Young-Earth Christians: How Old is the Earth?

[jimbo]

Hello,

The earth has been established by various scientific measurements to be billions of years old--aproximately 4-4.5 billion years old. However, fundamentalist Christians think that the earth is only a few thousand years old. These Christians base this belief on what is written in the Bible. I would be interested to have a young earth creationist on these boards try and explain what actual evidence there is that the earth is only a few thousand years old. I would like to see positive evidence for your position rather than just attacks on dating methods.

Thanks.

Jimbo

[Socrates]

Jimbo asserts although he really has no idea of the science involved:
The earth has been established by various scientific measurements to be billions of years old--aproximately 4-4.5 billion years old. However, fundamentalist Christians think that the earth is only a few thousand years old. These Christians base this belief on what is written in the Bible. I would be interested to have a young earth creationist on these boards try and explain what actual evidence there is that the earth is only a few thousand years old. I would like to see positive evidence for your position rather than just attacks on dating methods.What is wrong with attacking ‘dating’ methods (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp), since you're content to glibly quote them as gospel, oblivious to the many assumptions.

But for positive evidence, we have the best of all—a reliable Eye-witness to the event who has provided a written record, which overrules any circumstantial evidence! And even if we grant evolutionary/uniformitarian assumptions, there are oodles of processes pointing to an age far younger than billions of years—see Young Earth Evidence (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp)

[jimbo]

Socrates,

But for positive evidence, we have the best of all—a reliable Eye-witness to the event who has provided a written record, which overrules any circumstantial evidence!

What are you referring to?

So you appear to be a young earth creationist. How old do you believe the earth is?

Thanks.

Jimbo

[Socrates]

-------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
But for positive evidence, we have the best of all—a reliable Eye-witness to the event who has provided a written record, which overrules any circumstantial evidence!
-------------------------------------------------------------

Jimbo

What are you referring to?
The written account by the Creator in Genesis.Far better than circumstantial evidency from flawed "dating" methods.


So you appear to be a young earth creationist. How old do you believe the earth is?As I've said elsewhere, said written account is unambiguous that the Earth is about 6000 years old.

[jimbo]

Socrates,

Thank you for your response. I believe we have established three things about your view of reality: You believe that Genesis was written by your god in some fashion, you believe that Genesis is an accurate and truthful account of history, and you believe that the earth is only 6000 years old.

Am I correctly portraying your position on these matters?

Jimbo

[$cirisme]

Hey, jimbo,

Where is your proof(and I mean proof and not more assertions :wink:) for your assertion.

Namely,

The earth has been established by various scientific measurements to be billions of years old--aproximately 4-4.5 billion years old.

:smile:

[Blake Reas]

Jimbo,
I am curious how do you account for the principle of Induction? You must have it to do science, the definition (roughly stated) is what happens now happened in the past, or Uniformitarinism. My question to you is how do you know that things happen today as they did in the past?

I can account for this, since I believe in a consistent God, where as you believe in blind chance processes. How do you know that there was not a big bang that happened 5 minutes ago and all of your Knowledge is illusory?:bonk: Just some curious questions about your inconsistent world view.

In Christ,
Blake

[Sozo]

Doesn't anyone around here own a calander?

The earth was created Feb 29th 4007 B.C. (It was a leap year).

We are approaching 6010 years old! Happy B "earth" day!!

[jimbo]

Blake,

I am curious how do you account for the principle of Induction? You must have it to do science, the definition (roughly stated) is what happens now happened in the past, or Uniformitarinism.

I am afraid I don't understand what you are asking. Could you be more specific?

I can account for this, since I believe in a consistent God,

You believe in miracles and supernaturalism. There is no consistency or predictability in those things.

where as you believe in blind chance processes.

I believe in the predictable regularity of natural law.

How do you know that there was not a big bang that happened 5 minutes ago and all of your Knowledge is illusory?

How do you know that you are not just a brain in a jar which is imagining this conversation? Questions like these are kind of pointless.

Just some curious questions about your inconsistent world view.

I fail to see what is inconsistent about basing my understanding of reality on facts and logic rather than the tall tales of ancient people.

Now back to the point of this thread: How old do you believe the earth is? And what do you base your belief on?

Thanks.

Jimbo

[Socrates]

Jimbo asked:
Thank you for your response. I believe we have established three things about your view of reality: You believe that Genesis was written by your god in some fashion, you believe that Genesis is an accurate and truthful account of history, and you believe that the earth is only 6000 years old.Yes to all the above. To clarify, I believe God inspired Moses to act as editor of Genesis, accurately compiling pre-existing records, and that it's not "only" 6000 years old but that this is an incredibly long time.

[voidhawk]

02-23-2003 @ 08:05 PM
Blake Reas:

Jimbo,
I am curious how do you account for the principle of Induction? You must have it to do science, the definition (roughly stated) is what happens now happened in the past, or Uniformitarinism. My question to you is how do you know that things happen today as they did in the past?

I can account for this, since I believe in a consistent God, where as you believe in blind chance processes. How do you know that there was not a big bang that happened 5 minutes ago and all of your Knowledge is illusory?:bonk: Just some curious questions about your inconsistent world view.

In Christ,
Blake

Just my 2 cents worth.

Christians are in the same positions as the rest of us with regard to logic and induction. At present, the state of our knowledge does not permit us to give a fully coherent justification for their effectiveness, but their utility can be verified. In this case I’ll take verification over speculative justification. Presuppositionalism is an ingenious but flawed system. If you apply Presuppositionalism to itself and examine its presuppositions, for example there is a rational, consistent Christian world view revealed by Scripture you find it is false. Thus applying the methodology of Presuppositionalism to Presuppositionalism; Presuppositionalism is void, it has no rational worldview to base its claims on. If you would like to debate this I’ll meet you on the TAG thread

[Socrates]

Voidhawk:
Christians are in the same positions as the rest of us with regard to logic and induction.No we are not, because our presuppositions are both internally consistent and externally consistent in that they provide a rational framwork to make sense of the world.

At present, the state of our knowledge does not permit us to give a fully coherent justification for their effectiveness, but their utility can be verified. In this case I’ll take verification over speculative justification. First you beg the question as to whether someone you disagree with is “speculative”. But verification has its own problems. For one thing, trying to use verification to prove a theory ends up committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent — see this discussion (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v12n2_logic.asp#prediction).

Also, it is internally inconsistent — how can the verification principle itself be verified? Evidently logical positivism isn't quite extinct yet.


Presuppositionalism is an ingenious but flawed system. If you apply Presuppositionalism to itself and examine its presuppositions, for example there is a rational, consistent Christian world view revealed by Scripture you find it is false. I have examined this, as presumably has BlakeReas,and we disagree with you.

Thus applying the methodology of Presuppositionalism to Presuppositionalism; Presuppositionalism is void, it has no rational worldview to base its claims on. If you would like to debate this I’ll meet you on the TAG threadYou know naught of which you speak. Christian presuppositional apologetics starts with unprovable propositions called axioms, but so does every philosophical system.

[voidhawk]

02-24-2003 @ 10:52 AM
Socrates:

No we are not, because our presuppositions are both internally consistent and externally consistent in that they provide a rational framwork to make sense of the world.

First you beg the question as to whether someone you disagree with is “speculative”. But verification has its own problems. For one thing, trying to use verification to prove a theory ends up committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent — see this discussion (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v12n2_logic.asp#prediction).

Also, it is internally inconsistent — how can the verification principle itself be verified? Evidently logical positivism isn't quite extinct yet.

I have examined this, as presumably has BlakeReas,and we disagree with you.

You know naught of which you speak. Christian presuppositional apologetics starts with unprovable propositions called axioms, but so does every philosophical system.

I have posted a reply in the TAG thread.

[Goochdad]

Several people posting here seem to have the idea that verification is a circular argument.

For one thing, the scientific method isn't based on verification as much as on falsification. And falsification is taken to be a sound approach based on two things--the sound reasoning behind it (cf. Popper) and the excellent results provided by this methodology.

You can presuppose Christianity and YEC, but if you refuse to recognize that YEC has been falsified, then you're just walling yourself off in a belief system that has no real bearing on the actual world we observe.

The point is this--there is no such thing as 'creation science', until creationists are willing to accept falsifiability.

And the idea of a young earth has been falsified. The isochron dating methods used to date the igneous rocks of the earth's crust are based on sound physics. Don't just toss out a website on 'evidence for a young earth', present some actual evidence.

Some areas of evidence that falsifiy a young earth:

--160 or so meteor impact craters worldwide, at different depths in the geological column.

--salt domes hundreds of feet thick, beneath layers of sedimentation. Any worldwide flood would have dissolved this salt.

--An ancient riverbed in Texas that is under 1600 feet or so of sediment; this riverbed runs through a layer of ancient limestone, which also must have formed over many millions of years.

--the Green River varves in Wyoming; annual sedimentation layers that run to many tens of thousands of layers.

--Split Mountain in Utah, which has the Green River (a tributary of the Colorado River) running right through the middle of the mountain.

--The angular unconformities such as are found in the Grand Canyon.

--meanderings of the Grand Canyon that change direction 180 degrees; the river runs back and forth several times through tight bends. Not the sort of formation that would be formed by a flood.

Geologists agree that the earth is ancient, and this was determined initially by *creationist* geologists in the early 1800's, years before Darwin's theory of evolution was presented or accepted.

[Sera Sixwings]

Hi.

I really appreciated the integrity of the Tim Couchman paper which closes, in part, with the following plea:Do not slam the door on science, for in so doing you shut-out both the natural revelation of God and honest believers who are doing their best to handle that revelation accurately. Accept the “right” of science to read God’s natural revelation. Challenge the right of pseudo-science to elevate any interpretation, no matter how well-supported, to the status of fact.

- see Ruminations of a Reluctant OEC[/b] (][b)As for Goochdad (strange name), the reference to Popper seems appropriate. Early into his autobiography he writes: "Thus I arrived, by the end of 1919, at the conclusion that the scientific attitude was the critical attitude, which did not look for verifications but for crucial tests; tests which could refute the theory tested, though they could never establish it." [Unended Quest, pg. 38]

[Socrates]

Goochdad:

Several people posting here seem to have the idea that verification is a circular argument.No, the verification principle is self-refuting, because it cannot itself be verified under its own criteria. I.e. it is neither a truth of logic nor deducible by empirical means. And it also commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
For one thing, the scientific method isn't based on verification as much as on falsification. And falsification is taken to be a sound approach based on two things—the sound reasoning behind it (cf. Popper) and the excellent results provided by this methodology.At least falsification is based on the valid denying the consequent. But Kuhn pointed out that real scientists tolerate many anomalies in their paradigm, and Lakatos pointed out the role of protective auxiliary hypotheses. See the discussion here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2003/0207.asp), showing that Popperianism is naïve, and now seems to be used only by evolutionists against creationists. Yet they suddenly discover its naïveté when used against evolution!

You can presuppose Christianity and YEC, but if you refuse to recognize that YEC has been falsified, then you're just walling yourself off in a belief system that has no real bearing on the actual world we observe. First, it hasn't, because all the supposed old-earth proofs rely on certain assumptions. And secondly, I can argue that billions of years has been falsified by the evidence, not only the reliable Eye-witness record of the Creator which must over-rule any circumstantial evidence, but also the scientific evidence in the articles here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp). Of course, the old-earthers would invoke auxiliary hypotheses or just accept the old earth on faith. This is exactly what Darwin and Huxley did when they couldn't answer Lord Kelvin's claim to have falsified uniformitarian with physical processes limiting Earth's age (and I'd argue that the supposed refutation of Kelvin was no such thing—see here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4075.asp)).

And the idea of a young earth has been falsified. The isochron dating methods used to date the igneous rocks of the earth's crust are based on sound physics.Au contraire, isochrons are measurements of isotopic ratios that are interpreted as long age. But other processes are known to produce beautiful “isochron” plots — AiG's Dr Tas Walker has shown that in his own first-class honors thesis.

Don't just toss out a website on ‘evidence for a young earth’, present some actual evidence.What you mean is, don't try to confuse me with the facts! I could have “tossed out” the same sort of one liners as you!

Some areas of evidence that falsifiy a young earth:

--160 or so meteor impact craters worldwide, at different depths in the geological column.Not possible, because by definition a meteor totally burns up :doh:. It is a meteorite if it hits. But anyway, most of these meteorite craters, if such they are, impacted during the Flood year, as shown by the heavy erosion. There is dispute over whether the Chicxulub crater really is due to impact. See The Extinction of the Dinosaurs (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/TJ/docs/tjv11n2_extinct.pdf)

--the Green River varves in Wyoming; annual sedimentation layers that run to many tens of thousands of layers.See, here you have assumed that the layers are annual, but there is evidence to the contrary—see Green River Blues (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/213.asp). The production of many laminae very quickly is well known.
....

Geologists agree that the earth is ancient,Geologists like Drs Andrew Snelling, Steve Austin, Kurt Wise, Tas Walker agree to no such thing.
and this was determined initially by *creationist* geologists in the early 1800's, years before Darwin's theory of evolution was presented or accepted.But Hutton (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/quotes/hutton.asp), a deist, had already declared a priori that the Flood to be inadmissible as evidence, and Lyell (http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0924ep1.asp#lyell) was a deistic lawyer with typical debating tactics and ignoring contrary evidence. Darwin merely applied uniformitarianism to biology.

[Socrates]

Sera Sixwings

I really appreciated the integrity of the Tim Couchman paper which closes, in part, with the following plea:Of course, by “integrity” you mean “that which agrees with you”. And why should this Tim Couchman interest me in the slightest? It's just another argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to authority.
Do not slam the door on science, for in so doing you shut-out both the natural revelation of God and honest believers who are doing their best to handle that revelation accurately. Who is doing so. YECs distinguish between science and interpretations of data that contradict the Creator's propositional revelation in Genesis.
Accept the “right” of science to read God’s natural revelation.Accept the “right” to interpret the data of this cursed creation by God's special revelation in infallible Scripture. Challenge the right of pseudo-science to elevate any interpretation, no matter how well-supported, to the status of fact.Rather, challenge the right of so-called “science”, which is not the true operfational science but really uniformitarian interpretions of data by fallible scientists who weren't there, to overturn the clear propositional teaching of the infallible God who was there.

[RufusAtticus]

When ever a young-earther complains about radiometric dating I send him/her to the following link Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html).

I'd also like to see this explained (http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/isotope_list.html) by YECism.


Isotope Half-Life Found on Earth?
(megayears)

Vanadium 50 6,000,000,000 yes
Neodymium 144 2,400,000,000 yes
Hafnium 174 2,000,000,000 yes
Platinum 192 1,000,000,000 yes
Indium 115 600,000,000 yes
Gadolinium 152 110,000,000 yes
Tellurium 123 12,000,000 yes
Platinum 190 690,000 yes
Lanthanum 138 112,000 yes
Samarium 147 106,000 yes
Rubidium 87 48,800 yes
Rhenium 187 43,000 yes
Lutetium 176 35,000 yes
Thorium 232 14,000 yes
Uranium 238 4,470 yes
Potassium 40 1,250 yes
Uranium 235 704 yes
Samarium 146 103 no
Plutonium 244 82 by extreme effort
Curium 247 16 no
Lead 205 15 no
Hafnium 182 9 no
Palladium 107 7 no
Cesium 135 3 no
Technetium 97 3 no
Gadolinium 150 2 no
Zirconium 93 2 no
Technetium 98 2 no
Dysprosium 154 1 no

[QED]

not only the reliable Eye-witness record of the Creator which must over-rule any circumstantial evidence

The evidence of an eye-witness account can be severely damaged by:

1) being conveyed as hearsay
2) having an eye-witness who is anynomous (or who cannot be identified by objective means)
3) by failing to objectively establish that the eye-witness was present at the event, or show good reason to believe that she was.
4) by the witness being unavailable for cross-examination

In a case where the eye-witness testimony is damaged in these ways, the account does not over-rule the physical evidence. Even under the best of circumstances, eye-witness testimony does not over-rule the physical evidence when the physical evidence is sufficient, since eye-witness accounts have been shown to be less than perfectly reliable.

Really, you are stuck with the physical evidence, and the AiG page you referenced manages not to address the bulk of it, and falls far short of falsifying an old earth model. It also fails to rescue a young earth model from the evidence that falsifies it.

Sorry no patience to address the rest of your post. Maybe another day.

[Goochdad]

Socrates:

Its late, I'm just going to deal with one bit of your overwhelmingly fallacious post. It isn't argumentum ad verecundiam if the person cited actually IS an authority on the subject in question. Read up on your logical fallacies again. And presenting a few geologists against the overwhelming majority gets you nowhere. The claims of science are sifted through peer review, and not ONE of the geologists you have named have presented their YEC claims in the peer reviewed journals of geological science.

[Sauron]

02-27-2003 @ 06:08 PM
Socrates:

Geologists agree that the earth is ancient,[/list]Geologists like Drs Andrew Snelling, Steve Austin, Kurt Wise, Tas Walker agree to no such thing.


Incidentally, Glenn Morton (who is himself a geologist and an OEC) shreds Steve Austin's bad science here:

http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/grandcanyon.htm

[Goochdad]

Oh, one more thing, Socrates--you forgot to deal with that riverbed that is buried under 1600 feet of sediment, and has several thousand more feet of sediment underneath. A picture is attached to this post.

The website that describes this feature is here:

http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/age.htm

Along with a number of other features that falsify a young earth. Thanks for playing!!

[Sauron]

Indeed.

And fossilized raindrops, and lakeshore ripples, that are found in several strata - which are themselves buried underneath several dozen other feet of *different* strata.

How would that be possible, in a cataclysm?

[TheFiveSolas]

Goochdad wrote:

It isn't argumentum ad verecundiam if the person cited actually IS an authority on the subject in question. Read up on your logical fallacies again.


