So if you were God, then you would have used Evolution?

No, I would say that God using evolution, is much more illogical than making things immediately."

Without evolution to explain it, there is no reason for large chunks of human and animal anatomy alike.
Certain things no longer have a use, and if they had been instantly created as they are today, there would have been far better designs available. The imperfection of evolution is the only real explanation, unless god is simply a shoddy designer.
If many animals were cars, there would be an immediate recall on them.

Sword legion :

Jesus never taught washing machines either. Or gravity. Or bacteria. That doesn't mean they are evil, they aren't true, or they don't exist.

And God would spend billions of years creating because he would want to watch as the universe beautifully unfolds. Suspense is part of a good movie. They could just tell you how it ends instantly. But instead they stretch it 90 minutes, 180 minutes, whatever. It's intentional.

Also, I throw the question back at you. Why would God take 6 days to make what he could have made in an instant? In both scenarios, evolution and instant creation, God takes "unnecessary" time to make the universe.

Txgangsta :

The Bible refers to creation having taken place in 7 literal days, and in English, sentences are considered literal unless there is an indication, (like in the case of Psalms) that they are only metaphoric.

When The Bible says 7 days, but a not Christian man, (Darwin) says millions of years, I am more prone to believe the Bible rather than making evolution fit it.

It is by undermining parts of the Bible that are clearly literal that "Christians" slowly but sure remove all moral responsibility. (What, God, didn't really want People to refrain from stealing.")

"Why would God take 6 days to make what he could have made in an instant? In both scenarios, evolution and instant creation, God takes "unnecessary" time to make the universe."

Yes, God could have made it all in one instant, but He made it in seven days for a specific purpose.

In fact, why did God rest on the seventh day? He's untirable, He doesn't have to do that.

That answer is to teach us something, something important about the Sabbath. Just like so many other times in the Bible, Take what some of the Sacrifices meant, like the Red Heifer being a foreshadowing of Yeshua, (Jesus)

As Rabbi Daniel Lapin explains, what God did on the seventh day, was cease creating.

And we are naturally very creative beings, I'm not just talking about poetry, or art, but also about work- the creating of a house, or a car.

Anything really.

The seventh day is our day to refrain from creating, like God did, He did that not for Himself, but as an example for us. So many people ask, "What should I do on the Sabbath?" And Genesis has the answer. Also, why did God make four rivers come out of Eden to water it? Why did God put gold at the mouth of the Euphrates?

Genesis 2:10-14ESV / 18 helpful votes
A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

Or he even makes mention of it?

In the original Hebrew, there is no such word as coincidence. And God put those words there for us. If you were to study the entire book of Genesis with a bunch of Jews like Jesus would have grown up around, it would take you four years to have finished the study if you studied one day a week, and it is amazing the things that are hidden in the book of Genesis. Little things like, a certain Hebrew letter being stretched to show that it is important, and this only happens once in the whole Bible. And then you look into why that letter was stretched.

I'd go on, but I"m rambling.



thenumberone :

No.

They didn't teach it cause the theory wasn't around back then, but I'm not going to argue with you about that one.

And yes, there are accounts of Dragon from even credible Roman Commanders who had seen them, even Alexandria the great. These records are widely ignored cause these dragons are likely dinosaurs which ought to be instinct, including the Loch Ness monster (and it's other cousins around the world).

"Without evolution to explain it, there is no reason for large chunks of human and animal anatomy alike."

Would you please give me an example?

I don't want to go down every rabbit hole, but I will go ahead and address one example if you will provide it.

Sword legion:

First, attacking the man who gives the argument is a logical fallacy called "ad hominem". If Hitler said, "sugar is sweet", Hitler is telling the truth. It doesn't matter that it is Hitler saying it. If Darwin says "evolution is true", we must evaluate the statement "evolution is true" and not evaluate Darwin.

The Bible refers to creation having take place in 7 literal days. Yes. This is called a "myth". It is a story to teach you something. All cultures have these. Moses often speaks to God "face to face", and in Exodus 33, Moses "sees God's backside". This is also a myth. God does not have a body. Moses cannot see God's "face" because God doesn't have a "face". He can't see his butt either. Moses had a relationship with God that was unparalleled. He knew God well and understood his majesty.

