Two potential creation scenarios

[agnosticatheist]

Let's assume for the sake of this debate that the following premises are true:

A: The Christian God exists

B: The Christian God created the universe

Now, let's consider two possible creation scenarios.

Scenario 1: God created each species in a separate creation event.

Scenario 1 questions for debate:

1. Why would God create each species in separate creation events and yet make it appear that each species emerged from earlier lifeforms? Wouldn't that make God dishonest?

2. The Bible says that God is trustworthy; can he still be trusted if he made it look like large-scale evolution has taken place when in fact it hasn't?

3. Why would God make it look like large-scale evolution has taken place when in fact it hasn't, knowing full well that this will cause many to doubt God's existence?

Scenario 2: God created the conditions in which carbon-based lifeforms could emerge and evolve on Earth, and eventually lead to the emergence of Homo Sapiens, which God would give a soul to (and perhaps make some other minor changes to), which would result in the creation of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or Modern Humans.

Scenario B Question for debate:

1. Why would God go to all that trouble when he could simply create each species in separate creation events?

Here's a broader set of questions that apply to both scenarios:

Why would God create lifeforms other than humans? Clearly humans are important because they "house" the human soul. But what about Wolves? Crocodiles? Crows? Gorillas?

What is the role of non-human lifeforms in God's "plan"?

Do they have souls too? Consciousness/awareness is a state that people claim is possible due to the soul.

Well, the more we observe and study the non-human natural world, the more it seems that consciousness/awareness exists on a spectrum, from human-level awareness (or perhaps higher...), down to complete non-consciousness/non-awareness (e.g. bacteria). There isn't some absolute line where life is divided between conscious and non-conscious, except for maybe at the "lower lifeform levels", but definitely not at the "higher lifeform levels". Dogs are conscious, they just aren't conscious to the same degree that humans are.

So, why create lifeforms besides humans and have consciousness exist on a spectrum?

Why would God do this knowing full well that it would cause people to question his existence?

It just seems to be such an interesting coincidence that God created lifeform consciousness on a spectrum.

[Danmark]

indoctrination, in an atmosphere where heresy against the prevailing cult is not tolerated -- much like Islam.

If you talk with them, you will quickly discover that the overwhelming majority have no idea what they believe, or why they believe it.

The very few who DO claim to have some idea of why they believe what they've been told, in regard to microbes turning into men (as in the lovely fictitious animations they have absorbed since childhood), are repositories of "knowledge" about "things which are not so."

These statements are so extremely inaccurate, and ironically so, they deserve special attention. Fundamentalism, whether from Islam or the science denying wing of Christianity are both in the business of indoctrination. Both this faction of Christianity and Islam cling to 13t Century beliefs. In this regard Islam and Christianity are blood brothers.

I have no idea who you are talking about with your strawman about this "overwhelming majority" who "don't know what they're talking about. As is your usual mode, you give no data, no support, nothing to back up your mere opinion about this alleged group.

And this is the key difference between fundamentalism and the quest for truth. Scientists observe and are willing to engage in point by point analysis, while fundamentalist believers from the twin science deniers of Islam and Christianity take the position you have confessed to, that you refuse to debate these issues point by point, fact by fact. Instead you rush to generalities.

Prove me wrong. Engage in the specifics of the appropriate science, whether about the age of corals, continental drift, or radiometric dating. The proof is in the specific facts and the analysis of those facts, not in wild claims that equate post graduate education with "indoctrination."

Also, as is typical with anti science anti evolutionists, you demonstrate you do not understand evolution. Evolution does not claim microbes turned into men or that men turned into microbes. The first statement is as absurd as the last.

[Volbrigade]

But Spencer's 'condemnation before investigation' is exactly what you're doing with evolution.

Not so. As is the case with every person who has been immersed in our culture, I have been exposed and indoctrinated with the m2m myth my entire life. It is the cultural and academic atmosphere we breathe. I never even questioned it -- just accepted it, as does most everyone else.

I did begin to question where purpose, meaning, values and morality could come from in a universe produced my mindless, random causes; and in which those causes produced microbes that morphed into men -- just like many atheists. Have you ever read Nietzsche's "God is dead" passage? If not -- you should. But my personal experience is not relevant to our current conversation.