Actually, argumentum ad verecundicam also applies when you appeal to someone that IS an authority WITHOUT looking at the actual argument for or against the issue in question. Of course, the fallacy is even greater when the person/institution in question is NOT really an authority, OR isn't an authority in the area being disputed/asserted.


argumentum ad verecundiam (argument to veneration) (a) appealing to authority (including customs, traditions, institutions, etc.) in order to gain acceptance of a point at issue...

Taken from:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~c100298/fallacies.html

D. Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) -- Trying
to persaude merely by citing an authority.
1. The Authority of the One
2. The Authority of the Many (Bandwagon argument)
3. The Authority of the Select Few
4. The Authority of Tradition

Taken from:
http://www.ling.rochester.edu/~duniho/fallacies.html

[TheFiveSolas]

As for Goochdad (strange name), the reference to Popper seems appropriate. Early into his autobiography he writes: "Thus I arrived, by the end of 1919, at the conclusion that the scientific attitude was the critical attitude, which did not look for verifications but for crucial tests; tests which could refute the theory tested, though they could never establish it." [Unended Quest, pg. 38]


What Goochdad and Sera fail to realize is that both Verificationism and Falsificationism flow out of the philosophical school of Logical Positivism, which has been shown to be self-refuting.
1) The verificationist principle was disproven simply by showing that the principle itself wasn't testable by its own hypothesis.
2) Likewise, the attempt at saving Logical Positivism from the destruction of its main principle through postulating the alternative "falsificationist" principle again was disproven simply by pointing out that the principle itself was NOT subject to falsification!

Foiled again! The rule turned out to be the "exception to the rule", therefore, self-refuting.

[TheFiveSolas]

Sauron wrote:

fossilized raindrops, and lakeshore ripples, that are found in several strata - which are themselves buried underneath several dozen other feet of *different* strata.


Anyone for a nice game of Elephant Hurling?

Not to mention the fact that your assertion is rather vague and unsubstantiated.

How about some references from "peer-reviewed journals"?

The following relies on sarcasm...

(Father hands a rock imbedded with some odd looking impressions)
"Do you see those strange indentations son?"
"Yes daddy, I do. What made them?"
"Well son, sometimes raindrops harden, become petrified, and over time fossilize"

[Sauron]

02-27-2003 @ 10:56 PM
TheFiveSolas:

Sauron wrote:


Anyone for a nice game of Elephant Hurling?

Not to mention the fact that your assertion is rather vague and unsubstantiated.


Is it?


How about some references from "peer-reviewed journals"?


Here's some general info:
http://www.canadianrockhound.com/junior/fossils_eldon_george.html

And here's specific info from the University of North Dakota, outlining the layers in the Grand Canyon.

http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/mineral/101intro/grandcanyon/grandcan.htm

Pay special attention to Picture #8 - it shows the Tapeats Sandstone. Ripple marks, crustacean tracks and worm trails have been found in this sandstone, which has several layers above it, and several layers below it.

If there was a cataclysm, then how did ripple marks, crustacean tracks, and worm trails survive to be fossilized?

:huh:

[Socrates]

Sauron:

If there was a cataclysm, then how did ripple marks, crustacean tracks, and worm trails survive to be fossilized? More likely, how on earth will ripple marks and crustacean tracks ever survive if they were exposed for millions of years? How long would your own tracks last? Rather, this points to the next layer being deposited very quickly.

In fact, the Tapeats Sandstone is good evidence of catastrophe. There is a formation called the Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon, where rock layers including the Tapeats Sandstone were uplifted by a mile, and in one place bend about 90 degrees in just over 30 m. This is claimed to have been 480 million years old at the time of the warping, by which time it would have surely hardened. But if it were hard at the time of warping, we would expect to find evidence of great stress, e.g. elongated sand grains or broken crystals of cementing minerals. Yet we don’t, indicating that the material was still soft while bending, showing that it could not have been laid down over millions of years but was deformed soon after deposition, thus eliminating a half billion years from the supposed geological time scale. [Comes from this article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_31march2002.asp)]

Worm trails are also good evidence for rapidity, because it shows there because there wasn't enough time for the marine animals to recycle the sediment (bioturbation) and destroy the layering.

[Socrates]

Sauron:

Incidentally, Glenn Morton (who is himself a geologist and an OEC) shreds Steve Austin's bad science hereMoron has only a B.S. degree, and it's in physics, while Austin has a Ph.D. in geology and refuted all Moron's pathetic arguments until Austin got sick of Moron's timewasting and misleading. And Moron is not an OEC but a rabid theistic evolutionist.

[Socrates]

Goochdad:

And presenting a few geologists against the overwhelming majority gets you nowhere.It gets me everywhere when you made a glib claim that "geologists" say such and such, and I find highly qualified geologists who disagree.

The claims of science are sifted through peer review, and not ONE of the geologists you have named have presented their YEC claims in the peer reviewed journals of geological science.First, TJ (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/technical.asp) is a peer reviewed science journal.
Second, most evolutionary journals censor challenges to uniformitarianism.
Third, Dr Snelling has more than once vigorously defended his creationist position in the most open secular geology forum possible, in the newsletter of Australian geological community, [i]The Australian Geologist[i] (68:16–21, 20/9/1988; and 71:18, 30/6/1989). So you're just plain WRONG!!:bonk:

[Socrates]

RufusAtticus

When ever a young-earther complains about radiometric dating I send him/her to the following link Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.And whenever a rabid misotheist like you sends an article like that, I use this as yet another example of how anti-Christian bigots use such compromising churchians as Wien as "useful idiots", to borrow Lenin's term. And I just throw back the articles here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp).

I'd also like to see this explained by YECism.I'd like to see why anti-YEC bigots keep parroting this canard which was long ago refuted here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_17December2001.asp).

[Goochdad]

Sorry, Socrates, a Deleted by moderator of creationists publishing their pseudocscience in their own rag doesn't make it a science journal. Since they are going and finding data that fits their hypothesis of a young earth, and ignoring all other data, they by definition aren't doing science.

Which is exactly what YOU are doing also. I've presented a challenge to you, to explain that buried riverbed with YEC explanations. Oh, and salt domes also. They cannot be explained with YEC ideas.

You have tried to hand-wave away the meteor craters too, and it doesn't cut it. Since the craters are found in different layers, they cannot have been created during a flood. Unless the impact mass is similar to the size of the Chixzulub meteorite, there won't BE a crater formed if the impact is on a deep ocean. As I said, the craters are at different depths, and show drastically different amounts of weathering. You have no explanation, old-earth geology does. You lose, old earth wins.

So, I'm waiting--buried riverbed? Salt domes? Hello? Are you going to try to make me believe that salt wasn't water-soluble during your global flood?

[Goochdad]

Oh, yeah, Socrates, one more thing. Show me which mainstream science journal 'censors' creationist publications. If they present good science, it will be published. But the young-earth hypothesis was falsified nearly 200 years ago.

[wehappyfew]

03-02-2003 @ 10:10 AM
Socrates wrote:


In fact, the Tapeats Sandstone is good evidence of catastrophe. There is a formation called the Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon, where rock layers including the Tapeats Sandstone were uplifted by a mile, and in one place bend about 90 degrees in just over 30 m. This is claimed to have been 480 million years old at the time of the warping, by which time it would have surely hardened. But if it were hard at the time of warping, we would expect to find evidence of great stress, e.g. elongated sand grains or broken crystals of cementing minerals. Yet we don’t, indicating that the material was still soft while bending, showing that it could not have been laid down over millions of years but was deformed soon after deposition, thus eliminating a half billion years from the supposed geological time scale. [Comes from this article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_31march2002.asp)]


This excerpt from AIG illustrates quite clearly how badly they mangle facts:

" But if it were hard at the time of warping, we would expect to find evidence of great stress, e.g. elongated sand grains or broken crystals of cementing minerals. Yet we don’t..."
This is comically wrong.
Deformation band shear zones (DBSZs), joints, faults with fragmented slip surfaces, localized shearing, and crushed grains trapped between displaced blocks of solid rock are common, easily observed, and VERY well studied. Either AIG's "scientists" didn't know about them, meaning they are incompetent; or they deliberately withheld their knowledge in order to better deceive and swindle their gullible flocks.

For those interested in learning more about these well-studied examples of brittle-rock deformation features, the following links will get you started:

Deformation of Rock (http://earthsci.org/teacher/basicgeol/deform/deform.html#Stress%20and%20Strain)

Fracture Development and Kinematics of the San Rafael Swell, Utah (http://jove.geol.niu.edu/faculty/fischer/mpf_research/Utah.html)
"The Colorado Plateau is well-known for extensive, regional joint systems..."

TYPES OF INTERNAL DEFORMATION IN THE SAN RAFAEL MONOCLINE (http://www.eas.purdue.edu/physproc/pdf%20Files/StructuresInSanRafaelMonocline.pdf)
"Deformation bands are distinctive features in sandstones. Because the quartz grains within the band have been crushed and the porosity has been greatly reduced, the bands form resistant white ridges in sandstone (Figure 3)."

http://www.eas.purdue.edu/physproc/JPEG%20Images/DBSINGLE_small.jpg

ATILLA FAULTS IN ENTRADA SANDSTONE (http://www.eas.purdue.edu/physproc/pdf%20Files/AtillaFaults.pdf)
http://www.eas.purdue.edu/physproc/JPEG%20Images/DBZNBND.jpg

INFLUENCE OF DEFORMATION BAND SHEAR ZONES ON JOINT DEVELOPMENT (http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2002AM/finalprogram/abstract_46156.htm)


The result is a faulty conclusion...
"...thus eliminating a half billion years from the supposed geological time scale."
... based on faulty premises.

Every time you read a statement of fact from AIG, you should independently research that statement. Most of the time, you will find fundamentally flawed research at the heart of AIG's "science".

[RufusAtticus]

03-02-2003 @ 10:20 AM
Socrates:

TJ (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/technical.asp) is a peer reviewed science journal.[/b]

No it is not. According to this page (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0113peterson.asp), AiG charges per hour to review manuscripts. That disqulifies them as doing peer review.

Second, most evolutionary journals censor challenges to uniformitarianism.

Ooo, a conspiracy theory. :rolleyes:

[RufusAtticus]

03-02-2003 @ 10:26 AM
Socrates:

And whenever a rabid misotheist like you sends an article like that, I use this as yet another example of how anti-Christian bigots use such compromising churchians as Wien as "useful idiots", to borrow Lenin's term.[/b]

Ooo, ad hominem. Perhaps you should review the boards rules, Socrates. Perhaps you should even get to know me before you toss arround offensive terms like "misotheist" and "anti-Christian." That doesn't seem very Christian, in my book.

And I just throw back the articles here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp).

Nice try. You got anything specific that addresses Wien's article, or will you just keep questioning his faith and parroting AiG misinformation?

I'd like to see why anti-YEC bigots keep parroting this canard which was long ago refuted here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_17December2001.asp).

You call that a refutation? LOL Safarti uses an omphalos argument, which is neither scripturally sound or scientifically sound.

[Goochdad]

(bump)

Oh Socrates, can you take the time from hurling insults at other posters to try to explain those meteor craters (in an actual complete scenario, not a sound bite) the salt domes, the buried riverbed, the angular unconformities (now that your claim that there is no sign of stress has been nicely shot down) the meanderings of the lower Colorado.....

oh, and those varves too. You claimed that I 'assume' that they are old. Wrong. They layers between the varves carbon-date at ages that very nicely correlate to annual ages for the varves. The evidence shows that the varves are annual. If you claim that they are NOT annual, then please provide the evidence. Here's a hint--rhetoric doesn't count as evidence.

Cheers.

[Socrates]

----------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
TJ is a peer reviewed science journal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
RufusAtticus shows he can't read: :dufus:
No it is not. According to this page, AiG charges per hour to review manuscripts. That disqulifies them as doing peer review.You're so pathetic. This is a fee for reviewing manuscripts of proposed books by authors before they are published:doh: It has nothing to do with the papers submitted to TJ.

Socrates:
And whenever a rabid misotheist like you sends an article like that, I use this as yet another example of how anti-Christian bigots use such compromising churchians as Wien as "useful idiots", to borrow Lenin's term.[/b]
----------------------------------------------------------
Ooo, ad hominem. Perhaps you should review the boards rules, Socrates. Perhaps you should even get to know me before you toss arround offensive terms like "misotheist" and "anti-Christian." That doesn't seem very Christian, in my book.What would you know or care? And I was simply stating the facts! I don't care if it offends those who wallow in politically correct victim culture.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Soc:
And I just throw back the articles here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RA:
Nice try. You got anything specific that addresses Wien's article, Enough to show that his faith in radiometric dating is totally misplaced.or will you just keep questioning his faithThe fact that a rabid misotheistic bigot like you loves him is enough reason for suspicion! and parroting AiG misinformation?By "misinformation", you mean anything that disagrees with billions-of-years dogma, since you are incapable of refuting it.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Soc:
I'd like to see why anti-YEC bigots keep parroting this canard which was long ago refuted here.
--------------------------------------------------------------
RA:
You call that a refutation? LOL Safarti uses an omphalos argument, which is neither scripturally sound or scientifically sound.You can't even get his name right! And what would you know about the scientific merits, and what would you care about SCriptural soundness. And it has NOTHING to do with omphalos, which says that God created Adam with navels. Rather it's the opposite, because the argument shows that the anti-YEC bigot is making assumptions that God did create some radionuclides which would have been very dangerous.

[Goochdad]

Socrates, did you have an argument buried somewhere in that post? I can't find it amongst the insults and whining. Here's a suggestion, when you actually make an argument or provide some evidence, could you put it in boldface to make it stand out from the rest of your post?

Thanks kindly.

[Pilgrim]

I would kindly ask all parties involved to tone the insulting language down a bit. This petition is not for any particular poster as I have noticed corse language and ad hominems from more than one poster here.

We like to see lively debate at TWeb but if you are interested in getting personal, please take it to the gym where we allow the gloves to come off a bit more freely.

Thanks

Pilgrim

[Richard Romano]

03-03-2003 @ 12:39 AM
Goochdad:

Oh, yeah, Socrates, one more thing. Show me which mainstream science journal 'censors' creationist publications. If they present good science, it will be published. But the young-earth hypothesis was falsified nearly 200 years ago.

Actually, they DO censor Creationist work, or at least anything that challenges the so-called science of evolution. I recall a certain evolutionist uncovering human bones at a strata where there aren't supposed to be any humans! He was immediately censored; science journals have vehemently refused to publish his works. I cannot remember his name at the moment, but I will follow up once I get the information from a colleague of mine.

Keep up the great work Socrates, you are showing why evolutionism is immersed in faulty logic and presuppositions... thankfully the proponents are as misguided as the supposed evolutionary process :-)

[Socrates]

Goochdad shows how little he has read the debates so far:
Oh, yeah, Socrates, one more thing. Show me which mainstream science journal 'censors' creationist publications. If they present good science, it will be published.A number of major journals have made it abundantly clear that they will not publish creationist letters, or even give them the right of reply. A few examples are given here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0406news.asp), and note carefully that this article itself was published on the AiG website after the journal refused the right of reply. But the young-earth hypothesis was falsified nearly 200 years ago. In your dreams. And I bet you'll later claim that YEC isn't true science because it's not falsifiable, hoping that people won't notice the contradiction. Lots of evolutionists have made these two contrary accusations against creation, even in the same page :doh:

In any case, no-one denied that there are cases where there is faulting and quartz grain deformation, otherwise how could the AiG scientists have said that this would have been expected if the rock was hard at the time of the uplift. But the fact remains of many places where the sandstone was NOT fully consolidated before it was uplifted and bent.

I've pointed this Goochdad to answers to his boring old canards, including proving that the varves are not annual. So check every accusation made against YECs by misotheistic bigots and their compromising churchian allies.

I also like JPHolding's latest additions to You may be a fundy atheist if... (http://www.tektonics.org/fundyath.html), e.g.:
When a creationist points out problems with the evolutionist model you claim that the whole point of science is to answer problems like these. But if you can point out even one problem in the creationist model it should instantly be abandoned as absurd.

[Goochdad]

03-03-2003 @ 09:05 AM
Socrates:


I've pointed this Goochdad to answers to his boring old canards, including proving that the varves are not annual. So check every accusation made against YECs by misotheistic bigots and their compromising churchian allies.

You've pointed me to a non-peer reviewed web page from AiG about varves. What about the meteors, the salt domes, the angular unconformities, the buried riverbed? They falsify the YEC model, period. And you have provided no explanation for these features, which directly contradict the predictions of any YEC model.

[Socratism]

I am sympathetic toward creationists for one reason that anti-creationists speak out of both sides of their mouth.

They admit that science does not have all the answers yet, but then chastise creationists when there are still problems to be solved in the creationist hypothesis.

This behavior strikes me as hypocritical.

[Pilgrim]

Very interesting insight. One side always expcts the other to have all the answers and if it doesn't accuses them of being totally wrong.

[RufusAtticus]

Ignoring all the insults Socrates has leveled . . . .

Hmm nothing to respond to.

Hey, Socrates, do you have an intellectual argument in there somewhere?

[ACFaith.Com]

The lowdown on Christianity and Science (http://www.acfaith.com/faithscience.html)

Vinnie

[Sera Sixwings]

[03-03-2003 @ 06:13 PM] - Socratism:

They admit that science does not have all the answers yet, but then chastise creationists when there are still problems to be solved in the creationist hypothesis.Hi.

Would you please tell me what is "the creationist hypothesis"?

[Socrates]

Goochdad
You've pointed me to a non-peer reviewed web page from AiG about varves. It was peer-reviewed, in the sense that the magazine has a number of Ph.D. scientists as consultants, and the author is a qualified geologist. I've yet to see you support your claim that the varves MUST be annual. Did you time them personally?

Since that's one of your supposedly irrefutable arguments smashed to smithereens, why should we trust any of your other wizened old canards?

