Making No Bones Of It

Like Paul on the Road to Domestos I had an epiphanal moment. Not quite 'on the road' but more like parked in the drive.

I was thinking about fossils and how Creationists say that all fossils are as a direct result of the global flood of Noah. All very sweet. Ah, bless!

Then it struck me. If fossils were formed via the Flood (ah, bless!) then why are there only dinosaurs and other prehistoric fossils? If the flood wiped out all life and it occurred only 4-6,000 years ago, then why aren't there fossils of cows, lions, sheep, donkeys, horses and other modern animals in with the dinosaurs in the same strata?!? And why not humans too?!?

I know Creationists (ah, bless!) talk about animals floating and sinking at different stages, hence the dinosaurs appear lower (and therefore older) but as Ken Ham has said (ah, bless!) the bulk of the dinosaurs were actually quite small - that's why Noah could get them on the Ark (ah, bless!). If that is the case, then why aren't there small dinosaurs fossils alongside the fossils of similarly sized modern animals? Surely they would've sank at the same rate/time?

Oddly enough, there aren't any! Indeed, I'm not aware of any modern animal fossils being found.

Don't you just love Creationists?! Ah, bless!

Do bacteria feel the need to drink Yakult?

As possibly stated before, I have no training in Science apart from a couple of obligatory years in school. Therefore, I am fully aware that any thoughts or opinions I may have about the subject could be well off the mark, and so I'm more than happy to be corrected if wrong.

We know there are such things as 'good bacteria' - the kind that aid digestion and generally keep the body in some sort of balance, as claimed by the various pro-biotic drinks that are available. We also know that the world belongs to bacteria, in that they are the most populous life form on this planet and they live everywhere, even in the most inhospitable places. 

So we know that there are good and bad bacteria, and we know that they are a life form. So according to the Creationists at some point during those first 6 days (it's not mentioned or even hinted at in the Genesis account) God must have created them: "and on the fifth day God said, 'Let there be bacteria', and God saw that they were good".

Then, again according to the Creationists interpretation of Genesis, the Fall happened (not the Band I hasten to add) and everything went sour. Evil and sickness polluted the world and death occurred etc, etc.

Now, if bacteria are life forms, and if God created every life form to be good and perfect, and if the consequences of the Fall led to sickness and death, then it should be possible to witness bacteria becoming ill. After all (or should that be 'after Fall') they are living things, and every living thing, according to Creationists, is subject to the consequences of Sin.

And not only that, just as people, other living things affected by the Fall, can become ill and then restored to health, shouldn't it be possible to cure bacteria and restore them to health? 

 

  

Are you making a monkey out of me?!

Is it just me, or is Ken Ham, arch enemy of Evolution, actually its greatest advocate (albeit unknowingly)?

Now you tells me there's nothing in it! Eh!!