It wasn't until I began to earnestly seek a source for the meaning and purpose to life -- that is nowhere to be found in the materialist religion of atheo-evolutionist scientism (" 'Meaning?' 'Purpose?' Unsupported concepts. Prove they exist. Provide evidence") -- that I began to question the validity of the m2m paradigm.

If you step back for a moment, and just take an objective look at it, as if for the first time: it truly is absurd.

So -- once there was nothing; and then it exploded; and the product of that explosion was a universe that is a precisely engineered construct of countless interrelated factors, all exquisitely and intricately intertwined and designed;

and that as a result, on one ball of rock, floating mindlessly in space, microbes assembled by chance, and because of gravity (or something) proceeded to increase in information and complexity until they turned into Albert Einstein and Michael Jordan.

You're kidding, right? I mean -- you've got to be kidding.

How can anyone believe that? Thank God, there are many brilliant people who don't -- and offer compelling reasons they don't; as well as a compelling alternative to that belief.

As easy as it is to demonstrate evolution, it is even easier to disprove 'Young Earth'

Piffle. What nerve it takes to accuse someone of "unsubstantiated claims", and then to turn around and write such a sentence!

Evolution -- of the uphill, m2m kind -- has never been demonstrated. Quite the opposite -- it has been defeated every time; and is constantly being changed to accommodate to the facts, which speak against it.

If you want to define "Evolution" as "natural selection" or "changes in an allele" -- then there's not a Creationist who isn't an evolutionist.

In fact -- since Creationists were the first to point our how rapidly speciation can occur, and why -- something the m2m crowd are catching on to, to their alarm -- then it can be truly said that Creationists are MORE "evolutionist" than the m2m-ers!

"growth of coral"... "continental drift..."

You are mistaken in claiming that YECs do not address these factors.

In fact, the great thing about the Creationist information ministries is that they prevent both sides: the m2m side; continually, consistently citing new (and old) studies and articles; and then showing why their conclusions are specious and false.

You will NEVER hear an accurate account of YEC beliefs from a m2m source (e.g., Dawkins). All you will hear is lies, fabrications, and mischaracterizations.

And why not? Why should they be truthful? What is "truth", other than an arbitrary and relative construct, formulated via the random interactions of matter occurring in a walking compost heap?

http://creation.com/ancient-coral

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter11.pdf

I'm a case in point that refutes your "years of indoctrination" claim...

No offense -- and you sound like you have an interesting background; I'm sure it would make for good conversation over a nice cold lager or two -- but your personal experience is not relevant to this conversation, any more than mine is.

Surely you don't claim that your experience is typical? I can tell you, while it may have been (somewhat) 40, 50 years ago (and before -- dragged to Church as a kid; off to college as a youth; and not understanding, or even caring, a great deal about what either says in regard to origins and history), it hasn't been at all in the last 30 or more.

You want sources for that information? Look around. If you want to look up dreary studies on the matter -- be my guest. Or don't accept that claim, which is indisputable.

Either is fine with me.

And this is the key difference between fundamentalism and the quest for truth. Scientists observe and are willing to engage in point by point analysis, while fundamentalist believers from the twin science deniers of Islam and Christianity take the position you have confessed to, that you refuse to debate these issues point by point, fact by fact. Instead you rush to generalities.

That is a very, very generalized statement.

And inaccurate. For one thing, there is no comparison between fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam. Only contrast.

If you want to change the topic to that "contrast"...

Evolution does not claim microbes turned into men...

Well, hallelujah! It took you long enough -- why didn't you say this earlier?

I'm satisfied. We can put this conversation to bed now. Unless you want to further discuss what actually happened; since we now agree that microbes did not randomly assemble themselves, and proceed to morph into men.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 81 by Volbrigade]

A long post with absolutely no analysis whatsoever. You actually brag about not understanding evolution. Microbes did not turn into men overnight or directly. There were millions of intermediate organisms between men and microbes. I can sum up your argument:
" No matter what the facts, I don't believe in evolution."
and
"No matter how ridiculous, I believe the world was created in six days about 6000 years ago."