[Sera Sixwings]

[03-04-2003 @ 07:56 AM] - Socrates:

You've pointed me to a non-peer reviewed web page from AiG about varves. [/list]It was peer-reviewed, in the sense that the magazine has a number of Ph.D. scientists as consultants, and the author is a qualified geologist
Thanks! :rofl: 'I asked all my best, like-minded friends if they agree with me' is a pretty funny definition of peer review. If you're impressed by "Ph.D. scientists as consultants" you should consider membership in the Astrological Association of Great Britain. Culture and Cosmos Editorial Board: Professor Anthony F. Aveni (Russell B.Colgate Professor of Astronomy and Anthropology, Colgate University, New York, author of Conversing with the Planets)
Dr Guiseppe Bezza
Professor J.Bruce Brackenbridge (Dept. of History of Science, Lawrence University)
Dr David Brown (Wolfson College, Oxford)
Dr Charles Burnett (Warburg Institute, London, co-trans. Abu Ma’shar, The Abbreviation of the Introduction to Astrology)
Dr Hilary M.Carey (History Department, University of Newcastle, author Courting Disaster, Astrology at the English Court in the Later Middle Ages)
Dr John Carlson (The Centre for Archaeoastronomy, Washington); Professor Robert Ellwood (Bashford Professor of Oriental Studies, University of South California)
Dr Germana Ernst, (Department of Philosophy, University of Florence)
Dr Ann Geneva (author of Astrology and the Seventeenth Century Mind)
Dr Jacques Halbronn (author of Le Vie Astrologie il y a Cent Ans, La texte prophetique en France (1483-1883)
Robert Hand (co-founder and chief editor, Project Hindsight, translator Antonius de Montulmo, Johannes Schoener, Guido Bonatti)
Professor Norris Hetherington (Office for the History of Science and Technology, University of California, Berkeley)
Professor Michael Hunter (Birkbeck College, London); Professor Ronald Hutton (Dept of Historical Studies, Bristol University, author of The Pagan Religions of the British Isles and The Stations of the Sun: A History of the Ritual Year in Britain)
Dr Peter Kingsley
Annabella Kitson, MA (editor Clio and Urania Confer: Astrology and History)
Dr Nick Kollerstrom (author ‘The Star Temples of Harran’, ‘Kepler’s Belief in Astrology’)
Dr Edwin C.Krupp (Director, Griffith Observatory, Los Angeles, author, In Search of Ancient Astronomies, Echoes of Ancient Skies and Skywatchers, Shamans and Kings)
Dr J.Lee Lehman (founder Classical Studies in Astrology, translator Papus, Astrology for Initiates)
Professor Kenneth Negus (Professor of German, Princeton University, translator Kepler)
Professor John North, (Professor of the Exact Sciences and Dean of the Philosophy Faculty, Groningen, author Horoscopes and History, The Fontana History of Astronomy and Cosmology and The Measure of the Universe: A History of Modern Cosmology)
Professor P.M.Rattansi, (Professor Emeritus of the History and Philosophy of Science, University College, London)
Professor Francesca Rochberg (Department of History, University of California, translator of the Enuma Anu Enlil)
Professor James Santucci, (Dept. of Religious Studies, California State University, editor Theosophical History)
Robert Schmidt (co-founder Project Hindsight, translator Ptolemy, Vettius Valens, Haphaistio of Thebes, Antiochus of Athens, Paulus Alexandrinus)
Professor Richard Tarnas (author of The Passion of the Western Mind, professor of Philosophy and Psychology at the California Institute of Integral Studies, director of the graduate programme in Philosophy, Cosmology and Consciousness)
Dr. David Ulansey (California Institute of Integral Studies, author of The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries)
Robin Waterfield (translator of Xenophon, Plutarch and Plato for both Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press)
Dr Charles Webster (All Soul’s College, author, From Paracelsus to Newton: Magic and the Making of Modern Science)
Dr Graziella Federici Vescovini (Department of Philosophy, University of Florence)
Dr Angela Voss
Dr Paula Zambelli (Department of Philosophy, University of Florence)
Robert Zoller (co-founder Project Hindsight, translator Guido Bonnati, Al-Kindi) - see Culture and Cosmos (http://www.astrologer.com/aanet/pub/cosmos/)Anyway, good morning, and would you please tell me what is "the creationist hypothesis"?

[Socrates]

Goochdad made one of his typical prejudicial remarks :rant::
You've pointed me to a non-peer reviewed web page from AiG about varves.
I replied, showing that the web really was peer reviewed:
It was peer-reviewed, in the sense that the magazine has a number of Ph.D. scientists as consultants, and the author is a qualified geologist
Sera Sixwings, who's probably blonde, squealed :argue: :
Thanks! 'I asked all my best, like-minded friends if they agree with me' is a pretty funny definition of peer review.No, Ph.D. scientists qualify as peer review by any normal criterion, except a stipulative definition that creationists are not scientists.
If you're impressed by "Ph.D. scientists as consultants"I'm not. I was responding to the asinine claim that an article was not peer reviewed. I leave the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) to evolutionists :doh:. But I'm happy to invoke the many Ph.D. creationist scientists as an argument against moronic claims like "no scientist doubts evolution from goo to you via the zoo.you should consider membership in the Astrological Association of Great Britain. Why, do you get a commission for signing people up? :bonk:
and would you please tell me what is "the creationist hypothesis"?Even though it's obvious you need spoonfeeding :dufus:, I won't. So I'll just refer you to one of the many web articles available, and to which I've already referred people a number of times, e.g. here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0924ep1.asp#what).

[Sera Sixwings]

[03-04-2003 @ 12:59 PM] - Socrates:... would you please tell me what is "the creationist hypothesis"?Even though it's obvious you need spoonfeeding :dufus:, I won't. Why do you avoid the question? You clearly have more than enough time to engage in endless, puerile, and, in my case, sexist, ad hominem. Why not divert a small portion of that to honest discussion?

[Socrates]

Sera Sixwings:
Why do you avoid the question? I don't. I gave the link. Tell you what — if you still have any questions after carefully studying that, I'll be happy to answer them as well as I can.You clearly have more than enough time to engage in endless, puerile, and, in my case, sexist, ad hominem. Why not divert a small portion of that to honest discussion?Oh, poor baby, but it was apparently OK for you to drop a guilt-by-association ploy with that nonsensical astrology list, and look so pleased with yourself.

You didn't expect me to be "sexist" and reply in a different manner to your silly attack because you're female (and likely blonde) did you? And under your evolutionary system, why not be sexist? Darwin and most of his evolutionary contemporaries were very sexist. Conversely, the Biblical Christianity is the only philosophy that has provided true liberation for women, but you come here to attack it. Sometimes it's good to give opponents a small taste of the logical outcome of their desired philosophy.

[Goochdad]

Socrates,

I demonstrated that the varves are annual because of the strict correlation of the carbon dating of inter-varve deposits with the layer number of the varve. You do understand what 'correlation' means, don't you? In a statistical sense? If the varves were not anual, there would be poor correlation between the two data sets. Since it is well demonstrated that the varves are annual, the burden of proof is on YOU to show they are not.

The AiG web page you gave makes some ridiculous claims--fossils supposedly don't form on the beds of lakes and inland seas? Of course they do. The Black Sea, for example, is anoxic below about 200 m depth, as discussed in this article

http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/11/02/ancient.shipwreck/index.html

So the fact that there are fish fossils in the Green River Varves isnt the least bit surprising.

Since you can't answer any of the other areas of evidence, especially those pesky salt domes, I'll take that to mean that the YEC position is soundly falsified. The existence of salt domes in the middle of sedimentary layers (that YEC'ers claim are flood deposits) soundly refutes the YEC hypothesis.

Thanks for playing! :yipee:

Oh, by the way, that link you gave about the creationist hypothesis? Doesn't work. And neither does your hypothesis at all anymore! :fight:

[Sera Sixwings]

[03-04-2003 @ 03:08 PM] - Socrates:

Sera Sixwings:
Why do you avoid the question? I don't.Of course you do, and it becomes more obvious with thread.
[03-04-2003 @ 03:08 PM] - Socrates:

I gave the link. Tell you what ...I'll tell you what, why not simply quote the "creationist hypothesis" as stated in the link?
[03-04-2003 @ 03:08 PM] - Socrates:

Darwin and most of his evolutionary contemporaries were very sexist. Conversely, the Biblical Christianity is the only philosophy that has provided true liberation for women, but you come here to attack it. Perhaps worthy of a different thread. I'll leave it here just for the sake of comic relief.
[03-04-2003 @ 03:08 PM] - Socrates:

Sometimes it's good to give opponents a small taste of the logical outcome of their desired philosophy. A position that is shared by most bigots. Let's burn those witches, shall we? :ahem:

[Richard Romano]

The follow up information--regarding my last post on thread 3--on the fact that creationist scientists are censored, or at least creationist friendly evidences are clearly screened, involves Virginia Steen-McIntyre of the US Geological Survey.

She was called in, in 1966, to date a site in Mexico at Hueyatlaco where manmade arrowheads and other artifacts had been uncovered. She found great difficulty publishing her dating proposals of 250,000 years because it was much too early for the scientific establishment's bizarre fixation on the
Siberian Land Bridge theory of man's origins in the New World, which dates back only about 35,000 years.

The ad hoc TalkOrigins webite, a site filled with evolutionary ideologues, think that they have refuted Steen-McIntyre by pointing out she wasn't in charge of the entire site:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/mom-reply.html

This argument is completely without base--she was "called in," obviously she wasn't in charge of the entire excavation! This fails to deal with the evidence, and instead wishes to obfuscate issues.

That the 250,000 date was published once or twice after more than 15 years of struggle offers little consolation; Steen-McIntyre cannot publish her additional work and has been blacklisted.

You cannot refute the fact of the blacklisting just because one article slipped through. Other inane attacks by evolutionists claim that the whole thing is refuted because stone tools cannot be dated--but Steen-McIntyre was called in to date the volcanic ash layer that covered the arrowheads, there is no other way of doing it (and creationists would question whether such highly permeable and contaminatable strata as ash layers can be validly dated anyway).

You can find the basic documentation on Steen-McIntyre in
in the Cremo and Thompson book, "Forbidden Archeology." This is lengthy 1,000-page book documenting ultra-early human remains and artifacts in geologic strata. What makes this book that much more revealing is that the authors are Hindu creationists and cannot be accused of being
Christian fundamentalists, who are out to prove their theory no matter what the evidence shows.

I must thank my good friend Bradley for his helpful input regarding the Steen-McIntyre issue. I would like to also commend Socrates, who has clearly demonstrated the sheer nonsense and incompetency of militant evolutionists.

regards,

Richard Romano.

[Socrates]

Soc:
I gave the link. Tell you what ...The Blonde SS replied:

I'll tell you what, why not simply quote the "creationist hypothesis" as stated in the link?I'll tell you what, it would be good practice for you to learn to follow hyperlinks, so I won't deprive you of the chance for practice.


Socrates:
Darwin and most of his evolutionary contemporaries were very sexist. Conversely, the Biblical Christianity is the only philosophy that has provided true liberation for women, but you come here to attack it.
----------------------------------------------------------
SS:
Perhaps worthy of a different thread. I'll leave it here just for the sake of comic relief.what's really comical is that you spruik on without any idea of how to refute it.


----------------------------------------------------------
[03-04-2003 @ 03:08 PM] - Socrates:

Sometimes it's good to give opponents a small taste of the logical outcome of their desired philosophy.
----------------------------------------------------------

A position that is shared by most bigots.You ought to know then. But you want evolution -- then try to deduce the proposition "sexism is wrong" from "evolution is right.

Let's burn those witches, shall we? Why, when that would violate biblical standards of evidence?

[Richard Romano]

03-05-2003 @ 12:31 AM
Sera Sixwings:

A position that is shared by most bigots. Let's burn those witches, shall we? :ahem:

Could it be that you are a member of the Australian skeptics website? I remember receiving several accusatory, and childish, comments such as this one. It has nothing to do with the debate and just demonstrates how pathetic militant evos really are.

I will ask the adminstration here to revoke your membership, since it is clear that you don't wish to dialogue, but engage in sheer rhetoric and nonsense.

regards,

Richard Romano.

[Goochdad]

Socrates,

I followed that link you provided (it did work when I tried it later) and found that there is absolutely nothing on that web page about geology and physical evidence for the age of the earth. And you call that the 'creationist hypothesis'? Care to fill in a few details there, buddy? Like exactly how various geological features formed (salt domes, varves, chalk features like the cliffs of Dover, the switchback meanderings of the lower Grand Canyon, Split Mountain with the Green River cutting right through it, the meteor craters I referred to)?

The question still stands: what is the creationist hypothesis?

[Bubba]

03-03-2003 @ 06:55 PM
ACFaith.Com:

The lowdown on Christianity and Science (http://www.acfaith.com/faithscience.html)

Vinnie

Nice link. I think theologically it would be best if Genesis were interpreted non-literally, science aside.

With Darwin's science and Christ's love

Bubba:smile:

[Bubba]

Richard R-nice writing on the biases of establishment science. Science is a flawed way to view the world in some ways because of the politics involved in publishing and the fact that many of its ideas are often overturned.

However, I am an electricain and electricians are just as biased as scientists, and electrical work is a highly political and flawed profession. Many of the ways that we wire buildings are overturned for new and better ways to do things.

Just because scientists have biases does not in my honest opinion mean than common descent is falsified.

It just means that scientists are human like the rest of us.

Bubba:smile:

[Berserker]

Science may not be perfect but it a heck of a lot better then the alternatives!

[wehappyfew]

It seems the latest round of ad homs and discussions of the scientific method, peer-review, astrology, etc have taken this thread very far from the original topic.

Can we recover from this detour?

Let's review the first post:

I would be interested to have a young earth creationist on these boards try and explain what actual evidence there is that the earth is only a few thousand years old. I would like to see positive evidence for your position rather than just attacks on dating methods.

So far, Socrates has posted numerous links from AIG in support of a young Earth:

Young Earth Evidence (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp)

Kelvin revisited (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4075.asp)

The Extinction of the Dinosaurs (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/TJ/docs/tjv11n2_extinct.pdf)

Green River Blues (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/213.asp)

AIG smorgasbord of YEC arguments (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_31march2002.asp)

But where is the discussion of these arguments? So far, none of the points mentioned has in the AIG articles have actually been refuted OR supported. One exception being my carefully researched critique of AIG's Grand Canyon folded strata argument (Posted On: 03-02-2003 at 01:40 PM ) that was promptly and thoroughly ignored.


goochdad wandered off into evidence that "falsify a young earth" (Posted On: 02-27-2003 at 04:21 PM), which is related, but not quite on topic.

We should, out of respect for the poster who started this thread, concentrate on "positive evidence for a young Earth" as provided, so far, only by Socrates in his impressive list of AIG articles. I would like to suggest we refocus on this task by reviewing my first post on brittle-rock deformation features that, IMHO, effectively demolished AIG's argument that the strata exposed in the Grand Canyon were deformed by the Kaibab monocline while still soft and unlithified. It has pictures, too! Please read it if you missed it the first time. I welcome any comments, corrections or refutations.

I'd like to also point out that one of Socrates' AIG links contains a very well written article explaining why the Moon dust argument fully supports an old Earth - Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/moondust(v7n1)/moondust.asp)
Some excerpts:
"It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense meteorite and meteoritic dust bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations."

"Calculations show that the amount of meteoritic dust in the surface dust layer, and that which trace element analyses have shown to be in the regolith, is consistent with the current meteoritic dust influx rate operating over the evolutionists' timescale. "

"Should creationists then continue to use the moon dust as apparent evidence for a young moon, earth and solar system? Clearly, the answer is no. The weight of the evidence as it currently exists shows no inconsistency within the evolutionists' case..."

"We, of course, take responsibility for the conclusions, which unfortunately are not as encouraging or complimentary for us young earth creationists as we would have liked. "

It seems the tally stands at 2 swings and 2 misses by the AIG. Maybe someone else will have better luck - so far, all the arguments I have investigated from AIG seem to be strong evidence of an OLD earth. Surely we can find something in AIG's material that really does constitute "positive evidence of a young Earth", right? Would anyone (hint, hint, Socrates) care to nominate their favorite, strongest, best supported argument from AIG and explain how it supports a young Earth?

[Richard Romano]

03-05-2003 @ 09:44 AM
Bubba:

Just because scientists have biases does not in my honest opinion mean than common descent is falsified.

It just means that scientists are human like the rest of us.

Bubba smile:


Dear Bubba, thanks for your comments. I wouldn't, however, exculpate evos on the grounds of human error, since some of them are guilty of deliberate fauds and hoaxes.

For example, Ernst Haeckel's promulgation of the embryonic theory was, and is, fraught with error. In a 1997 interview in The Times of London, Dr. Richardson stated: "This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It's shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry. ... What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don't. ... These are fakes."

Responsible scientists gladly bend their inclinations to the authority of experimental evidences, that is, repeatable evidences...how a lizard evolved into a bird is beyond this type of inquiry, so it amazes me that evos continue in this type of rhetoric. Scientists, like Haeckel, are grossly irresponsible and it has therefore cast an untrustworthy shade over the evolutionary movement.

No, not all evos are like this, but the fact is that some of them clearly are. They persist in their ideology whether the evidence points to it or not...and hence, the censoring of creationist's continues unabated.

best,

Richard Romano.

[QED]

03-05-2003 @ 03:21 AM
Richard Romano:


I wouldn't, however, exculpate evos on the grounds of human error, since some of them are guilty of deliberate fauds and hoaxes.

For example, Ernst Haeckel's promulgation of the embryonic theory was, and is, fraught with error. In a 1997 interview in The Times of London, Dr. Richardson stated: "This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It's shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry. ... What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don't. ... These are fakes."

How many more can you name? Yes, fraud happens even within the scientific community. Millikan comes to mind. More so in evolution than in other fields? Doubtful. More so in science than outside it? Absolutely not! The point is that scientists are prone to error and the occasional fraud, just like everyone else, but the rigorous method and critical review minimize the damage. You can not ascribe the whole theory of evolution to error or fraud - there isn't enough of those two failings to account for all of the evidence.

Responsible scientists gladly bend their inclinations to the authority of experimental evidences, that is, repeatable evidences...how a lizard evolved into a bird is beyond this type of inquiry, so it amazes me that evos continue in this type of rhetoric.

