Another thing which evolosers don't like to talk about and which you can research yourself is what some call the "Evolutionite Time Sandwich", i.e. the amount of time they need versus the amount they actually have. Google searches on 'dinosaur' and 'soft tissue' or 'tyrannosaur' and 'soft tissue' turn up the fact that researchers have been finding soft tissue in dinosaur remains for the past ten years or so:
which indicates that dinosaurs died out much more recently than 60M years ago. Other evidence supports a much more recent die-out of dinosaurs; Google searches on "ica stones" as well as on 'dinosaurs' and 'petroglyphs' turn much of that up.
A Google search on "Haldane dilemma", on the other hand, turns up the fact that the amount of time evolutionites actually NEED is going to be measured in quadrillions of years and not millions or hundreds of millions or billions or even trillions.
The Haldane dilemma is higher arithmetic, and not higher math. Walter Remine describes a simplified version of the idea thus:
Imagine a population of 100,000 apes or “proto-humans” ten million years ago which are all genetically alike other than for two with a “beneficial mutation”. Imagine also that this population has the human or proto-human generation cycle time of roughly 20 years.
Imagine that the beneficial mutation in question is so good, that all 99,998 other die out immediately (from jealousy), and that the pair with the beneficial mutation has 100,000 kids and thus replenishes the herd.
Imagine that this process goes on like that for ten million years, which is more than anybody claims is involved in “human evolution”.
The max number of such “beneficial mutations” which could thus be substituted into the herd would be ten million divided by twenty, or 500,000 point mutations which, Remine notes, is about 1/100 of one percent of the human genome, and a miniscule fraction of the 2 to 3 percent that separates us from chimpanzees, or the half of that which separates us from neanderthals.
In other words, even given a rate of substitution fabulously beyond anything which is possible in the real world, starting from apes 10M years ago, the furthest along evolution could get in that much time would be an ape with a slightly shorter tail.
People who have done the math claim that even if evolution could account for our present biosphere (it can't), it would take quadrillions of years to do so.
Google searches on 'dinosaur' and 'soft tissue' or 'tyrannosaur' and 'soft tissue' turn up the fact that researchers have been finding soft tissue in dinosaur remains for the past ten years or so: which indicates that dinosaurs died out much more recently than 60M years ago. No. No it doesn’t, not really and not at all. First of all the jury is still out whether what Mary Higby Schweitzer found back in 2005 was in fact dinosaur soft tissues but rather modern biofilm. “The scientists also dissolved bone in acid, as had been done previously, and found the same soft tissue structures. They conducted a comparison using infrared mass spectroscopy and determined the structures were more closely related to modern biofilm than modern collagen, extracellular proteins associated with bone. Carbon dating placed the origin at around 1960.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080729234140.htm
And contrary to the claims of creationists who think this proves that dinosaurs died out within the last four thousand years, what other scientists after Mary Higby Schweitzer found was also not “red juicy meat”, or complete intact soft tissues but collagen, and that the found fragments all came from the same innermost part of the fibrils that make up microfibrils. The research team suggests that because they were so tightly wound, the microfibrils could have survived over millions of years. Again we are not talking about big chucks of red meat but of, after dissolving long ago fossilized bone in acids, rather finding microscopic fragments of what suggests or appears to be some sort of soft tissue fragments, blood cells and evidence of blood vessels. This does not prove the findings are “modern” or only a few thousand years old nor do the real scientists examining them claim them to be such, but it “may” further our understanding of how fossilization works and the timeline over which some tissues may be preserved under unique circumstances. Again the jury is still out on this one.
“The unfortunate side story to all the research done so far though, including these latest findings, is that thus far there is no way to definitively prove whether the soft tissue found inside that T. rex bone was in fact a remnant from its original owner, or something that came after. Thus, claims from both those supporting the idea that dinosaur tissue could have survived for millions of years, and those that think it’s nonsense, are likely to continue.”
http://phys.org/news/2011-06-evidence-dinosaur-soft-tissue.html
I would also point out that Dr. Schweitzer, while an evangelical Christian does not subscribe to “young Earth creationism” or that the dinosaur fossils she found and researched are only a few thousand years old.
“Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.””
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz1w5lAeNq7
A Google search on "Haldane dilemma", on the other hand, turns up the fact that the amount of time evolutionites actually NEED is going to be measured in quadrillions of years and not millions or hundreds of millions or billions or even trillions.
“Haldane's Dilemma refers to a limit on the speed of beneficial evolution, first calculated by J. B. S. Haldane in 1957, and clarified further by later commentators. Creationists, and proponents of intelligent design in particular, claim it remains unresolved. Contrary to creationist claims, Haldane's dilemma is of no importance in the evolutionary genetics literature. Today, Haldane's Dilemma is raised mostly by creationists opposed to evolution, who claim it is evidence against large-scale evolution, and a supposed example of negligence on the part of the scientific community.”
”Haldane stated at the time of publication "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision", and subsequent corrected calculations found that the cost disappears. He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly. The creationist claim is based on further errors and invalid assumptions.”
For further debunking of the supposed Haldane dilemma by creationists read: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/07/haldanes-nondil.html
Other evidence supports a much more recent die-out of dinosaurs; Google searches on "ica stones" as well as on 'dinosaurs' and 'petroglyphs' turn much of that up.
The “inca stones” were debunked as a modern hoax years ago although that doesn’t stop creationists from falsely claiming they are old and that they depict dinos roaming central America with modern humans, and those who also think the very same stones depict “ancient aliens” – queue the pic of the crazy ancient alien guy with the equally crazy hair. LOL!
Some petroglyphs said to depict dinosaurs have similarly been debunked or have been grossly misinterpreted. The very highly stylized and fanciful drawings are probably the artists’ representation of living creatures and or of imaginary creatures of the individual artists own creation and imagination. The ancient Greeks and Egyptians similarly depicted mythological beasts in their art work; three headed monsters and human animal hybrids but most rational and educated people do not interpret this to mean that Harpies and Gorgons and Centaurs and Cyclopes actually existed.
Think of it this way, say 20,000 years from now, a new human civilization with very little understanding or knowledge of our time and civilization except for a very few fragments of our existence, excavated the site of one of our modern art museum and came across a perfectly preserved Picasso painting from his “cubist” period and interpreting that to mean that humans 20,000 years ago must have looked like this:
People who have done the math claim that even if evolution could account for our present biosphere (it can't), it would take quadrillions of years to do so.
Yet these very same creationists like yourself have no problem what so ever claiming that ancient geologic features of the Earth like the Grand Canyon and the Himalayan Mountains came into existence some four thousand years ago over the course of a few weeks or months after a single flood. LOL!