You haven't taken on a single argument, a single series of facts and actually analyzed it. The rationale of the creationist is his belief in the accuracy of the Genesis account taken literally and in the order of creation as listed in this myth.
This is another area where you've completely failed to respond: the impossible scenario Genesis provides. As Scourge demonstrates with clarity at http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 738#695738
"The Genesis account is impossible.
Except the blatant falsehoods and inaccuracies of the Genesis account when compared to biology is far more problematic than the problem of the Bible claiming everything was created in 7 days. PZ Myers who is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris explains the numerous factual errors that cannot be reconciled without some downright silly semantic acrobatics.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... almost.php

PZ has a nice table in the link that provides a litany of examples where science is in clear conflict with the Genesis account. For example,
1) Earth was formed before the sun
2) An aquatic universe
3) Grass and flowering plants coming before all other plants when they were in fact late arrivals
4) An early watery earth
5) The sun coming after the planets and after plants were already on earth
6) Birds and whales preceding other animals."

[Danmark]

"growth of coral"... "continental drift..."

You are mistaken in claiming that YECs do not address these factors.

Wrong again. The very website you listed as your basis, http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth , makes no mention of either coral formation or continental drift.

The only place on that website where continental drift is mentioned is a comment that shows how ridiculous is the YEC theory:

It's very difficult to comment on a website like this where the underlying motive is to squeeze the square peg of religion into the round hole of truth regarding the origins of not only the earth but the universe itself. I would refute all of the evidence you put forward to support the notion of the earth being 6000 years old. It makes a mockery of science. I live in Scotland where rocks are found that show we were once joined to North America. The rocks contain salterella that is a small shelly fossil found only in Lower Cambrian rocks in NW Scotland and North America. We broke apart some 60 million years ago and have been drifting apart ever since. For us to have moved 3000 miles in 6000 years just beggars belief.

Your response is just like this silly creation.com site's response, it fails to address the facts and instead responds with a misplaced generality. This is a pathetic defense, but I suppose it is the only one available: avoid the facts upon which the fantastic claim is made.


In the end it is very easy to see Islamic fundamentalism = Christian fundamentalism. The only two religions I am aware of that promote anti evolution ideas and creationism are Islam and Christianity. Fortunately for Christianity most Christians repudiated YEC many years ago.

[Volbrigade]

Microbes did not turn into men overnight or directly. There were millions of intermediate organisms between men and microbes.

Or, to sum up: "microbes turned into men."

I do wish you'd make up your mind. Confusion is just the "natural" offshoot of m2m evolutionism, isn't it?

"No matter how ridiculous, I believe the world was created in six days about 6000 years ago."

Well, if you're willing to face the facts of the situation (which you haven't been, so far, in any area that I can see), you'd see that we have a choice between two irrational, unsatisfactory alternatives. The Genesis account, which I ascribe to: and the one that you ascribe to, and which I recounted... let's see, yes, here it is:

"So -- once there was nothing; and then it exploded; and the product of that explosion was a universe that is a precisely engineered construct of countless interrelated factors, all exquisitely and intricately intertwined and designed;

and that as a result, on one ball of rock, floating mindlessly in space, microbes assembled by chance, and because of gravity (or something) proceeded to increase in information and complexity until they turned into Albert Einstein and Michael Jordan.

You're kidding, right? I mean -- you've got to be kidding.

How can anyone believe that?"

The difference is that one -- yours, the m2m fabrication -- is sub-rational: that is, it is absurd on the face of it, and begins and ends in nothing.

The other -- the Genesis account -- is beyond rationality. That is, it transcends what we know of reality. That's why I keep harping on the different epistemologies involved. What are the scope and limits of our knowledge?

I'll take the latter account. Once the existence of God is admitted, there are no further problems with accepting the Genesis account as written.

Once the existence of God is rejected, it makes no difference whether the m2m myth is true or not.

Thank God, it isn't true. But believe in it, if you wish.

For us to have moved 3000 miles in 6000 years just beggars belief.

A plausible theory is that we moved 3,000 miles in a matter of weeks, in a singular event involving rapid continental plate subduction, and the release of "the fountains of the deep". That's one theory as to how you get a global flood, continental sedimentary rock formations, and the fossil record (through sudden encasement by massive amounts of fluid sedimentary material).

It's all covered in the resource linked to -- the one you curiously claim avoids such issues.

In the end it is very easy to see Islamic fundamentalism = Christian fundamentalism.

It grieves me to see such otherwise intelligent-seeming people make such egregiously ignorant and uninformed statements. I hope it is due to misinformation, and not a deliberated misstatement of truth. i have my suspicions...

On the assumption that it is the former, please let me know if you'd like me to educate you on the differences between the two (perhaps on another thread, another topic?)