Perhaps the words of a physicist might help. Here is something I quoted on another thread:
This is a horrible thing; in fact, philosophers have said before that one of the fundamental requisites of science is that whenever you set up the same conditions, the same thing must happen. This is simply not true, it is not a fundamental condition of science... What is the fundamental hypothesis of science, the fundamental philosophy? We stated it in the first chapter: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment. (Feynman, R.P., Six Easy Pieces, and Six Not-So-Easy Pieces, pp. 35-36, emphasis original)
Many would (and have) quibbled with the word "experiment" here, since the general term "observation" should have sufficed, but you can see that "repeatability" is not the magic bullet for creationism that you had hoped. If Feynman had not been a physicist, he surely would have used the term "observation" there.

Scientists, like Haeckel, are grossly irresponsible and it has therefore cast an untrustworthy shade over the evolutionary movement.

Without the commas that delimit "like Haekel" your statement would be half-correct. As it is, you are entirely wrong. Scientists like Haeckel are grossly irresponsible, but most scientists are not like Haeckel. That's why you had to search back over a century for an example of this kind of irresponsibility. (Cold fusion was much more recent, but perhaps less heinous, and came from physics, not biology). The rest of your sentence is just silly. That's like saying that Jimmy Swaggart casts an untrustworthy shade over the Christian "movement".

Evolution is a science, not a movement. Christianity is a religion, not a movement. Haeckel and Swaggarts are and were pariahs within them. They show the potential for abuse, but they do not discredit either.

No, not all evos are like this, but the fact is that some of them clearly are. They persist in their ideology whether the evidence points to it or not...and hence, the censoring of creationist's continues unabated.

Censorship of creationists in the real scientific community has never been demonstrated. It is a myth spread by the creationists themselves to explain their inability to produce science that passes muster. If you think you can document it, please do so. Just a few rejected papers, along with reviewers' comments that show a pattern of censorship should suffice. Best of luck...

[Socrates]

One of our more recent spammers wehappyfew wrote:

I would like to suggest we refocus on this task by reviewing my first post on brittle-rock deformation features that, IMHO, effectively demolished AIG's argument that the strata exposed in the Grand Canyon were deformed by the Kaibab monocline while still soft and unlithified. It has pictures, too! Please read it if you missed it the first time. I welcome any comments, corrections or refutations.I already pointed out that no-one denies that there are some of those features, otherwise how could we know what to expect if the rock was hard. But this doesn't invalidate places where the rock was folded while still unlithified, as is also the case with clastic dykes.


I'd like to also point out that one of Socrates' AIG links contains a very well written article explaining why the Moon dust argument fully supports an old Earth - Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar SystemAnd the article makes it clear that it is CONSISTENT with an old moon but hardly PROOF. The point was to discourage using this as "proof" of a YOUNG moon. Yet I bet some of these clowns here will still accuse AiG of ignoring data and promoting bad arguments, yet they are among the most rigorous at discouraging fallacies—see also Arguments creationists should NOT use (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp)

It seems the tally stands at 2 swings and 2 misses by the AIG. In your dreams.Maybe someone else will have better luck — so far, all the arguments I have investigated from AIG seem to be strong evidence of an OLD earth. Surely we can find something in AIG's material that really does constitute "positive evidence of a young Earth", right? Would anyone (hint, hint, Socrates) care to nominate their favorite, strongest, best supported argument from AIG and explain how it supports a young Earth?All of them do that (apart from the one above which identifies one to avoid), so you pick one.

[Socrates]

Goochdad spruiks:

I demonstrated that the varves are annual because of the strict correlation of the carbon dating of inter-varve deposits with the layer number of the varve. You do understand what 'correlation' means, don't you? In a statistical sense? If the varves were not anual, there would be poor correlation between the two data sets.You have done no such thing. Since it is well demonstrated that the varves are annual, the burden of proof is on YOU to show they are not.Already done, but you evidently didn't bother to look at the article (and see this refutation of a critic (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative2feb2001.asp)). E.g. YOU have not OBSERVED annual deposition, but we HAVE observed multi-layering produced by a self-sorting mechanism many times, e.g. Sandy Stripes (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/458.asp). This also fits the fact that different places in the Green River Formation have different numbers of layers between the same volcanic ash “horizons”.

The AiG web page you gave makes some ridiculous claims—fossils supposedly don't form on the beds of lakes and inland seas? Of course they do. The Black Sea, for example, is anoxic below about 200 m depth, as discussed in this article

http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/11/0...reck/index.html

So the fact that there are fish fossils in the Green River Varves isnt the least bit surprising.Except that once again you've ignored the article:

Experiments by scientists from the Chicago Natural History Museum have shown that fish carcasses lowered on to the muddy bottom of a marsh decay quite rapidly, even in oxygen-poor conditions. In these experiments, fish were placed in wire cages to protect them from scavengers, yet after only six-and-a-half days all the flesh had decayed and even the bones had become disconnected. [Reference to R. Zangerl and E.S. Richardson, ‘The paleoecological history of two Pennsylvanian black shales’, Fieldiana: Geology Memoirs 4, 1963.]

Since you can't answer any of the other areas of evidence, especially those pesky salt domes, I'll take that to mean that the YEC position is soundly falsified. First, creationists have long ago answered that one. And second, your rant :rant: implies that the truth of YEC depends on the ability of a particular fallible proponent to provide answers to every single question raised. But if a creationist points out the millions of problems with evolution, they are told that belief in a creator is a “cop-out” and we need to do more research to find a materialistic explanation.

Another of Goochdad's supposedly irrefutable objections is answered by a Ph.D. geologist: Can Flood Geology Explain Thick Chalk Layers? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v8n1_chalk.asp)

And all this troublemaking from Goochdad is from an ****** who can't even tell the difference between meteors and meteorites!!

[Richard Romano]

03-05-2003 @ 01:06 PM
QED:

How many more can you name?

What's the difference? I made it clear that human error was not a factor with the example I listed. I could list others, but I feel it would be useless. I did in fact mention that not all evos are like this, and by this I meant majority...but, this just demonstrates you don't pay attention while you read.

Censorship of creationists in the real scientific community has never been demonstrated. It is a myth spread by the creationists themselves to explain their inability to produce science that passes muster. If you think you can document it, please do so. Just a few rejected papers, along with reviewers' comments that show a pattern of censorship should suffice. Best of luck...

I listed a very clear example, and you completely avoided it. Please read the post I made earlier on--Virginia Steen-McIntyre of the US Geological Survey...she is not a creationist, but her findings complement creationism. This won't be enough, even if I listed 50 such cases it would mean little to you...you are devoted to a narrow minded scientific purview that cannot explain how simple matter can develop into complexity, or how complex things arose in the first place...which is what anyone with a brain concludes once they look at a single human cell.

Censorship does happen, just ask the creationist scientists. This is not to say that they never have their work published, but the sad fact is that they don't get the same treatment that evos do.

When you look at the real scientists, men like Von Braun, you see people who humbly accept the way God has created His universe.

regards,

Richard.

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-05-2003 @ 12:18 AM
Socrates:
And all this troublemaking from Goochdad is from an ignoramus who can't even tell the difference between meteors and meteorites!! Well duh. Everyone knows that was covered in the ABC comedy "Dinosaurs" The father had meteor insurance. Unfortunately, a meteorite hit his house because once it enters the atmosphere, it changes its name. Kinda like when a hurricane moves far off into the Pacific ocean and becomes a Typhoon.

I'm curious, Socretes. How active was the Earth prior to the flood, as in continental motion?

[Socratism]

Censorship of creationists in the real scientific community has never been demonstrated. It is a myth spread by the creationists themselves to explain their inability to produce science that passes muster. If you think you can document it, please do so. Just a few rejected papers, along with reviewers' comments that show a pattern of censorship should suffice. Best of luck...

Pure baloney. One can't usually even get a letter published in a journal even when it is a response made to a criticism made about the letter writer. Censorship of creationists is usually justified on the grounds that everything in science must be explained through natural causes known to be at work today. In some cases one can't even get a reference to get into Medical school without "pledging allegience" to a belief in evolution.

Try AnswersInGenesis for many, many examples of censorship. It even extends to the highest levels in the Judiciary.

[QED]

03-05-2003 @ 02:30 PM
Richard Romano:
I listed a very clear example, and you completely avoided it. Please read the post I made earlier on--Virginia Steen-McIntyre of the US Geological Survey...she is not a creationist, but her findings complement creationism.

Sir, you didn't list a "very clear example", you merely asserted that the case of Virgnia Steen-McIntyre would qualify as a case. You stated, vaugely, that she "had a hard time getting published", with no substantiation. Even if we allow that she had difficulty publishing, we don't know the real reason for it (perhaps reviewers didn't like her results, but they may just as well have had a legitimate objection to her methodology. You didn't show which.)

This won't be enough, even if I listed 50 such cases it would mean little to you...

How about just actually documenting one case. It might not be enough to establish a pattern, but it would be a step in the right direction.

you are devoted to a narrow minded scientific purview that cannot explain how simple matter can develop into complexity, or how complex things arose in the first place...which is what anyone with a brain concludes once they look at a single human cell.

ummm... what do these brained individuals conclude, exactly? What does this have to do with evolution? I'd say since there is no hypothesis about the origin of life that has enough empirical support to be accepted, then "anyone with a brain" would avoid jumping to any conclusions about it.

Censorship does happen, just ask the creationist scientists.

Whu? If I was just willing to believe whatever they said without evidence, then I would be a creationist myself. How about - if censorship happens, then why can creationist scientists not provide a rejected paper along with the reviewers' comments to document their case?

This is not to say that they never have their work published, but the sad fact is that they don't get the same treatment that evos do.

How often do they submit for publication? You know in the Arkansas creation trial, the creationists claimed they were censored, so the judge asked them to provide a sample of rejected papers: they couldn't produce any papers they'd even submitted. You can't censor someone who isn't trying to publish.

When you look at the real scientists, men like Von Braun, you see people who humbly accept the way God has created His universe.

LOL... many of them do, yes. Most of them agree with me (not you) on evolution though. Even those who do not accept that God did the creating humbly accept the way it was done, though - by and large.

Von Braun can be excused since he was a rocket scientist, and so far removed from the field.

[QED]

03-05-2003 @ 10:23 PM
Socratism:

Pure baloney. One can't usually even get a letter published in a journal even when it is a response made to a criticism made about the letter writer.

Letters to the editor are generally subjected only to editorial review. Science journals are under no obligation to post any letter to the editor - that is an editorial concern. Consider, if you were the editor, whether you would want to let your journal be reduced from a well-respected journal of science to a mere debating forum for disgruntled creationists.

Censorship of creationists is usually justified on the grounds that everything in science must be explained through natural causes known to be at work today.

It hasn't been demonstrated yet, so let's save speculation about the justification for it for after you have shown it happening.

In some cases one can't even get a reference to get into Medical school without "pledging allegience" to a belief in evolution.

I don't believe you, but I suspect that I know the case you are talking about. I'll wait, though, until you post some sort of support for your assertion before I dissect it. I don't want to waste my time if I am guessing wrong.

Try AnswersInGenesis for many, many examples of censorship. It even extends to the highest levels in the Judiciary.

I've tried AnswersInGenesis, and apart from Behe's letters to Nature that were rejected, they provide no documentation of any censorship. By the way, the Judiciary has nothing to do with scientific censorship. The Judiciary is a branch of government, not an academic forum.

[wehappyfew]

03-05-2003 @ 12:04 AM
Socrates:

One of our more recent spammers wehappyfew...

Thank you for your warm, Christian welcome to TheologyWeb.
Being called a "spammer" got me worried that I had already violated the board rules after only 2 posts, so I checked the Campus Rules (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/rules/),
3. “Spamming”
"Do not spam the Board or be otherwise unnecessarily disruptive. This includes cross-posts (posting the same or similar message in multiple forum sections) or spamming of Private Messages or Emails..."

Since I have not cross-posted, e-mailed or PM'ed on this board, the only remaining possibility is that I have been "unnecessarily disruptive". Does anyone feel this to be the case?

I also found this rule...
2. “Flaming”
If a strong and potentially inflammatory characterization is used, it must be backed up as to the truth of the matter or will result in administrative intervention.

Can the poster accusing me of being a "spammer" (a board violation) back up this accusation, as required by rule 2?

continuing (Socrates' words in italics)...
wehappyfew wrote:

I would like to suggest we refocus on this task by reviewing my first post on brittle-rock deformation features that, IMHO, effectively demolished AIG's argument that the strata exposed in the Grand Canyon were deformed by the Kaibab monocline while still soft and unlithified. It has pictures, too! Please read it if you missed it the first time. I welcome any comments, corrections or refutations.I already pointed out that no-one denies that there are some of those features, otherwise how could we know what to expect if the rock was hard. But this doesn't invalidate places where the rock was folded while still unlithified, as is also the case with clastic dykes.
Actually, AIG does deny that there are brittle-rock deformations in the Kaibab Monocline...
"Many sedimentary rocks are so brittle they would break under any applied pressure, no matter how slowly applied. The fact of intense folding in some now-brittle rocks shows they were still soft when the pressure was applied. A good example is the Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon..."
(from AIG smorgasbord of YEC arguments (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_31march2002.asp))

AIG uses this incorrect, unsubstantiated assertion, along with clastic dikes as evidence that currently brittle rocks were soft when deformed...
"Clastic dykes are another line of evidence that shows that upper layers must have been deposited before the sandstone had hardened, otherwise it couldn’t have forced its way through the cracks"
But, unfortunately, AIG provides no examples of clastic dikes in the Kaibab Monocline - only a cartoon diagram. So far, I have been unable to find any references to clastic dikes associated with the Kaibab uplift.

Now that we know that brittle-rock deformations are common in the Kaibab Monocline, and absent any evidence of clastic dikes associated with this fold, can we now agree that AIG's assessment of this particular formation is incorrect? And that brittle-rock fracture is the only evident mechanism for folding these strata?

continuing...
I'd like to also point out that one of Socrates' AIG links contains a very well written article explaining why the Moon dust argument fully supports an old Earth - Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar SystemAnd the article makes it clear that it is CONSISTENT with an old moon but hardly PROOF. The point was to discourage using this as "proof" of a YOUNG moon. Yet I bet some of these clowns here will still accuse AiG of ignoring data and promoting bad arguments, yet they are among the most rigorous at discouraging fallacies - see also Arguments creationists should NOT use (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp)

It seems the tally stands at 2 swings and 2 misses by the AIG. In your dreams.
Commendable that AIG has been so rigorous at exposing defective YEC arguments. It seems we have another to add to the list today with the brittle-rock fracture evidence that AIG seems to have missed. Care to amend your assessment of my tally?


Maybe someone else will have better luck - so far, all the arguments I have investigated from AIG seem to be strong evidence of an OLD earth. Surely we can find something in AIG's material that really does constitute "positive evidence of a young Earth", right? Would anyone (hint, hint, Socrates) care to nominate their favorite, strongest, best supported argument from AIG and explain how it supports a young Earth?All of them do that (apart from the one above which identifies one to avoid), so you pick one.

Alright, how about the solar neutrino argument...

Solar Neutrinos — the Critical Shortfall Still Elusive (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1187.asp)

Ooops, the first paragraph says this evidence no longer supports the young age position. Better keep looking...

Moving on... this article seems interesting...

The sea’s missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists (http://tccsa.freeservers.com/articles/ocean_sodium.html)

A "dilemma" sounds like a major problem for the old age view. Do you think this evidence is strong, well-supported, and logically supports a young Earth? If so, I'll take a stab at investigating this claim.

[Socrates]

QED is never one to let the fact get in the way of a good story. I have cited an article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0406news.asp) showing that Australasian Science published an inflammatory article from a vexatious anti-creationist bigot, and refused the right of reply. This article also shows that Scientific American published Gould's review of one of Philip Johnson's ID books, and they refused to let Johnson reply.

The same Scientific American refused to hire a writer solely because of his creationist views, although admitting that his work was top quality.

Christine Gilbert, the letters editor of Science, replied to a query from Dr Russell Humphreys, saying, ‘It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.’ Dr Humphreys’ letter and Mrs Gilbert’s reply are reprinted in the book, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, by physicist Dr Robert V. Gentry (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2nd edition, 1988.)

So go on, QED and the other misotheistic bigots, keep repeating your lies that creationists aren't censored, given a right of reply against accusations, or otherwise discriminated against. But meanwhile, do us all a favor: stop bleating :rant: that if creation was real science then it should be published in this type of scientific journal! This is just a cheap way of hiding the fact that you can't refute the actual arguments! :bonk:

[QED]

03-06-2003 @ 04:17 AM
Socrates:

QED is never one to let the fact get in the way of a good story. I have cited an article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0406news.asp) showing that Australasian Science published an inflammatory article from a vexatious anti-creationist bigot, and refused the right of reply. This article also shows that Scientific American published Gould's review of one of Philip Johnson's ID books, and they refused to let Johnson reply.

The same Scientific American refused to hire a writer solely because of his creationist views, although admitting that his work was top quality.

Christine Gilbert, the letters editor of Science, replied to a query from Dr Russell Humphreys, saying, ‘It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.’ Dr Humphreys’ letter and Mrs Gilbert’s reply are reprinted in the book, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, by physicist Dr Robert V. Gentry (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2nd edition, 1988.)

So go on, QED and the other misotheistic bigots, keep repeating your lies that creationists aren't censored, given a right of reply against accusations, or otherwise discriminated against. But meanwhile, do us all a favor: stop bleating :rant: that if creation was real science then it should be published in this type of scientific journal! This is just a cheap way of hiding the fact that you can't refute the actual arguments! :bonk:

So basically you can show that at least one journal (probably more) are hesitant to publish creationist letters (who cares?). You can show that Sci Am may or may not have refused a position to a creationist (again, who cares?), and would not publish Phil Johnson's reply to Gould (still - who cares?).

