The 70 million years comes from your camp.
Actually it came from your post. You said this (emphasis mine):
now just how in the hell did a bunch of middle eastern shepherds know that the earth didn't have grass over 70 million years ago?
Here you state, as a given within your question, that the Earth didn't have grass over 70 million years ago. You were the first to post, and you were the first to state it. Don't backtrack from it now.
I don't know if you're new to internet forums, but they have the inconvenient tendency to record your words for later retrieval, such that it's difficult to lie about them. I'm fairly sure that your post was recent enough that you can now go back and edit it, but even that's problematic, because I've quoted most of it in parts of my previous post. And both are time-stamped, as would your edit be. Honesty would be a better policy than what you're doing here.
Your camp doesn't mention bushes, guess my camp has more information.
Except that there isn't any reason to think that it's true. Truth has never been the creationist movement's strong point, mind you. Even less so since it tried to rebrand itself as ID.
"It also says that there'd been no rain on land yet. But rain's been around since there've been clouds. Hell, other planets in our solar system even have rain." Did you know there was no grass 70 million years ago? I doubt it, so, pray tell, how do you know there was rain? Oh right...clouds...because clouds always bring rain... #facepalm
Actually I know there was rain because there are a plethora of buried sandstone river channels in the geological record
; these rivers required water sources higher up topographically, and water does not flow uphill on its own. It must be transported upward by evaporation. And the resulting clouds had to rain, or there would be no rivers.
"Sure, and that's silly, because rain predates life on Earth by a large margin." Ah yes, more baseless conjecture...did you come out of the womb this dense or were you trained? Because you are quite incredibly dense...yes, quite incredibly.
Not baseless at all. Generally speaking, the natural factors that cause rain are the the presence of oceans, the sun, and a rotating Earth. These all necessarily existed before life could arise on Earth. Hell, even your Bible has them existing before life does, because it makes sense to set a stage before placing actors on it.
Also, clastic sediments (those transported by flowing water) and their metamorphosed counterparts exist in the geological record well before any multicellular
life is present. Since a water cycle (ie. rain) is required for flowing water to occur, this means that rain at the very least predates multicellular life.
"Ignoring inconvenient facts is generally helpful for the ID crowd." Now which facts did I ignore?
You ignored facts about time. You even stated that you were doing so.
Pretty sure I was using your facts against you...while quoting verbatim from a book that is known to be thousands of years old. Guess you are so dense you think the only facts are the facts that you enjoy...not so, my dear watson, not so.
Perhaps you should re-read your post, then. You yourself said you would be ignoring any facts concerning time.
Again, still curious on where I am missing facts...I am particularly focusing on one event...the appearance of grass...which happens to coincide with the dinosaur extinction. You really are a bona fide idiota.
You are ignoring facts about anything beyond your focus.
"Actually we do:
And this is where I stop reading your post. You used wikipedia as a source? Obviously you don't have an education. Next please!
I am using it to help educate you. It's a good first stop for those like yourself who havn't been exposed to these sorts of topics before. If you dispute the information in that article, you might want to look to the bottom of the page where its information is sourced. If you would prefer scholarly articles, then I suggest you research them yourself. Wikipedia is usually a good starting point for those.
I must say, our most active hard-core creationist on here - skeptic54768 - has far superior scholarship to your own. It's still abyssmal, of course, but he at least tries.