[Danmark]

A plausible theory is that we moved 3,000 miles in a matter of weeks, in a singular event involving rapid continental plate subduction, and the release of "the fountains of the deep". That's one theory as to how you get a global flood, continental sedimentary rock formations, and the fossil record (through sudden encasement by massive amounts of fluid sedimentary material).

After all the nonsensical bloviating you touch down for a moment on an actual issue, with some figures, suggesting the continents of North America and Europe are moving away from each other to the tune of 3000 miles in a matter of weeks. Interesting. Tho' you are rather vague on the number of weeks for the continents to move 3000 miles away from each other, let's pick 4 weeks just to get started. So, that would be about 3000 miles a month, or about 36000 miles per year instead of the one inch per year that has been documented.
http://education.nationalgeographic.com ... ft/?ar_a=1 In order to satisfy your ridiculous and absurd efforts to fit actual facts into a Genesis defined model, you'd have entire continents circling the globe in less than a year. Yet somehow no one would notice and it would appear they are moving at the rate of only an inch per year.

Are there any other specific facts you'd like to claim in order to cling to this 6000 year old Earth theory?

Perhaps you could tell us how far you have gone in school. Most of us learned enough in elementary school to refute this silliness. If the Bible says the Earth is flat or that the Sun revolves around the Earth, would you believe it?

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 85 by Danmark]

I'm truly sorry that you have no interest in educating yourself on this issue. I provided a link -- (shrug)

I shall provide a modicum in that regard. It is the Christian thing to do.

There are several models that have been proposed to explain the mechanisms of Noah's Flood.

An intriguing one is "catastrophic plate tectonics" proposed by Dr. John Baumgardner.

That model features rapid, massive breaking up and movement of the single pre-Flood continental land mass. They would've moved rapidly into their present positions; and only incrementally -- at or near the present rate -- since.

Incidentally -- the recent Japan quake, in which the coast was moved -- what was it, several inches? -- and the destruction caused by it, gives us some inkling of the forces unleashed by the sudden and rapid subduction of continental plates; lowering of seafloors, and pushing up of mountains at plate collision zones (and release of magma at rifting ones).

No wonder only 8 people; and the Biblical "kinds" aboard the Ark, were the sole survivors, among those whose "life is in the blood" (which exempts, e.g., insects).

Amazing, the science we find in the Bible, properly understood -- isn't it?

Here are Dr. Baumgardner's credentials. CMI and related ministries are keenly aware of the importance of such; and feature many PhD scientists on their staff, and as ad hoc contributors:

_____________

Upon completing his Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics, he accepted a position as a staff scientist in the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he continued his research in planetary mantle dynamics, including the potential for catastrophic mantle overturn. He presented his work describing this mechanism for the Genesis Flood, now known as ‘catastrophic plate tectonics,’ at six International Conferences on Creationism held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Dr Baumgardner’s technical work at Los Alamos included development of a new global ocean model for investigating climate change. He served as a member of the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) team and led the RATE research effort on carbon-14. He retired from Los Alamos in 2004 and joined the Institute for Creation Research in 2005 where he helped develop a state-of-the-art computer program named Mendel’s Accountant for modeling of the processes of mutation and natural selection. In 2008 he joined Logos Research Associates, a collaborative network of Christian research scientists whose focus is origins and earth history issues from a Biblical perspective.

Education

B.S., Texas Tech University, Lubbock, 1968
M.S., Electrical Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 1970
M.S., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1981
Ph.D., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1983

http://creation.com/john-baumgardner

_______________

Most of us learned enough in elementary school to refute this silliness.

LOL.

So now it's the schoolyard "you're a booger eater" technique of rebuttal.

How am I to respond? "Am not -- you are!"

I am reminded of the quote (by Feynman, if memory serves; quoted from same, and paraphrased):

"There are two kinds of people who have no problem dealing with hyperspaces: mathematicians with advanced, specialized training: and small children."

Small children readily accept the reality of God. And understand implicitly the Bible stories. "...Of such are the Kingdom of Heaven".

It is only upon our acquired "sophistication", and the working of our fallen natures upon us (which are categorically opposed to, and in rebellion against, our eternal Heavenly Father), that we seek to free ourselves from His presence. The continual reworking of the "ye shall be as God", and "shall have knowledge of good and evil."

That is the entire impulse for attempting an explanation of our existence which excludes God, but (for the umpteenth time -- repetition is continually required) includes the random formation of living cells, that transform into men by random processes in a random universe.