Why can't you show us where a creationist submitted a paper & was turned away without a good reason? Just one? I've never bleated (I'm not a sheep - duh) about the fact that creationist material is usually not good enough to pass peer review, but if that is the complaint that your allegations of censorship is meant to address, you haven't. Sci Am is not peer reviewed, and letters to the editor do not contain research work. I suppose, lacking the evidence to back up your claim, you will document everything else, and hope we get them confused?

[Richard Romano]

[Von Braun can be excused since he was a rocket scientist, and so far removed from the field. [/QUOTE]

Your entire post is riddled with its own pure speculation and obfuscation of facts. The fact that Steen-Mcyntyre's conclusions were the main reasons why she was censored isn't enough for you or for any evolutionist for that matter. So, there is no real need to waste anymore time with you, since NO explanation will ever convince you of the very real censoring that is going on...like I said, just ask the creation scientists.

Of course, some of them do get their works published, but when their scientific disposition on origins is revealed, they will follow the same route that other creationists have been forced to follow.

Von Braun's science is REAL science, not evolution. The fact is that many scientists, like Francis Cricke, are proposing other means of how life evolved...which is, by implication, an admission that life could not have arisen the way evos have postulated. Rocket Science is testable and repeatable, which no one in their right mind can grant to evolution. It matters little to you that this man, who was dedicated to the scientific process, believed in Design. Yet, you continue to revel in pure speculation and nonsense.

When you look at the real issues, such as the statistical impossibility of complex life arising from nothing, anyone with a brain (by which I mean someone who uses his thinking properly) will have difficulty with the evolutionary theory. I find it hard to continue any dialogue with someone like this, since rationality becomes a casualty by using leaps of logic of this proportion.

regards,

Richard Romano.

[QED]

03-07-2003 @ 05:16 AM
Richard Romano:

Your entire post is riddled with its own pure speculation and obfuscation of facts.

Is speculation always wrong? For instance: if Fred accuses Barney of stealing his Cocoa Pebbles, and gives evidence only that Barney was eating Cocoa Pebbles at one point, is it wrong for me to speculate that perhaps Barney was eating his own Pebbles? The purpose is not to prove that Barney didn't steal. Fred is the accuser and must produce much better evidence. The point is to show him why his evidence isn't good enough.


The fact that Steen-Mcyntyre's conclusions were the main reasons why she was censored isn't enough for you or for any evolutionist for that matter.

Wrong - once the proposition that Steen-Mcyntyre's conclusions were the main reason she was censored has been demonstrated as fact, then such an example most likely will become compelling to me. It would still only be a single example, and not enough to establish a pattern, but it would make a difference.

Obviously her results were nonsensical according to the current models - but the current models could be changed if her methodology was sound, and her results were compelling. The 'rules' are that science reviewers will approve publication of results that they disagree with when the methodology is sound, and will reject a paper that gives even agreeable results when it has known flaws (including minor ones). To show the reason that Steen-Mcyntire wasn't published, you must do more than show that her results are disagreeable.


So, there is no real need to waste anymore time with you, since NO explanation will ever convince you of the very real censoring that is going on...

On the contrary, I've been very clear on exactly what would convince me of censorship, and why I require more than speculation about the reasons a particular scientist wasn't published. The fact that you cannot actually document a single case of censorship leads me to believe that it is I who am wasting my time with you.

like I said, just ask the creation scientists.

It has been done before. Under oath. Here's the result:

Some of the State's witnesses suggested that the scientific community was "close-minded" on the subject of creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation science arguments. Yet no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused. Perhaps some members of the scientific community are resistant to new ideas. It is, however, inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought. (Emphasis mine)

From McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, quoted in the Talk Origins Archive (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html).

As I explained earlier - just asking creationists if they think they are censored is not the best way to find out if there is censorship. Asking them to demonstrate it with rejected papers and reviewers' comments is only fair. Reviewers' comments are attached to most rejected papers, and from them you should be able to determine whether it is the results or the methods that led to rejection.

Of course, some of them do get their works published, but when their scientific disposition on origins is revealed, they will follow the same route that other creationists have been forced to follow.

If you are convinced it is true, you must have good reasons for believing it. Present them. If your reasons are no better than the ones you have stated so far, then I would encourage you to look at some techniques for critically evaluating evidence.

Von Braun's science is REAL science, not evolution.

True, Von Braun's science was real, and that it wasn't evolution, but we cannot conclude that therefore evolution is not real. That would be a false syllogism.

The fact is that many scientists, like Francis Cricke, are proposing other means of how life evolved...which is, by implication, an admission that life could not have arisen the way evos have postulated.

I hope you are not confusing origin of life with evolution of life. We are all very clear that the origin of life is a speculative field, and that no hypothesis is commonly accepted among the scientific community. Maybe there was no naturalistic cause for the first life. It is quite possible that the cause was supernaturalistic, and will never be determined by methodologically materialistic science. That being said, a theist would do well to avoid putting their faith in God because of this "gap", because the converse may also be true and there may be a materialistic explanation found. If God exists and created the universe, that doesn't mean that He did not use secondary causes to create life. Many theists believe that God creates every life specially, but we all know that the material cause is reproduction of living things. In other words, the sexual engagement between your parents was (if these theists are correct), only a secondary cause, as was the union of the zygotes and their subsequent cell division and specialization that produced you.

Rocket Science is testable and repeatable, which no one in their right mind can grant to evolution.

Yes, and although repeatability is not fundamental to science, evolution can be tested in repeatable ways as well. Evolutionary history is not repeatable as such, but the experiment and observations that reveal its workings are quite repeatable. This is a red herring. A murder is not repeatable, but we still have the ability to discover the culprit, using good science.

It matters little to you that this man, who was dedicated to the scientific process, believed in Design.

You're right. This man did not apply the scientific process to the discovery of how living beings came to have their modern designs, so his opinions on that matter mean little to me. He did apply the scientific process to the engineering of rockets, and I would defer to his understanding of his own research in that field.


Yet, you continue to revel in pure speculation and nonsense.

Please keep it civil. You have forgotten to demonstrate any nonsense in my position, so you should save these remarks for after you have done so.

When you look at the real issues, such as the statistical impossibility of complex life arising from nothing, anyone with a brain (by which I mean someone who uses his thinking properly) will have difficulty with the evolutionary theory.

I don't know how to respond. I'll try to break it down:
1) The real issues of evolution are many and diverse, and questions about the first origins of life are not among them. Evolution answers a separate set of questions
2) Complex life arising from "nothing" is not at issue.
3) Complex life arising from inorganic material is not at issue (complex life arising from simple life is more pertinent)
4) To date, there exists no valid statistical model for showing the probability of simple life arising from inorganic matter. It is not thought to be impossible, but it is not proven to be possible either.
5) Who is using their brain more effectively? You, or Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (http://www.asa3.org/ASAradio/ASA2002Collins.mp3), who is a Bible believing Christian?

I find it hard to continue any dialogue with someone like this, since rationality becomes a casualty by using leaps of logic of this proportion.

I find it difficult to stomach a conversation where my position is mischaracterized in such a way. Show a "leap of logic" on my part. If I fail to correct it, then complain.

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-07-2003 @ 12:16 AM
Richard Romano:
Von Braun's science is REAL science, not evolution. The fact is that many scientists, like Francis Cricke, are proposing other means of how life evolved...which is, by implication, an admission that life could not have arisen the way evos have postulated. Rocket Science is testable and repeatable, which no one in their right mind can grant to evolution. It matters little to you that this man, who was dedicated to the scientific process, believed in Design.I hope that you don't have civil engineerings doing the work of chemical engineers because the civil engineers are engineers nonetheless.

Besides, I thought that creationist scientists have been published in respected journals, like those at ICR. Am I mistaken?

[wehappyfew]

After three misses, I'm still looking for valid evidence of a young Earth (remember the thread topic?).

So far, we have found,

1. that the amount of cosmic dust on the Moon fully supports the old age view, and is inconsistent with a young age view.

2. and that AIG misrepresent the facts surrounding the Kaibab Monocline. They maintain that cracks and other brittle-rock deformations are absent when, in fact, they are present.

3. and finally, the paradox of the missing solalr neutrinos has been resolved in favor of the conventional old-age view.



Next, I promised to look into the article by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D and D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D:

THE SEA'S MISSING SALT: A DILEMMA FOR EVOLUTIONISTS (http://tccsa.freeservers.com/articles/ocean_sodium.html)

Here's what I found...

1. We could quibble with the numbers used by Austin and Humphreys for the inputs and outputs, but this would not affect the final outcome in a qualitative sense.

2. We could argue about the outputs that are obviously missing from their list. This, too, will not matter in the final analysis.

3. Most importantly, even accepting every error and omission made by Austin and Humphreys, the article does not demonstrate that the seas must be young... it merely shows that, given these postulated inputs and outputs, the sodium balance of the ocean is currently below equilibrium.

The chart at the end clearly hints at this equilibrium:

http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/images/buildup.gif

The line showing the changing sodium content versus time is curved. That's because some of the inputs and outputs are a function of the salinity. When salinity is low, the amount of sodium removed by pore water burial is lower, for example, as explained by Austin and Humphreys. When salinity gets high enough, the inputs decrease and the outputs increase, until they are equal, and equilibrium is reached. Given the inputs and outputs postulated in this article, it appears that the equilibrium level is about 1.5 to 2 times the current level. That's about the level at which the curve flattens out if it were extended farther out down (into the future). The exact level of this equlibrium is merely a function of the specific values for the inputs and outputs. Since these values are very poorly understood and very hard to measure directly, one could argue that the current salinity level is, in fact, the equilibrium level. Or it could even be far higher. Either way, it does not matter.

The maximum age calculation performed in the article is meaningless because it explicitly assumes a falsehood:

"...we can say that Bt, the sum of the Na+ outputs at any time t in the past, has always been less than or equal to Bmax = 2.06 x 10^11 kg/yr, the sum of the seven past maximum output rates for the processes in Table 2"

But in footnote [49], this is shown to be false:

"If the "Messinian salinity crisis" is assumed to have had a duration of one million years, B4max would be 5.8 x 10^11 kg/yr, a value slightly greater than all the combined inputs."

This false assumption is restated in explaining the factors in the differential equation used to calculate the maximum age:

"If the sea has been increasing its Na+ content continually, then today's three major outputs (B1, B2 and B3) must have been smaller in the past."

But the Messinian salinity crises has already been shown to have actually reduced the ocean's salinity for a million year period. Therefore the equation which assumes a constantly increasing salinity cannot be applied.

The present condition of increasing salinity could be the result of restoring the equilibrium back to a higher level after being temporarily depressed in the Miocene.

This false assumption used to arrive at the maximum age of 62 million years is analogous to putting a stake in the beach at low tide, then declaring that the rising water proves the oceans must have been empty a few weeks ago.

So it seems the tally now stands at 0 to 4 in favor of the old age view. Maybe AIG is not the best place to find evidence of a young Earth. Do we have any other suggestions?

[ItalianGold]

:dunce:Socrates::bonk: ...the Biblical Christianity is the only philosophy that has provided true liberation for women


(This absurdity deserves a thread of its own!)





It will be the proud boast of woman that she never contributed a line to the Bible

[ItalianGold]

Richard Romano:The follow up information--regarding my last post on thread 3--on the fact that creationist scientists are censored, or at least creationist friendly evidences are clearly screened, involves Virginia Steen-McIntyre of the US Geological Survey.

Richard, Steen-McIntyre is not a creation scientist. Her highly controversial dating of some spear-points (which she claims are 250,000 years old) do not support a Young Earth!!

Her willingness to appear on "alternative" science programs which include UFO seeding theories, a history of billions of years for mankind, Sphynx and Great Pyramid origins of 10,000 B.C.E, etc. may be indicative of her credibility. In doing a Google search -the single most common reference which used her findings was a book called Forbidden Archeology. Now they DO have a Creationist agenda...HOWEVER, are you sure you want to use them and Steen-McIntyre to support a Christian idea ? From the authors:"We are members of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, a branch of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness . Some might question why we would put together a book like Forbidden Archeology, unless we had some underlying purpose. Indeed, there is some underlying purpose. From the Vedic literature, we derive the idea that the human race is of great antiquity. (much older than evolutionists maintain) For the purpose of conducting systematic research into the existing scientific literature on human antiquity, we expressed the Vedic idea in the form of a theory that various humanlike and apelike beings have coexisted for long periods of time.

That our theoretical outlook is derived from the Vedic literature should not disqualify it. Theory selection can come from many sources--a private inspiration, previous theories, a suggestion from a friend, a movie, and so on. What really matters is not a theory's source but its ability to account for observations.

Given their underlying purpose, Forbidden Archeology and its forthcoming companion volume may therefore be of interest to cultural and cognitive anthropologists, scholars of religion, and others concerned with the interactions of cultures in time and space.It was Steen McIntyre's assosiation with fringe elements that led to the destruction of her career NOT her Christian Creationist theories.

Do you have another scientist's name you'd like to submit who claims to have been blacklisted because of their Christian Creationist beliefs??

[Richard Romano]

03-07-2003 @ 03:46 AM
QED:

So basically you can show that at least one journal (probably more) are hesitant to publish creationist letters (who cares?). You can show that Sci Am may or may not have refused a position to a creationist (again, who cares?), and would not publish Phil Johnson's reply to Gould (still - who cares?).

Why can't you show us where a creationist submitted a paper & was turned away without a good reason? Just one? I've never bleated (I'm not a sheep - duh) about the fact that creationist material is usually not good enough to pass peer review, but if that is the complaint that your allegations of censorship is meant to address, you haven't. Sci Am is not peer reviewed, and letters to the editor do not contain research work. I suppose, lacking the evidence to back up your claim, you will document everything else, and hope we get them confused?

Do you see QED? Nothing will ever appease your incessant rejection of creation science, no matter what argument they place before you...your commital to evolutionary thinking is practically religious. This makes you guilty of the same thing you accuse creationists of.

Socrates listed another example, yet you rejected it outright without considering the real bigotry that is taking place in these circles. The fact that someone cannot publish a rebbuttal to criticism of his/her work is pathetic...it is reminiscent of the dark ages, and not scientific impartiality. Evolutionists are painting themselves into a corner with these types of activities.

Creationists have published their works...we have made that abundantly clear. What does happen is once their disposition on origin science is revealed, they are black listed.

I also made it clear that the Steen-Mcintyre case constituted a case of clear censorship since her findings were in diametric opposition to evolutionary dating methods. You ignored it completely, stating that I didn't make clear the reason she was censored. She has never been able to publish anything since...a fact that you also clearly ignored. You are guilty of selective reading, and refusing to deal with real issues. Yet, you quibble about Creationist material, stating that they aren't scientific enough. Give me a break.

Give it a rest QED, nobody is listening to your rhetoric anymore. The fact is that people like you need to come out of the woodwork since evolution is crumbling around you. Why do you think school boards in the US are being approached by concerned parents, and scientists, about the exclusive teaching of evolution? If evolution is true, then let it be taught alongside creation...if the results are as obvious as you make them, that creation is false, then there shouldn't be any problem, right? This is terrifying for people like you, since it would spell the end of the myth of evolution. What would you do with all the time you seem to have?

regards,

Richard Romano.

[Richard Romano]

[QUOTE]03-09-2003 @ 03:06 PM
ItalianGold:

Richard Romano:

Richard, Steen-McIntyre is not a creation scientist. Her highly controversial dating of some spear-points (which she claims are 250,000 years old) do not support a Young Earth!!

My fellow Italian, please do read carefully next time. I made it clear in subsequent posts that she was not a creationist, but her findings support creationary thinking. Of course, the time is still not one in concert with young earth creation, but that is not the point here...her findings were censored since they went against the evolutionary dating system.

I am merely trying to show that evolutionists will do anything to hold onto their prized "theory."

Keep in mind that while some of her other findings are less than extraordinary, that doesn't negate the honesty in her scientific inquiry in the first issue. If the logic you use here is universal, it would mean that Cricke would have to be rejected too, since his DNA discovery he has been promoting "outer space" theories of origins. In other words, his later nonsense does not disqualify his good work!

best,

Richard.

[Richard Romano]

03-07-2003 @ 09:55 PM
QED:

I find it difficult to stomach a conversation where my position is mischaracterized in such a way. Show a "leap of logic" on my part. If I fail to correct it, then complain.

QED, my apologies to you if I have offended you in any way, that was not my intention. Perhaps I need to be more careful when seeking to make a point that may have been missed.

Please inform me of your definition of evolution. If you propose a definition in concert with that promulgated by talkorigins, then you are not fairly defining terms, but merging them making them appear unified when they are not. If you follow that site, you know exactly what I am referring to. If not, then there is no use bringing it into the discussion, since it may prove to make things difficult.

What is your definition of evolution, please?

regards,

Richard.

[QED]

Richard R,

I would have appreciated it if you could have replied to Post# 29194, which was addressed to you. I have been putting a lot of effort in keeping comments addressed to you separate from those addressed to Socrates.


03-09-2003 @ 09:39 AM
Richard Romano:
Do you see QED? Nothing will ever appease your incessant rejection of creation science, no matter what argument they place before you...

Let me repeat myself:
On the contrary, I've been very clear on exactly what would convince me of censorship, and why I require more than speculation about the reasons a particular scientist wasn't published.

Once again, demonstrating censorship should be very easy. You provide papers you feel were censored along with reviewers' comments. It is not a difficult thing to accomplish, especially if censorship is so rampant as you claim. Pointing out that a particular scientist got some bad results, couldn't accept criticism on the issue, and "wasn't published since" sounds suspicious, but it doesn't prove anything. Has she tried to publish since then? Has she started tayloring her research (and results) to appeal to the fringe groups who embraced her errant work, and thereby compromised her scientific integrity in any research she has attempted to publish since then? How do you rule out these possibilities and show that she was actually censored? Well, it is easy.

your commital to evolutionary thinking is practically religious. This makes you guilty of the same thing you accuse creationists of.