The bible says 7 days. It says God has wings. It also says that everything you do in this life is meaningless. You need to take passages as literature. Yes, literature can be historical. But don't force history where scripture is instead teaching something completely different.

There are 4 ways to interpret scripture. Historically, like you want to do with Genesis 1-3. Morally, such as parables or ten commandments. Anagogicly, such as with Revelation. And finally, analogically, as with the psalms. Some passages are more obvious than others. The psalms are often analogical, but they often have historical accounts within. The Gospel of John is totally out of order comparative to the other gospels, so we know John is not historical.

Genesis 1-3, to you, appears to be historical. However, what is the purpose of scripture? Is it to understand science? NO! Do not use the bible as a science text book. The bible is to help grow our faith. That is all. God made the sun, God made the moon. Do not worship the sun and the moon like the Egyptians and Babylonians do; they are only creations. Do not worship the animals, do not worship nature. God is in control. God has made those things the other people call Gods. How about sex? God made that too. Do not worship it. Why do we exist? Because God made us. And we have a function in all of creation.

Genesis 1-3 is a basic story to convey basic truths. IT IS NOT A SCIENCE BOOK. Plus, it contradicts passages in genesis 4, especially if you look at the Hebrew.

Txgangsta :

You had better make sure someone is trustworthy before you believe anything that they say. Also, is Darwin's testimony stronger than the Bibles? A book that constantly predicts the future?

Some of the examples of things provided here one cannot be sure if they are literal or not. Moses could have seen God's face, Abraham actually met God in the flesh along with two angles, even sharing a meal with them. God can have a physical body.

I have not seen you prove that the examples given are all non literal. Nor is there a hint in Genesis that Genesis is not literal.

You spoke about Genesis four, could you please quote where the scriptures contradict themselves?

All parables are clearly parables, Jesus said that they were, but Genesis is not defined as a parable anywhere in the Bible.

"what is the purpose of scripture? Is it to understand science?"

No, but does that mean that scientific concepts do not exist in the scriptures? Or that there are in fact some concepts are unscientific?

"The bible says 7 days."

Yes.

"It says God has wings."

Yes, in a poem in Psalms, obviously not literal. But, do not forget that even poems can have scientific facts in them as well.


"It also says that everything you do in this life is meaningless."

That makes total sense(.) I actually got a totally different result when I read that book.

Creation is not something that is argued over. You either read Genesis, listen to what it says, and don't argue with it, cause it's not indicating that it's not literal, or you try to make new, only 200 year old theory fit it when that's not what it says.

Psalms indicates that it's not literal.

So do Jesus' Parables.

There is no indication in the scriptures that Genesis isn't literal, by default, like everything else in the Bible, without and indication, it starts literal.

If we start calling factual events in the Bible literal or unliteral at our whim, not by what the Bible says itself, then we will hack and chisel our own religion. Our own religion, without God, and a religion that practices it's own customs, and beliefs. For we are making our own book, not obeying and listening to the words of the Father.

Sword legion : Please stop with Darwin=Evolution statements. Clearly, you have no idea what Darwin's actual contribution was. The theory of evolution was coined by outsiders as 'Darwinism' after Darwin died. Darwin did NOT come up with the theory of Evolution. The theory of evolution is composed of study in genetic mutation, ecological observation of survival patterns, plate tectonic activity, fossil study, etc. The only thing Darwin did was traveled to different continents (particularly along the coastal regions of the continents) and pointed out not only that fossils along certain coasts of different continents matched, and observed signs of change over generations through fossils, and such. He did not come up with Evolution. As a matter of fact, the theory of Evolution was something that was around before Darwin was even born.

It might seem petty, but you have said this numerous times. Implying that Darwin was some founder of Evolution or that the whole thing was thought up by him. Far from the truth. It is something composed of observation/study by NUMEROUS people over generations of people. Not just one person. SO this whole 'is Darwin more credible than the Bible' is an argument based on your false implication.

rcarter2 :

I am generalizing here. That is all that I am doing. I am aware of the things that you speak of. Does Genesis state that God created the world in seven days, or not? If you do not answer this question I will not respond to you on account of dodging it.