The lack of scientific sophistication in the 18th ad 19th century may have allowed for such a secular fairy tale; but we now know that not only is it (m2m) impossible (a theory whose head has been cut off; but whose bloated body is slow to die), but that the Biblical account is increasingly in concert with the advanced information sciences of the 20th and 21st century.

Science always catches up with the Bible.

Isn't it time you m2m-ers left your arrested development behind?

____________

Re the fundamentalist Christianity-Islam dichotomy:

Fundamentalist Christianity seeks a return to its Apostolic, 1st-century roots.

Fundamentalist Islam seeks a return to its 7th-century origins, and the teachings of Mohammed.

Please let me know if you'd like an explanation of the differences.

[Danmark]

An intriguing one is "catastrophic plate tectonics" proposed by Dr. John Baumgardner.

That model features rapid, massive breaking up and movement of the single pre-Flood continental land mass. They would've moved rapidly into their present positions; and only incrementally -- at or near the present rate -- since.

Incidentally -- the recent Japan quake, in which the coast was moved -- what was it, several inches? -- and the destruction caused by it, gives us some inkling of the forces unleashed by the sudden and rapid subduction of continental plates; lowering of seafloors, and pushing up of mountains at plate collision zones (and release of magma at rifting ones).

The Japan quake involved a 50 meter fault slippage, the greatest ever recorded.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -recorded/
There is no questioning the great power that was unleashed, and it actually refutes the absurdity you're claiming of continents drifting apart at the rate of 36,000 miles per year.
John Baumgardner? The guy who claimed that giant whirlpools on the continents allowed dinosaurs and other large animals to survive until late in Noah's flood, thus explaining why their fossils occur high in the geologic column? That John Baumgardner? Let's take a look at his theory:

Runaway subduction. John Baumgardner created the runaway subduction model, which proposes that the pre-Flood lithosphere (ocean floor), being denser than the underlying mantle, began sinking. The heat released in the process decreased the viscosity of the mantle, so the process accelerated catastrophically. All the original lithosphere became subducted; the rising magma which replaced it raised the ocean floor, causing sea levels to rise and boiling off enough of the ocean to cause 150 days of rain. When it cooled, the ocean floor lowered again, and the Flood waters receded. Sedimentary mountains such as the Sierras and Andes rose after the Flood by isostatic rebound. [Baumgardner, 1990a; Austin et al., 1994]

The main difficulty of this theory is that it admittedly doesn't work without miracles. [Baumgardner, 1990a, 1990b] The thermal diffusivity of the earth, for example, would have to increase 10,000 fold to get the subduction rates proposed [Matsumura, 1997], and miracles are also necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would ordinarily take.
Baumgardner estimates a release of 1028 joules from the subduction process. This is more than enough to boil off all the oceans. In addition, Baumgardner postulates that the mantle was much hotter before the Flood (giving it greater viscosity); that heat would have to go somewhere, too.
Cenozoic sediments are post-Flood according to this model. Yet fossils from Cenozoic sediments alone show a 65-million-year record of evolution, including a great deal of the diversification of mammals and angiosperms. [Carroll, 1997, chpts. 5, 6, & 13]
Subduction on the scale Baumgardner proposes would have produced very much more vulcanism around plate boundaries than we see. [Matsumura, 1997]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

BTW, Brent Dalrymple, author of The Age of the Earth, has pointed out:

young-earth creationists (YECs) include the history of the earth in their definition of evolution. They try to accommodate the expansion of the universe and radiometric dating within their 10,000-year time frame by arguing that, since the Fall of Adam, the speed of light has increased by a factor of 200 million and radioactive decay constants have increased by a factor of 750,000. These requirements in turn force Planck's constant to increase by many orders of magnitude. All of this would lead to a universe that does not work. For example, before the Fall, each atom undergoing radioactive decay would have released energy equivalent to that of an exploding tactical nuclear weapon.

Yes, that's right, for YEC ideas to work the speed of light would have had to increase 200 million times and radioactive decay constants by a factor of 750,000. This is not only ridiculous on its face, but would result in a universe that does not work.

[Wyvern]

An intriguing one is "catastrophic plate tectonics" proposed by Dr. John Baumgardner.

That model features rapid, massive breaking up and movement of the single pre-Flood continental land mass. They would've moved rapidly into their present positions; and only incrementally -- at or near the present rate -- since.