I hear the accusation. I'm waiting on the evidence. I know what my commitments are (much better than you can hope to). I assure you that you are mistaken. If that is not good enough for you, then you will have to do better than off the cuff remarks like this and make a case to support your charge.

Socrates listed another example, yet you rejected it outright without considering the real bigotry that is taking place in these circles.

There are a lot of flawed practices evident in these circles (here we have jumped track and are now discussing science journalism/popular reporting). I am not interested in journalistic criticism. Yes, National Geographic and Scientific American have problems. Yes, I would like to see them corrected. No, it has nothing to do with scientific censorship. I haven't challenged the accuracy of Socrates' example, because it does not apply to scientific censorship. If I had the time to track down every claim that is made by AiG & Socrates about their problems with Sci Am, then I might agree that they compromised their journalistic integrity on this or that point. But I don't, because it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

The fact that someone cannot publish a rebbuttal to criticism of his/her work is pathetic...it is reminiscent of the dark ages, and not scientific impartiality.

See my last paragraph quoted above. I don't take anything that I see on AiG as "fact" until I have at least done minimal fact checking on it. This would be too great a burden on my time. If Sci Am's editorial policy is depriving your guy of his fair shake, there is always Reader's Digest, which will publish just about anything, and has wider circulation.

Evolutionists are painting themselves into a corner with these types of activities.

Science journalists are not an important subset of "evolutionists". It is those scientists who research and review the scientific literature who determine what "evolutionists" are about.

Creationists have published their works...we have made that abundantly clear. What does happen is once their disposition on origin science is revealed, they are black listed.

Yet, after all of these red herrings, you cannot produce a single documented case of censorship. That leads me to believe that your charge is unfounded.

I also made it clear that the Steen-Mcintyre case constituted a case of clear censorship since her findings were in diametric opposition to evolutionary dating methods.

Hold up.. You also made it clear that you believe that the Steen-Mcintyre case constituted a case of clear censorship since her findings were in opposition to anthropological models of the population of the Americas. You have not shown that she has actually had work rejected, nor have you shown that her results and not her methods were the reason behind any rejections she has accumulated! You have clearly jumped to the conclusion that she is being censored without a shred of evidence to support your view.

You ignored it completely, stating that I didn't make clear the reason she was censored. She has never been able to publish anything since...a fact that you also clearly ignored.

I clearly did not ignore it. I clearly asked for you to provide the relevant details that would turn this fact into evidence of censorship. For instance, you might document the fact that she has attempted to publish since then. You could then show that her attempts to publish were met with rejection without cause. Correllation does not show causation. You have to do more than show the correllation - you have to show the cause.

Think for a moment. Let's say that I am a scientist, doing my thing for 20 years and publishing once or twice a year. In the 21st year, I make a mistake and publish some bad findings (that, if accurate, would call a popular model into question). Lets say that I hear the criticism from the rest of the community on my findings, and can't cope with it. Let's say that I retire from science because of my hurt feelings, and never submit another paper for publication. Now, ten years later, someone cites my case and presents my case as "evidence" of censorship, just on the basis of the fact that I didn't publish again after that incident. Would they be correct? Or, what if I changed gears, and instead of submitting responsibly researched papers, I submitted only papers where I had fudged my data to support my findings from year 21, and earned rejections on every paper I submitted. Would I then be the victim of censorship? Would the mere fact that I didn't publish since that year prove I was censored? Of course not!

You are guilty of selective reading, and refusing to deal with real issues. Yet, you quibble about Creationist material, stating that they aren't scientific enough. Give me a break.

You are guilty of selective writing. I can only read what you write. You can say "Bob obviously murdered Fred, because Bob doesn't like Fred and I haven't seen Fred in the last two weeks." You can repeat it a dozen times. The fact that I don't believe your accusation has nothing to do with what I read. It has to do with the fact that you fail to present a body or a murder weapon.

Give it a rest QED, nobody is listening to your rhetoric anymore.

Why don't we let them decide that, Richard? It may be that no one is reading anything either of us writes. You have your reasons for making your charges. I have my reasons for asking you to document them with some factual evidence. Let it go at that.

The fact is that people like you need to come out of the woodwork since evolution is crumbling around you. Why do you think school boards in the US are being approached by concerned parents, and scientists, about the exclusive teaching of evolution? If evolution is true, then let it be taught alongside creation...if the results are as obvious as you make them, that creation is false, then there shouldn't be any problem, right?

You are right. And while we are at it, we should be teaching 2+2=5 right along with arithmetic. If arithmetic is so obviously true, then there shouldn't be any problem, right?

Oh yeah, we should teach Holocaust revisionism right along with the the Holocaust, right? If the historicity of the Holocaust is so obvious, then there is nothing to fear, right?

This is terrifying for people like you, since it would spell the end of the myth of evolution. What would you do with all the time you seem to have?

No need to be silly. Let's first deal with your charges of censorship. Then, maybe we can get into the nuts and bolts of the relative merits of mainstream science and so-called "creation" science. If we find in favor of censorship and in favor of "creation" science, then we might want to run ahead and talk about what impact that would have on our personal lives. Let's not let the tail wag the dog, here, shall we?

[QED]

03-09-2003 @ 10:10 AM
Richard Romano:
QED, my apologies to you if I have offended you in any way, that was not my intention. Perhaps I need to be more careful when seeking to make a point that may have been missed.

Sorry I missed this post before. I was just re-reading the thread and came upon it. I do appreciate your conciliatory tone.

Please inform me of your definition of evolution.

The modern synthesis of evolution is the conceptual framework which explains the essential unity of all modern life in terms of common ancestry, and explains the diversity of all modern life in in terms of the workings of evolutionary mechanisms, most notably random mutation and natural selection.

If you propose a definition in concert with that promulgated by talkorigins, then you are not fairly defining terms, but merging them making them appear unified when they are not.

I'll let you butt heads with TO on that. Perhaps the terms are as unified as they are made to appear, but the explanation of how that unification is known is abbreviated.

[Richard Romano]

"The modern synthesis of evolution is the conceptual framework which explains the essential unity of all modern life in terms of common ancestry, and explains the diversity of all modern life in in terms of the workings of evolutionary mechanisms, most notably random mutation and natural selection"

Hello QED,

Thanks for your post. Please excuse my late replies, I am a graduate student and I am quite busy with my studies...so I will try to write as often as I can. I appreciate your kind manner and acceptance of my apologies.

I am glad you clarified your position on evolution, it is much easier, and beneficial, to keep things simple. Now my next question to you, since it is integral to evolution for mutations to happen and in such a way as to promote life, complexity, and adaptation; are mutations harmful or not? Do they ressult in an increase in information or loss of information?

Let me know your comments on these please.

regards,

Richard Romano.

[Woman]

Anyone see Penn & Teller last night?

[QED]

Today @ 08:09 AM
Richard Romano:

I am glad you clarified your position on evolution, it is much easier, and beneficial, to keep things simple. Now my next question to you, since it is integral to evolution for mutations to happen and in such a way as to promote life, complexity, and adaptation; are mutations harmful or not? Do they ressult in an increase in information or loss of information?

Glad to see you back, Richard. I'm going to answer these questions separately if you don't mind.

1) Are mutations harmful or not?

In the same way that a blackberry vines are mostly just vine - not edible or hurtful, most mutations are selectively neutral. In the same way the blackberry vine has many prickly spines, non-neutral mutations are mostly deleterious (harmful). In the same way that blackberry vines bear some edible fruit in the springtime, some mutations confer a selective advantage.

2) Do mutations result in an increase of information or a loss of information?

This may depend on how you define "information." For the purposes of discussing the evolution of novelty or complexity, I am going to first define "information" loosely. I will consider it as the instruction set for building proteins and for regulation of their production both during organismal development and maturity. The information set we are interested in is most likely broader than this, including transcription mechanisms, DNA repair mechanisms, etc., but I think it is safe to dwell mostly on protein production for this discussion.

A mutation which changes the instruction set in one organism, increases the variability of the instruction set in the population. In a sense, this is an information gain, by itself. Where the genome of the organism contains X sequences at some particular locus, after mutation, it contains X+1 sequences.

Unfortunately, a single nucleotide sequence of a certain length near that of a single gene, carries very little information. Furthermore, the new sequences are very often less robust (often critically so) than the existing sequences at its locus, and do not come to be fixed in the genome. So, instead of considering the information change in a single mutation, we normally consider the information change in a multitude of mutations occurring throughout a population (in terms of "information", this can be considered the generation of "noise"), and the effect of natural selection to remove deleterious sequences from the information set that are deleterious, and to promote those sequences that are most robust. This, in effect, filters the "signal" from the "noise" - like panning for gold. This is information increase in the classical sense of information theory, and it is inevitable in the system of mutation plus natural selection.

So, the short answer is that yes, mutations do trivially increase "information" in a population's genome, but more importantly, mutation and natural selection together provide a mechanism for increasing information in the more fundamental ways that guide evolution.

[Socrates]

QED cites from the judge's decision on the Arkansas "creation" trial:
Some of the State's witnesses suggested that the scientific community was "close-minded" on the subject of creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation science arguments. Yet no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused. Perhaps some members of the scientific community are resistant to new ideas. It is, however, inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought. This is just a plain error in fact by a judge who was incredibly biased. Dr Robert Gentry presented letters from major journals showing that a paper was rejected because of the overt creationist implication, but the same paper was published in another journal after that overt creationist statement was removed. This shows that his work was rejected for ideological reasons, because clearly the scientific content was good enough.

QED has ignored the clear examples I've presented that creationist articles have been refused publication, that the major journal Science has an explicit policy against publishing creationist letters, and that creationists are denied the normal courtesy fo the right of reply to accusations.

Here's another revealing comment from Prof. Evelleen Richards, a non-creationist Historian of Science at the University of NSW, Australia, This was in the context of establishment dogmatism even against a non-Darwinian (neo-Lamarckian) theory (from the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) TV program Lateline, 9 October 1998:

Science … is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as “truth” is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time … [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm — in this case neo-Darwinism — so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict that paradigm to get a hearing. They’ll find it hard to [get] research grants; they’ll find it hard to get their research published; they’ll find it very hard.

Added to the way QED tries to make the Bible say "white" when it says "black", it's clear that his motto is "My mind is made up: don't try to confuse me with the facts."

[Socrates]

Socrates:
...the Biblical Christianity is the only philosophy that has provided true liberation for women

Italian Gold, yeah, the one so precious about personal insults, wrote:(This absurdity deserves a thread of its own!)I guess it would be too much to expect a rational response to something also claimed by noted 19th C anti-slavery writer Harriet Beecher Stowe.It will be the proud boast of woman that she never contributed a line to the Bible.IG is obviously a well-balanced lady -- has a chip on both shoulders. Of course, Mary's Magnificat, in turn based on Hannah's praise song, and Proverbs 31, advice a king's mother gave him, prove her wrong.

[Socrates]

03-09-2003 @ 11:13 AM
wehappyfew:

Next, I promised to look into the article by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D and D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D:

THE SEA'S MISSING SALT: A DILEMMA FOR EVOLUTIONISTS (http://tccsa.freeservers.com/articles/ocean_sodium.html)

Here's what I found...

1. We could quibble with the numbers used by Austin and Humphreys for the inputs and outputs, but this would not affect the final outcome in a qualitative sense.So why mention it? In fact, further evidence shows that they UNDER-estimated the amount of sodium entering the ocean from submarine groundwater discharge. This flow is now thought to be more like 40% of the amount from rivers, rather than 0.01–10% as Austin and Humphreys assumed.

2. We could argue about the outputs that are obviously missing from their list. This, too, will not matter in the final analysis.No, they analysed the outputs.

3. Most importantly, even accepting every error and omission made by Austin and Humphreys,More elephant hurling from a person who is just a village atheist. the article does not demonstrate that the seas must be young... it merely shows that, given these postulated inputs and outputs, the sodium balance of the ocean is currently below equilibrium. Not at all. They make it clear that the ocean could not be old, otherwise it would be saltier.

The chart at the end clearly hints at this equilibrium:

http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/images/buildup.gif
The line showing the changing sodium content versus time is curved. That's because some of the inputs and outputs are a function of the salinity. When salinity is low, the amount of sodium removed by pore water burial is lower, for example, as explained by Austin and Humphreys. When salinity gets high enough, the inputs decrease and the outputs increase, until they are equal, and equilibrium is reached. Given the inputs and outputs postulated in this article, it appears that the equilibrium level is about 1.5 to 2 times the current level. That's about the level at which the curve flattens out if it were extended farther out down (into the future). The exact level of this equlibrium is merely a function of the specific values for the inputs and outputs. Since these values are very poorly understood and very hard to measure directly, one could argue that the current salinity level is, in fact, the equilibrium level. Or it could even be far higher. Either way, it does not matter.Oh come off it. They justify their curves. There's no way they would come out to billions of years!
The maximum age calculation performed in the article is meaningless because it explicitly assumes a falsehood:

...we can say that Bt, the sum of the Na+ outputs at any time t in the past, has always been less than or equal to Bmax = 2.06 x 10^11 kg/yr, the sum of the seven past maximum output rates for the processes in Table 2

But in footnote [49], this is shown to be false:

If the "Messinian salinity crisis" is assumed to have had a duration of one million years, B4max would be 5.8 x 10^11 kg/yr, a value slightly greater than all the combined inputs.

This false assumption is restated in explaining the factors in the differential equation used to calculate the maximum age:

If the sea has been increasing its Na+ content continually, then today's three major outputs (B1, B2 and B3) must have been smaller in the past.

But the Messinian salinity crises has already been shown to have actually reduced the ocean's salinity for a million year period. Therefore the equation which assumes a constantly increasing salinity cannot be applied.But they allowed for this in their equations. Why do you think they raised it in the first place? When they presented their paper, some old-earthers had the chance to comment, and they had no answer to the argument!

The present condition of increasing salinity could be the result of restoring the equilibrium back to a higher level after being temporarily depressed in the Miocene.

This false assumption used to arrive at the maximum age of 62 million years is analogous to putting a stake in the beach at low tide, then declaring that the rising water proves the oceans must have been empty a few weeks ago.False analogy, since it is NOT cyclic, but the Messinian salinity crisis is more like a blip on the stock market which doesn't invalidate that it has a long-term upward trend, and would be rather less extreme than a market crash.

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 04:19 AM
Socrates:



Italian Gold, yeah, the one so precious about personal insults, wrote:(This absurdity deserves a thread of its own!)I guess it would be too much to expect a rational response to something also claimed by noted 19th C anti-slavery writer Harriet Beecher Stowe.It will be the proud boast of woman that she never contributed a line to the Bible.IG is obviously a well-balanced lady -- has a chip on both shoulders. Of course, Mary's Magnificat, in turn based on Hannah's praise song, and Proverbs 31, advice a king's mother gave him, prove her wrong.

To add to what socrates said is it any wonder that the Bible is full of woman in leading roles Ruth, Esther, Sarah, etc . Jesus' revolutionary teachings about women in teh ancient world. You have no idea waht you are taling about IG.
By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[Sher]

03-04-2003 @ 11:06 PM
QED:

... Haeckel. That's why you had to search back over a century for an example of this kind of irresponsibility. Just a quick response on this point you made, QED. The sad thing is that he probably didn't have to look back any farther than the nearest high school biology book. Haeckel's fake photos/drawings are *still* being used in recent year's editions :argh:

[Stratnerd]

Sherbear, what text(s) are you looking at?

[Sher]

Today @ 12:35 AM
Stratnerd:

Sherbear, what text(s) are you looking at? Hi Stratnerd, One example (later fixed in 1998) were Prentice Hall Biology books (BIOLOGY - The Living Science & BIOLOGY by Miller and Levine, pre-1998, still used in public school systems) which contained the erroneous drawings.

As a home educator, we are able to secure copies of many of the textbooks currently being used in public schools by contacting the county school boards and/or the publishers themselves (one publisher was of enormous assistance to us; they provided several years of free curriculum to us ~ God bless them!).

While many textbooks are updated, school budgeting often doesn't allow for the constant changes in textbooks needed to follow the updates in science, nor the corrections to faulty insertions. This should be as much of a concern to parents who are evolutionists, as it is to the parents who are creationists.

The point I make about the PH textbooks isn't that they were caught and changed (which I am not attempting to hide in any way), but that they ever inserted them in the first place, when the fraud had been "caught" in Haeckel's lifetime. It isn't enough to comment that science caught the error, but we have to be aware that this error is being perpetrated on our youth in public schools as truth ... years after the error is found.

"This idea has been pushed back into the news recently by the news that Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!" -- http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html (emphasis mine ~S)

When we moved last May, I discarded many of the textbooks to a good home because I just couldn't move them ALL :argh: but I personally found several examples in biology books by major textbook publishers.

Others list the examples (that I cannot attest to the validity of, because I didn't personally see them) of these textbooks:

Molecular Biology of the Cell (Third Edition)
http://www.essentialcellbiology.com/MBoC/about.html

Evolutionary Biology (Third edition)
http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/futuyma.html
(author's bio page with email address if someone wants to validate)

If even one publisher puts these drawings in only one of their textbooks, can you imagine how many children are being taught incorrectly that this is true? It should, at the very least, be an eye-opener to the parent to check their kid's textbooks.

[Sher]

Here's a quick example of what I was talking about re: public school funding... OROVILLE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT (http://www.ouhsd.org), a California school district, using books from 1998, (1994, and 1988) in classrooms. When were these books adopted? BOARD ADOPTION DATE: JUNE 19, 2002 (http://www.ouhsd.org/curriculum/Science/GL35550.HTM).

[Stratnerd]

Sherbear,

I'm familiar with Haeckel's hand-drawn illustrations (not photos or else they would have been accurate!). I haven't seen it in the several (at least 4) college textbooks that I've looked through and it is in Futuyma's book (page 653) but as an illustration (literally) of his error.

Thanks for the links...

