For Beatlemania

Originally posted by Acemaster
Look. I know beatlemania. Met him on here. Were good friends now, and I know he isn't running away. He truly doesn't have the time to fight with you guys. I do, however, but I'd appreciate it if you reinstated unanswered questions so I don't have to go digging through 7 pages of crap looking for them.

Here are a couple of questions: If the earth is 6000 years old, how come there are these little pines in california that are dated over 10,000 years directly by tree ring analysis?
The second question involves polar ice cap measurements, we can clearly see the results of the yearly deposits of ice in the arctic and antarctica, expeditions from 100 years ago where the artifacts are buried and the ice layers are also like tree rings. But the ice pack is MILES deep and the layers have been read to an age of several hundred thousand years. This goes WAY beyond the little scrub pine which is said to be the oldest living thing on earth. How can anyone rationalize away layers of pack ice? I have seen the cores, the layers are obvious even to me, I am just a technician. So what gives with that?

Long time, no chat. Too much to do, and not enough time for email debates, especially when there is no need to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. I regret to say that, as I posted in my first email, I just do not have enough free time on my hands, while the rest of you may, to rehash what has already been written about, at length. Regarding speciation, "kinds", etc., I will refer you to several online articles:

http://www.icr.org/article/342/

http://www.icr.org/article/567/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Definitions

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/dogs.asp

These are excellent, and both sites contain much information for those who are truly inquiring, and not merely looking to belittle and insult. I have already stated what is, I believe, the main scientific problem with the idea of evolution, which is that the statistical probability of getting precisely the right genes together, in the correct order, at the exact same moment in history, to create a fully functional new feature that would impart a survival advantage to the organism, is zero.

Of course, each person will choose what to believe in, and that choice will determine how he/she will interpret the evidence, whether genetic, fossil, or philosophical. I will pray for you all, that you will, indeed, be open enough to allow yourself to read these sites with an unclosed mind.

CS Lewis, himself, was an atheist, as was Dr. Jobe Martin. If these kinds of people can realize the truth, you can, too! The truth is, God loves you, and sent His son, Christ, to die for you (see 'The Passion'😉, so that you can be with God when you die. As the Bible states, Christ rose again (several hundred witnesses for this, more than for many events that we take for historical fact), and then went back up to Heaven, from whence He shall return, at God's ordained time. If you believe this, the Holy Spirit will live in you, and you will have His help on this earth, too.

People ask, what about those who have never heard of Christ? There is reference that people will be judged according to what they know, in Romans 2. This is one site that addresses this issue:

http://achristian.wordpress.com/2006/05/01/what-happens-to-people-who-dont-hear-about-jesus/

This post will probably generate many remarks, and so be it, but as I said above, I do not have the available free time to direct people to answers which are abundantly available via a simple Google search. I pray that each of you will do so.

Originally posted by The Cougar
Long time, no chat. Too much to do, and not enough time for email debates, especially when there is no need to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. I regret to say that, as I posted in my first email, I just do not have enough free time on my hands, while the rest of you may, to rehash what has already been written about, at length. Regarding speciation, " h are abundantly available via a simple Google search. I pray that each of you will do so.

That's too bad, since it was such a simple question. The first article you cited didn't address just what a "form" or "kind" is. The second didn't either, though it claimed that that some other people suggest that infertility is sufficient for difference in kind. Since this leads to a contradiction (e.g., that mules both are and are not of the same kind as horses), I suggest you not go with this definition. I skipped the last couple articles, because principles of induction indicate that they will also be absurd.

Edit: Out of morbid curiousity, I just read the third article. It says the same thing as the second. So, non-fertile hybrids contradict that notion of a "kind".