I can't help but ask what is the proposed vehicle which put the brakes on this movement or for that matter what is the means in which this rapid movement started? What is the proposed cause of the rapid breakup of your proposed single continental mass of only 6000 years ago?

Incidentally -- the recent Japan quake, in which the coast was moved -- what was it, several inches? -- and the destruction caused by it, gives us some inkling of the forces unleashed by the sudden and rapid subduction of continental plates; lowering of seafloors, and pushing up of mountains at plate collision zones (and release of magma at rifting ones).

No wonder only 8 people; and the Biblical "kinds" aboard the Ark, were the sole survivors, among those whose "life is in the blood" (which exempts, e.g., insects).

Yes look at the massive damage done with only a seven inch movement and you are proposing thousands of miles of movement over a short period of time. How do you propose the ark(which was little more than a barge)was able to survive multiple super tsunami's? We wont even get into what all these animals ate while at the same time undergoing massive evolutionary changes which you have repeatedly denied exist.

That is the entire impulse for attempting an explanation of our existence which excludes God, but (for the umpteenth time -- repetition is continually required) includes the random formation of living cells, that transform into men by random processes in a random universe.

Other than you who said evolution is random?

The lack of scientific sophistication in the 18th ad 19th century may have allowed for such a secular fairy tale; but we now know that not only is it (m2m) impossible (a theory whose head has been cut off; but whose bloated body is slow to die), but that the Biblical account is increasingly in concert with the advanced information sciences of the 20th and 21st century.

Actually the exact opposite is true, prior to the late 20th century not admitting god into your science would result in the person being expelled or worse from academic circles.

[Danmark]

An intriguing one is "catastrophic plate tectonics" proposed by Dr. John Baumgardner.

That model features rapid, massive breaking up and movement of the single pre-Flood continental land mass. They would've moved rapidly into their present positions; and only incrementally -- at or near the present rate -- since.

I can't help but ask what is the proposed vehicle which put the brakes on this movement or for that matter what is the means in which this rapid movement started? What is the proposed cause of the rapid breakup of your proposed single continental mass of only 6000 years ago?

Incidentally -- the recent Japan quake, in which the coast was moved -- what was it, several inches? -- and the destruction caused by it, gives us some inkling of the forces unleashed by the sudden and rapid subduction of continental plates; lowering of seafloors, and pushing up of mountains at plate collision zones (and release of magma at rifting ones).

No wonder only 8 people; and the Biblical "kinds" aboard the Ark, were the sole survivors, among those whose "life is in the blood" (which exempts, e.g., insects).

Yes look at the massive damage done with only a seven inch movement and you are proposing thousands of miles of movement over a short period of time. How do you propose the ark(which was little more than a barge)was able to survive multiple super tsunami's? We wont even get into what all these animals ate while at the same time undergoing massive evolutionary changes which you have repeatedly denied exist.

That is the entire impulse for attempting an explanation of our existence which excludes God, but (for the umpteenth time -- repetition is continually required) includes the random formation of living cells, that transform into men by random processes in a random universe.

Other than you who said evolution is random?

The lack of scientific sophistication in the 18th ad 19th century may have allowed for such a secular fairy tale; but we now know that not only is it (m2m) impossible (a theory whose head has been cut off; but whose bloated body is slow to die), but that the Biblical account is increasingly in concert with the advanced information sciences of the 20th and 21st century.

Actually the exact opposite is true, prior to the late 20th century not admitting god into your science would result in the person being expelled or worse from academic circles.

My favorite part of the flood mythology is the Ark. Getting all the animals on board, feeding them, not to mention the sanitation problems and keeping the predators away from the herbivores. The supposedly displaced 22,000 tons,
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was- ... imals.html
not a particularly large ship by today's standards.

Just looking at dinosaurs alone, Noah had a problem. Argentinosaurus alone weighed about 100 ton, x 2 of course. And then there are about one million other dinosaurs we have to account for. This is why some YEC "experts" have come up with the idea of whirlpools. Yes indeed, these giant whirlpools were so massive and so sustained they created dry spots for 10 months so the dinosaurs could live without having to be on the ark.
I might have some respect for these YEC proponents if, instead of trying to twist the facts into grotesqueries, they just said, "It's a miracle! God did all of this by miracles." ... And he used stuff from older planets to make the Earth, just to fool those scientists and their radiometric calculations.