[Sher]

Today @ 01:49 AM
Stratnerd:

Sherbear,

I'm familiar with Haeckel's hand-drawn illustrations (not photos or else they would have been accurate!).:argh: You are definitely correct! That should have read graphics/drawings. I have been editing photos and had photo on the brain. Most of what I have seen are modern graphic type illustrations meant to represent what Haeckel drew. Ironically, his name is often left out as credit for those illustrations :hrm: I haven't seen it in the several (at least 4) college textbooks that I've looked through and it is in Futuyma's book (page 653) but as an illustration (literally) of his error.I haven't taken the time to search through college books yet, and hadn't seen Futuyma's to verify it. I am mostly concerned right now with the high school books since most children do pass through high school (not all go to college), as well as the fact that my teen is of high school age, and coupled with the ease of availablity.Thanks for the links... You are quite welcome. This is a big issue to me, but pardon my soapbox disertation that rabbit-trailed this topic. Rock on :rockon:

[RufusAtticus]

SherBear,

I have Futuyma's textbook and the accusations against it are false. The Haekel's drawing is only mentioned in the section about the history of biology. In fact, Futuyma does mention that Haekel's strict recapitulation was disproved by the turn of the 20th century. The significance is not that they use Haekel's drawings, but how and where they use them.

[Sher]

Today @ 06:08 PM
RufusAtticus:

SherBear,

I have Futuyma's textbook and the accusations against it are false. Yeah, I said it wasn't verified and Stratnerd said it was as an illustration of {Haeckel's} error. Thanks for the futher clarification though :smile: The significance is not that they use Haekel's drawings, but how and where they use them.I agree. My issue is with them being used in high school biology books as teaching they are correct. ... was disproved by the turn of the 20th centuryYeah, he died in 1919 and it was disproven in his lifetime (1909?). Makes you scratch your head why they ever got into ANY textbooks issued after that date, to be used as evolutionary teaching instructions ... not as examples of previous overzealousness or fraudulent presentations. I did dig up one textbook that I kept for the pictures (we can cut them out for poster work). Biology, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich (teacher's edition), ISBN 0153607319, pg. 236 Figure 15-6 caption to graphic: "Similarities in the development of fish, chicken, and human embryos suggest an evolutionary relationship" ... related text on same page: "Embryological Evidence Organisms in the early stages of development are called embryos. The sudy of comparative embryology, which compares embryos of different species, has found similarites that support the theory of evolution. Most biologists believe that these vertebrates share common genetic instructions for embryo development and, therefore, a common ancestor.

You may have no objection to the actual text from an evolutionary standpoint, but as you can see, this textbook published 1986, pulled from the county's classroom 2001 (!!), alludes to the drawings as supporting the text ... not as proof of previous fraud.

If anyone wants to discuss this further, we should really open a new topic. PM me if I miss it :juggle:

[wehappyfew]

Thank you, Socrates, for taking the time to respond in detail to my small essay on Austin and Humphreys' article. I would like to respond in kind, answering each point or question. My original words in italics, your response in plain text, my new words in bold...


Yesterday @ 11:34 PM
Socrates:

THE SEA'S MISSING SALT: A DILEMMA FOR EVOLUTIONISTS (http://tccsa.freeservers.com/articles/ocean_sodium.html)

Here's what I found...

1. We could quibble with the numbers used by Austin and Humphreys for the inputs and outputs, but this would not affect the final outcome in a qualitative sense.

So why mention it? In fact, further evidence shows that they UNDER-estimated the amount of sodium entering the ocean from submarine groundwater discharge. This flow is now thought to be more like 40% of the amount from rivers, rather than 0.01–10% as Austin and Humphreys assumed.
As I mentioned before, measuring most of these inputs and outputs is extremely crude and imprecise. The saline groundwater input could, indeed, be 40% higher than A&H's estimate. It could even be 100% higher. Likewise, their estimate for the average removal rate by halite deposition has apparently been revised by Austin. Glenn Morton reports receiving a letter from Steve Austin admitting that the total world inventory of rock salt is actually 3 times higher than reported in the 1990 article we have been reading.(third paragraph from the bottom (http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html))

My main point does not rely on completely accurate values for the inputs and outputs. But it does help to point out inaccuracies when they become apparent - like the value of zero for the albitization process in A&H's paper. Since the DSP and DSDP programs have recovered numerous cores of extensively albitized ocean crust being subducted, it has become clear that the mass balance of sodium in ocean basalts is tilted towards a net output. IOW, the sodium entering the ocean/crust system by way of new basalt erupting at Mid-Ocean Ridges is less than the sodium leaving in extensively altered, albitized basalt being subducted. A&H made no attempt to calculate this mass-balance. The data available at the time was, no doubt, insufficient.

BTW, do you have a reference for the increased groundwater seepage rate you reported? That sounds very interesting.


2. We could argue about the outputs that are obviously missing from their list. This, too, will not matter in the final analysis.

No, they analysed the outputs.

They did analyze SOME of the outputs. They also missed several. I already mentioned the albitization that recent evidence has revealed. Glenn Morton also details some of the biogenic outputs that A&H completely ignored. (middle part (http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html))

I could add a few more, if you like. Basaltic pore water burial, for example. A&H never considered it at all. Perhaps they never imagined the possibility that ocean basalts could contain significant porosity. But the recent core samples show that they do. The amount of sodium removed is fairly significant.


3. Most importantly, even accepting every error and omission made by Austin and Humphreys,

More elephant hurling from a person who is just a village atheist
Ummm... I'm not sure what the proper response is to charges of elephant hurling. Aussie idioms are a little confusing sometimes. Are you trying to say that my points are weighty? meaty? require a lot of memory?

The "just a village atheist" part is a little clearer. I strongly suspect that might be intended as an insult, or at least a diversion. No matter - I take no offense at your attempts to throw up smokescreens when rational arguments fail you.



the article does not demonstrate that the seas must be young... it merely shows that, given these postulated inputs and outputs, the sodium balance of the ocean is currently below equilibrium.

Not at all. They make it clear that the ocean could not be old, otherwise it would be saltier.

I agree that their results are clear. If we accept their assumptions as true, their equation gives the maximum age required to reach the current salinity. Unfortunately, their assumptions used to calculate the equation are shown by their own footnote[49] to be false.

Your very insightful statement... "otherwise it would be saltier"... is exactly the point I am trying to make. Maybe the oceans WERE saltier for most of their history. At higher salinities, the balance between inputs and outputs is tilted more in favor of the outputs, as A&H explain very clearly. We may be in a temporary LOW salinity period. The equilibrium level may be higher. The current imbalance is the process that restores that equilibrium. A&H make the fatal assumption that the conventional science paradigm MUST assume that today's salinity is the equilibrium value. That is unwarranted uniformitarianism.

If the equilibrium level were higher, then the relevant question now becomes... how long would it take to reach that higher equilibrium level? A&H did not make this calculation. Once equilibrium is reached, it can oscillate randomly around it for an indefinite period of time.

A&H have neatly set up a strawman (maximum time to present salinity) and then obliterated it.



The chart at the end clearly hints at this equilibrium:
[snip summary of equilibrium concept]

Oh come off it. They justify their curves. There's no way they would come out to billions of years!
I agree completely with their curves, and I agree there is no way a continuously increasing salinity curve calculated using their numbers "would come out to billions of years" to reach the present salinity. But the real world history of the salinity value has already been admitted by A&H to NOT be continuously increasing (the Messinian salinity crisis).

The fact that A&H's plot is CURVED shows the dependence of the inputs and outputs on the salinity of the oceans. When salinity is high, outputs are higher and inputs are lower. When salinity is low, outputs are LOWER, and inputs are HIGHER. A&H are modeling the curve for all salinities that are lower than today's value. If they extended their model to higher salinities, they would show the curve leveling out at a higher salinity, where the inputs are equalled by the outputs. This is a basis of a negative feedback loop. Whenever the salinity deviates from the equilibrium, the changing input and output rates bring it back into balance. So it's possible that ever since the Messinian salinity crisis temporarily reduced salinity, it has been rising back to its original equilibrium, and it might still be rising today for that reason.

A&H detail the operation of this feedback loop, even if they fail, for obvious reasons, to admit its existence.


Therefore the equation which assumes a constantly increasing salinity cannot be applied.

But they allowed for this in their equations. Why do you think they raised it in the first place? When they presented their paper, some old-earthers had the chance to comment, and they had no answer to the argument!
Can you show exactly where in their equations they "allowed for this" temporary DECREASE in salinity? The part I read explicitly assumed a continuously INCREASING salinity.


The present condition of increasing salinity could be the result of restoring the equilibrium back to a higher level after being temporarily depressed in the Miocene.

This false assumption used to arrive at the maximum age of 62 million years is analogous to putting a stake in the beach at low tide, then declaring that the rising water proves the oceans must have been empty a few weeks ago.

False analogy, since it is NOT cyclic, but the Messinian salinity crisis is more like a blip on the stock market which doesn't invalidate that it has a long-term upward trend, and would be rather less extreme than a market crash.

OK, I like your analogy better. The ocean's salinity is not cyclic like the tides. It is more like the nearly random (to me, at least) variations in the stock market. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes it goes down. But A&H explicitly assume only one direction - today's, and they also assume all past variation has been equal to or greater than today's gain, even when evidence exists of past declines. Whether the long term trend is up or down or flat is yet to be determined - analogies are not perfect. The bond market might be a better analogy. Interest rates go up and down, but there is a long-term equilibrium determined by economic cycles of inflation and depressions.

To extend the analogy, today I lost about one percent on my bond fund in my retirement savings plan. If I assume that I will always lose at least one percent, then I will never retire, and my retirement fund will be 99% gone in 4.5 years. Likewise, extending this assumption backwards into the past, we can calculate that 12.7 years ago I was worth more than the combined assets of every person, government, and company on Earth. --Assuming that every day in the past resulted in a loss of one percent or more--. Such is the power of an assumption.

A&H make exactly the same assumption.

[Socratism]

It is rather amazing to see such an extended posting that is completely devoid of any numerical values.

There are many factors involved in any real world situation but if no numerical values are ever mentioned then any evaluation is merely a guess.

Come to think of it this is standard practice in evolutionary circles.

[Socrates]

Quite so, Socratism. Moron is hardly a reliable source, although village atheists love him as a useful idiot although he has only the most mediocre scientific qualifactions -- they must be desperate! Moron's stuff just adds to the special pleading around this argument. Fact is, Drs Austin and Humphreys were as generous as possible to the evolutionists, and based their analysis on MEASURED input and output rates. The most accurate line is the bottom one, while the top one assumes the maximum plasible output and minimum plausible input.

And for that increased groundwater seepage rate, it's W.S. Moore, ‘Large groundwater inputs to coastal waters revealed by 226Ra enrichments’, Nature, 380(6575):612–614, 18 April 1996; perspective by T.M. Church, ‘An underground route for the water cycle’, same issue, pp. 579–580.

[tgamble]

Are you reffering to Glen Morton? Obviously your bitterness and hatred of him comes from the fact that he used to be a member of the ICR cult. Then he got into the field and realized everything the ICR taught him was a lie. He also asked other graduates if what they learned was true. Of course, they said NO! You dismiss him for having a physics degree (never mind that many of the cretinists you use as a reference have a similar degree!) but ignore the fact that his work area is in geology! How convenient!

"After six months of looking, I finally found work as a geophysicist working for a seismic company. Within a year, I was processing seismic data for Atlantic Richfield.

This was where I first became exposed to the problems geology presented to the idea of a global flood. I would see extremely thick (30,000 feet) sedimentary layers. One could follow these beds from the surface down to those depths where they were covered by vast thicknesses of sediment. I would see buried mountains which had experienced thousands of feet of erosion, which required time. Yet the sediments in those mountains had to have been deposited by the flood, if it was true. I would see faults that were active early but not late and faults that were active late but not early. I would see karsts and sinkholes (limestone erosion) which occurred during the middle of the sedimentary column (supposedly during the middle of the flood) yet the flood waters would have been saturated in limestone and incapable of dissolving lime. It became clear that more time was needed than the global flood would allow.(See http://www.seg.org/publications/geoarchive/1996/sep-oct/geo6105r1336.pdf for an article showing an example of a deeply buried karst. For a better but bigger (3.4 meg) version of that paper see http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/97/97ng/ng97_pdf/NG4-1.PDF"

"But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him."
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/gstory.htm

http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/transform.htm

"When I graduated from college, physicists were unemployable since NASA had just laid a bunch of them off. I did graduate work in philosophy and then decided to leave school to support my growing family. After six months, I found work as a geophysicist working for a seismic company. Within a year, I was processing seismic data for a major oil company.

This was where I first became exposed to the problems geology presented to the idea of a global flood. I would see extremely thick (30,000 feet) sedimentary layers and wonder how the flood could have deposited all that sediment and still given time for footprints to be formed if it was all deposited in one year. One could follow beds with footprints from the surface down to those depths where they were covered by such thicknesses of sediment that much time would have been required. I would see buried mountains which had experienced more than 10 thousands of feet of erosion, which required more time than a single year. Yet, my belief system required that the sediments in those buried mountains had to have been deposited by the flood. I would see karsts, (sinkholes due to limestone erosion) and salt sandwiched in the middle of the geologic column (supposedly during the middle of the flood). Yet the flood waters would have been saturated with limestone and incapable of dissolving lime. And salt can only be removed from the ocean waters by evaporation. It was inconceivable that salt could be deposited during the Flood. It became clear that more time was needed than the global flood would allow. But my faith in the young-earth interpretation told me that the data wasn’t to be believed.

Over the next several years I struggled to understand how the geologic data I worked with everyday could be fit into a Biblical perspective. I published 20+ items in the Creation Research Society Quarterly toward that goal. I would listen to ICR, have discussions with people like Harold Slusher, Duane Gish, Steve Austin, Tom Barnes and with some of their graduates that I had hired. Nothing worked to explain what I saw."

although village atheists love him as a useful idiot although he has only the most mediocre scientific qualifactions -- they must be desperate!

HAHA! Evolution is accepted by the entire scientific community. It's creationists who are desperate. Perhaps that's why they have members who got their degrees from diploma mills? Perhaps that's why they have a strict statement of faith where evidence is of secondary importance to an archaic religious myth?

Moron's stuff just adds to the special pleading around this argument. Fact is, Drs Austin and Humphreys were as generous as possible to the evolutionists, and based their analysis on MEASURED input and output rates. The most accurate line is the bottom one, while the top one assumes the maximum plasible output and minimum plausible input.

The bottom line is that the creation "science" cult doesn't allow questioning of a set dogma so the studies of Austin and Humphreys (which, of course, wasn't good enough to be published in scientific journals being the typically low quality garbage produced by creationists) had the results dictated before hand. They would no more conclude an old earth than Mother Teresa would get an abortion.

The fact is, of course, that the young earth view was abandoned centeries ago because the evidence clearly refuted it. Over 200 years later, the only people still clinging to such nonsense are a small minority of fundamentalist Christians who do so solely on blind faith. They have never been able to produce any evidence for a young earth. Not that they've tried. The arguments they use, moon dust, population growth, helium in the atmosphere etc. have been refuted for decades!
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/proofs.html

My personal favorite for stupid YEC argument is the population growth. Which puts less than a thousand people to build the pyramids. This sort of nonsense is still used by AIG.

The other myth they cling to is Noah's flood. Naturally, there is no evidence for that either as Christians realized over 200 years ago.
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/new_no_flood_evidence.htm

There is, of course, a large body of evidence to support evolution.

29 Evidences for Macroevolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The Fossil Record
Including Transitional Fossils
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/fossil_record.htm

Evolution: Converging Lines of Evidence
(Updated 3-1-2002)
P. Wesley Edwards
http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/FEvolutionCase.htm

There is simply no evidence for a young earth. All evidence shows the earth to be very old and accurate dating methods show it to be at least 4.5 billion years old. People who reject this fact do so solely for religious reasons. They have no evidence.

[dizzle]

Mod note: TGamble: I notice that you are fond of referring to YEC and YEC organizations as "cults." There are well established defintions for cults both on a religious and on a sociological level. I believe that YEC fits neither. Unless you are prepared using established and accepted criteria for a cult to demonstrate that such are indeed cults, please refrain from such terminology.

[RufusAtticus]

DDW,

Do you consider the Seventh Day Adventists a "cult?" (I've seen many christians that do.) Considering, that the YEC movement originated with them, tgamble might have a point.

However, I have yet to see an objective defination of "cult" that doesn't include all religious organizations. For example, m-w.com offers this applicable defination: "3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents." However, "unorthodox" and "spurious" are subjective qualifications. Thus if tgamble sees YECs as "unorthodox" and "spurious" then his characterization fits. However, the subjectiveness of "cult" leaves me uneasy. That is why I don't think anyone should use it.

[dizzle]

The discussion of the merits or lack thereof of whether or not YEC should be designated as a cult has been split off to here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=40230#post40230

[Socrates]

RufusAtticus shows he's even more ignorant of history than he is of science (and that's saying a lot!) :dufus:
Do you consider the Seventh Day Adventists a "cult?" (I've seen many christians that do.) Considering, that the YEC movement originated with them, tgamble might have a point.What complete nonsense. YEC was the universal view of the Christian Church, as shown by the writings of the Church Fathers and Reformers. E.g.

Irenaeus (Heresies, 5.28.3 (Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:557).:

For in six days as the world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. … For that day of the Lord is a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.

Augustine ('Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past', The City of God, book 12, ch. 10):

Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. … They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.

Luther (Pelikan, J., Ed., Luther's Works, Lectures on Genesis Chapters 1–5, 1:3, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 1958.):

We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago.

About whether SDA is a cult, it depends, because there are two unofficial wings. The evangelical wing is definitely not cultic because it believes in the authority of Scripture alone and salvation by grace through faith alone. Most of the ones in my country are like that. But the more traditional wing is at least borderline, because in practice they place Ellen White's writings on the same level as Scripture, and make Sabbath-Keeping a requirement for salvation.

[Socrates]

Well, the falseness of Glenn Moron's "Christian" claims is shown by the company he keeps, and the fact that the only people who love his works are bigoted misotheists who use them to attack Chrsitianity! And he has only a B.S. in physics, while the leading scientists at AiG and ICR have earned Ph.D.s, so he has no credence on scientific grounds either.

[Stratnerd]

And he has only a B.S. in physics, while the leading scientists at AiG and ICR have earned Ph.D.s, so he has no credence on scientific grounds either. degrees mean diddly-doo! I've reviewed (and I'm supposed to be reviewing one now) several manuscripts by Ph.D.'s and I've ripped into their papers (and they mine) but a proper logical point doesn't require a Ph.D. to get noticed. Do you have a Ph.D.? Are we supposed to give in to "superior" degrees? Plus, I know what little it takes for some to get a Ph.D.

[RufusAtticus]

Yesterday @ 10:18 PM
Socrates:

RufusAtticus shows he's even more ignorant of history than he is of science (and that's saying a lot!) :dufus:

:rofl: [Exploding Irony Meter] :rofl:

Do you consider the Seventh Day Adventists a "cult?" (I've seen many christians that do.) Considering, that the YEC movement originated with them, tgamble might have a point.What complete nonsense. YEC was the universal view of the Christian Church, as shown by the writings of the Church Fathers and Reformers.

Read your history, Socrates. Christians, for the most part, abandoned young-earth views during the early 20th century. The successful Scofield Bible, for example, argued for the "gap theory," as did The Fundamentals which helped to define Protestant Fundamentalism.

In his 1909 book, The Fundamentals of Geology, Seventh-Day Adventist George McCready Price argued that the one year of Noah's Flood produced most if not all of the fossil bearing rocks. This view was a mostly isolated to SDA until Morris and Whitcomb "popularized" it in their 1961 book, The Genesis Flood. This is considered the beginning of the YEC movement that we know today, which tgamble was referring to. Your church fathers and reformers had nothing to do with it.

[Socrates]

RA:
Considering, that the YEC movement originated with them, tgamble might have a point.
I replied:
What complete nonsense. YEC was the universal view of the Christian Church, as shown by the writings of the Church Fathers and Reformers.

But Rufie can't bear to admit that a creationist might know more than an evolutionist about ANYTHING, responded:
Read your history, Socrates. Christians, for the most part, abandoned young-earth views during the early 20th century. The successful Scofield Bible, for example, argued for the "gap theory," as did The Fundamentals which helped to define Protestant Fundamentalism.Agreed -- and this proves my point that the OLD-Earth belief is a recent aberration in Christendom.
In his 1909 book, The Fundamentals of Geology, Seventh-Day Adventist George McCready Price argued that the one year of Noah's Flood produced most if not all of the fossil bearing rocks. This view was a mostly isolated to SDA Once again, Price was merely a relatively modern popularizer of a theory strongly advocated by the 19th Century British Scriptural Geologists. It's amazing how they brought up many of the same Biblical scientific reasons why the Flood had to be global as Whitcomb and Morris did >100 years later. until Morris and Whitcomb "popularized" it in their 1961 book, The Genesis Flood. This is considered the beginning of the YEC movement that we know today, which tgamble was referring to. Don't try to weasel out of it. First, neither of them was SDA, so the SDA distinctives that some Christians would regard as cultic had NOTHING to do with it. Second, once again, they were merely trying to reform the church back to its historic position. So if YEC is a cult, it would follow that the entire Christian Church for the first 1800 years of its history was also cultic.Your church fathers and reformers had nothing to do with it.
RA should stick to the topics he understands. YEC is simply a RETURN to the Biblical view as universally understood by the Church Fathers and Reformers. And since they believed in YEC, RA is talking crap to say it's only something invented by SDAs.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 02:47 AM
Socrates:

But Rufie can't bear to admit that a creationist might know more than an evolutionist about ANYTHING, responded:

:rofl: [Backup Irony Meter explodes] :rofl:

Agreed -- and this proves my point that the OLD-Earth belief is a recent aberration in Christendom.

Amazing how Protestant Fundamentalism can be founded on an aberration isn't it?

Once again, Price was merely a relatively modern popularizer of a theory strongly advocated by the 19th Century British Scriptural Geologists.

Hope you got some references.

Don't try to weasel out of it. First, neither of them was SDA, so the SDA distinctives that some Christians would regard as cultic had NOTHING to do with it.

I never said they were SDA. However, their efforts are what spread the SDA's idea of the "genesis flood" to fundamentalists.

Second, once again, they were merely trying to reform the church back to its historic position.

Really? You got some references for the historicness of
hydrodynamic sorting post flood ice age vapor canapy devolution post flood radiation moon-dust helium not to mention all the anti-evolutiuon arguments.

The YEC movement that exists today is not the same movement that existed centuries ago.

So if YEC is a cult, it would follow that the entire Christian Church for the first 1800 years of its history was also cultic.

Every religion is cultic in one way or another.

RA should stick to the topics he understands. YEC is simply a RETURN to the Biblical view as universally understood by the Church Fathers and Reformers. And since they believed in YEC, RA is talking crap to say it's only something invented by SDAs.

Socrates misses the point. Yes some people used to believe the world was ~6,000 years old. Yes some people now believe the world is ~6,000 years old. But the current YECism bears little similarity to the earlier beliefs, other than that.

[Socrates]

Socrates:
... and this proves my point that the OLD-Earth belief is a recent aberration in Christendom.

Rufie then lamely replied:
Amazing how Protestant Fundamentalism can be founded on an aberration isn't it?Come off it -- NO doctrine of Protestant Fundamentalism depends on the premise of an old Earth.

Soc:
Once again, Price was merely a relatively modern popularizer of a theory strongly advocated by the 19th Century British Scriptural Geologists.
RA:
Hope you got some references.Not that RA is really interested in the truth, but there is plenty on Dr Terry Mortenson's biography page (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/t_mortenson.asp), to both popular-level and technical historical ones, based on his Ph.D. Thesis from Coventry University (UK).

Soc:
Don't try to weasel out of it. First, neither of them was SDA, so the SDA distinctives that some Christians would regard as cultic had NOTHING to do with it.
RA:
I never said they were SDA. However, their efforts are what spread the SDA's idea of the "genesis flood" to fundamentalists.Once again, it was not the SDAs' idea. Just they they were one of the few denominations to hold onto the historic Christian teaching.

Soc:
Second, once again, they were merely trying to reform the church back to its historic position.
RA:
Really? You got some references for the historicness of
hydrodynamic sorting
post flood ice age
vapor canapy
devolution
post flood radiation
moon-dust
helium
not to mention all the anti-evolutiuon arguments.What piffle. All these (which are WAY outside your field) are not DOCTRINES but MODELS or APOLOGETICS for the doctrine of Biblical Creation.
The YEC movement that exists today is not the same movement that existed centuries ago.Very little of the SUBSTANCE has changed, since the interpretation of Scripture is historic. Only the way of explaining or defending it has changed.
Soc:
So if YEC is a cult, it would follow that the entire Christian Church for the first 1800 years of its history was also cultic.
RA:
Every religion is cultic in one way or another.Then the term "cult" has become so broad that it lacks meaning. It is just a synonym for "religion" in that case, so is no longer a negative term. All RA has done is rename the color we now call "blue" to "green", then scoff at someone who then says "The sky is green."

Soc:
RA should stick to the topics he understands. YEC is simply a RETURN to the Biblical view as universally understood by the Church Fathers and Reformers. And since they believed in YEC, RA is talking crap to say it's only something invented by SDAs.

RA:
Socrates misses the point. Yes some people used to believe the world was ~6,000 years old. Yes some people now believe the world is ~6,000 years old. But the current YECism bears little similarity to the earlier beliefs, other than that.Nonsense. The basis for the belief is exactly the same: the eye-witness report of the Creator. It's merely the modeling and defence of that which has changed.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 05:13 AM
Socrates:

Come off it -- NO doctrine of Protestant Fundamentalism depends on the premise of an old Earth.

None today anyways.

Not that RA is really interested in the truth, but there is plenty on Dr Terry Mortenson's biography page (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/t_mortenson.asp), to both popular-level and technical historical ones, based on his Ph.D. Thesis from Coventry University (UK).

Thanx for the link. I'm reviewing it.

Once again, it was not the SDAs' idea. Just they they were one of the few denominations to hold onto the historic Christian teaching.

Yeap, they kept it alive long enough for Protestant Fundamentalists to inherit it. The path still goes through them.

What piffle. All these (which are WAY outside your field) are not DOCTRINES but MODELS or APOLOGETICS for the doctrine of Biblical Creation.

And the existance of such apologetics distinguishes the modern yec movement from earlier beliefs.

Very little of the SUBSTANCE has changed, since the interpretation of Scripture is historic. Only the way of explaining or defending it has changed.

Really? Got any historic references for the following interpretions of scripture?
No death before the fall Carnivores ate plants (despite the contradiction with the previous statement) 10,000 year old earth (which some yecs favor) "kinds" are equivalent to taxonomic families (which some yecs favor) dinosaurs
If you want to claim that the modern yec movement stays true to the historical interpretation of scripture then you should be able to show this.

Then the term "cult" has become so broad that it lacks meaning. It is just a synonym for "religion" in that case, so is no longer a negative term.

Yeap. It's good to see you paying attention for a change.

All RA has done is rename the color we now call "blue" to "green", then scoff at someone who then says "The sky is green."

I've done no renaming. In fact, I referenced m-w.com to point out the subjectiveness of the term. One man's cult is another man's denomination.

Nonsense. The basis for the belief is exactly the same: the eye-witness report of the Creator. It's merely the modeling and defence of that which has changed.

And such differences are what distinguish the two.

[Socrates]

Socrates:


Come off it -- NO doctrine of Protestant Fundamentalism depends on the premise of an old Earth.

RA:
None today anyways.When has any doctrine EVER depended on an old-earth view?

Once again, it was not the SDAs' idea. Just they they were one of the few denominations to hold onto the historic Christian teaching.
RA:
Yeap, they kept it alive long enough for Protestant Fundamentalists to inherit it. The path still goes through them.Even if it's true, what of it -- it's the genetic fallacy anyway. There is no distinctive aberrant SDA doctrine on which YEC depends. The fact that one flood geologist, Price, was SDA doesn't make flood geology SDA any more than "irreducible complexity" is a Catholic doctrine because Behe is a Catholic.
Very little of the SUBSTANCE has changed, since the interpretation of Scripture is historic. Only the way of explaining or defending it has changed.

RA goes outside his field yet again (but that's OK for evolutionists to do, just not for creationists).

Really? Got any historic references for the following interpretions of scripture?

No death before the fall
Calvin (Genesis, 1554; Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, UK, p. 180, 1984):

And therefore some understand what was before said. “Thou shalt die”, in a spiritual sense; thinking that, even if Adam had not sinned, his body must still have been separated from his soul. But since the declaration of Paul is clear, that “all die in Adam, as they shall rise again in Christ” (1 Cor. xv. 22), this wound was inflicted by sin. …Truly the first man would have passed to a better life, had he remained upright; but there would have been no separation of the soul from the body, no corruption, no kind of destruction, and, in short, no violent change.

Carnivores ate plants (despite the contradiction with the previous statement):dufus: Creationists have always pointed out that they, following the Bible, are talking about the death of creatures that are nephesh chayyah. That phrase is used only of vertebrates, never of invertebrates or plants. How about trying to represent your opponents honestly for a change. Anyway, John Wesley wrote (although I would disagree with him about insects because they are not nephesh chayyah, it shows the general sentiment, from God’s approbation of his Work, Sermon 56 (Genesis 1:31), 1872:

‘However, none of these [animals] then attempted to devour, or in anyway hurt, one another. All were peaceful and quiet, as were the watery fields wherein they ranged at pleasure. …
‘It seems the insect kinds were at least one degree above the inhabitants of the waters. Almost all these too devour one another, and every other creature which they can conquer. Indeed, such is the miserably disordered state of the world at present, that innumerable creatures can no otherwise preserve their own lives than by destroying others. But in the beginning it was not so. The paradisiacal earth afforded a sufficiency of food for all its inhabitants; so that none of them had any need or temptation to prey upon the other. The spider was then as harmless as the fly, and did not then lie in wait for blood. The weakest of them crept securely over the earth, or spread their gilded wings in the air, that wavered in the breeze, and glittered in the sun, without any to make them afraid. Meantime, the reptiles of every kind were equally harmless, and more intelligent than they …
‘But …there were no birds or beasts of prey; none that destroyed or molested another; but all the creatures breathed, in their several kinds, the benevolence of their great Creator.’

10,000 year old earth (which some yecs favor)
I have already cited Irenaeus, Augustine and Luther who clearly taught that the world was <6000 years old at time of writing, and this is what I favor. I do not deign to argue for support for positions I disagree with.
kinds" are equivalent to taxonomic families (which some yecs favor)Since the whole notion of taxonomic families is recent and a man-made category, of course there is no historical reference for it. For the same reason, it is ridiculous to equate kinds with biological species. The "kind" is a biblical term, and it is perfectly appropriate for creationist biologist to form models using modern taxonomic categores.
dinosaursOnce again, this WORD wasn't coined till 1841. But the (re)discovery of such creatures has enabled us to suggest an identity for the behemoth of Job 40.

RA:
If you want to claim that the modern yec movement stays true to the historical interpretation of scripture then you should be able to show this.Once more, YEC is just reaffirming the historic view of the Church which was creation in six normal-length days about 6000 years ago, the Fall and a global Flood. It's only the defences of these doctrines which differ, not the doctrines themselves. The creationist organisations clearly differentiate between non-negotiable Biblical truth, which has been understood throughout most church history, and models about these truths, which should always be held non-dogmatically. See 'Hanging Loose': What should we defend? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/530.asp) www.answersingenesis.org/docs/530.asp

[RufusAtticus]

Yesterday @ 10:34 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41246#post41246)
Socrates:

When has any doctrine EVER depended on an old-earth view?

Day-Age

Even if it's true, what of it -- it's the genetic fallacy anyway. There is no distinctive aberrant SDA doctrine on which YEC depends.

Except for the fact that YEC is an aberrant SDA doctrine. :wink:

I never claimed that YEC is based on a doctrine that you disagreed with. However, other Christians do see it differently than you. Of course you probably dismiss them as not True Christians (TM).

RA goes outside his field yet again (but that's OK for evolutionists to do, just not for creationists).

What an ironic statement coming from a man who hasn't claimed that church history is his field either.

Your Calvin quote only supports the historicness of no Human death, before the fall. However, modern YECs go a lot farther than that.

Creationists have always pointed out that they, following the Bible, are talking about the death of creatures that are nephesh chayyah. That phrase is used only of vertebrates, never of invertebrates or plants.

Isn't it amazing how a reported tale of creation leaves out 99% of the biological world?

I see that Wesley uses the generic word "food" in his sermon. Got any other writings of his that would indicate that he was thinking of "plants" here.

I have already cited Irenaeus, Augustine and Luther who clearly taught that the world was &lt;6000 years old at time of writing, and this is what I favor. I do not deign to argue for support for positions I disagree with.

So you admit that many yecs, including AiG, do not have a historic view of the age of the earth. For example, AiG: Evidence for a Young World (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp) argues for the 6,000-10,000 year range with more emphasis on the latter. I rest my case.

Since the whole notion of taxonomic families is recent and a man-made category, of course there is no historical reference for it.

Again you admit that a modern yec doctrine is not historic. I rest my case (again).

For the same reason, it is ridiculous to equate kinds with biological species.

Why, your church fathers and reformers did it?

Once again, this WORD wasn't coined till 1841. But the (re)discovery of such creatures has enabled us to suggest an identity for the behemoth of Job 40.

Once again you admit that a modern yec doctrine is not historic. I rest my case (once again).

Once more, YEC is just reaffirming the historic view of the Church which was creation in six normal-length days about 6000 years ago, the Fall and a global Flood.

YEC doctrines go beyond that, as such discussions like these demonstrate. If YECs claim to be so historic in their docrines, why are almost all of them protestants?

It's only the defences of these doctrines which differ, not the doctrines themselves.

Yet you have admitted that many of the doctrines are different.

[Sher]

Socrates said: "Creationists have always pointed out that they, following the Bible, are talking about the death of creatures that are nephesh chayyah. That phrase is used only of vertebrates, never of invertebrates or plants" to which RufusAtticus replied: Yesterday @ 03:31 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41870#post41870)

Isn't it amazing how a reported tale of creation leaves out 99% of the biological world? I think you might be missing Socrates point here, RA. When a Christian speaks of no death before the fall, scoffers were questioning death of plants as living things. Soc is pointing out, I believe, that the nephesh chayyah refers to vertebrates. Nothing having to actually do with creation on this point, I think.

As to your other point: 03-19-2003 @ 05:15 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=40226#post40226)
RufusAtticus: Considering, that the YEC movement originated with them, tgamble might have a point. I think Socrates has effectively demolished this by showing that our forefathers believed both creation and in a young earth prior to the SDA even being established. Here is the history of the SDA (http://www.adventist.org/history/) who came from the Millerites, founded by William Miller 1782-1849. Obviously you realized this because you then tried to change your point to: YEC doctrines go beyond that, as such discussions like these demonstrate so far removed from your original assertion of " the YEC movement originated with them." :hrm:

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 04:49 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42623#post42623)
SherBear:

so far removed from your original assertion of &quot; the YEC movement originated with them.&quot; :hrm:

I haven't changed my subject at all. I have always been referring to the modern yec movement. (Remember that was what tgamble was calling a "cult.") As I have demonstrated with Socrates help, the modern yec movement involves much more than a simple belief in a young earth and is different than the those people who believed in a young earth centuries ago. It isn't the historical revival that people believe it to be.

[Richard Romano]

03-15-2003 @ 11:09 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=35939#post35939)
QED:

So, the short answer is that yes, mutations do trivially increase &quot;information&quot; in a population's genome, but more importantly, mutation and natural selection together provide a mechanism for increasing information in the more fundamental ways that guide evolution.


Dear QED, please excuse my delayed response. I hope you are well.

Thank you for your comments on mutations, they are well taken. My only concern is that the term "information" doesn't seem to have a specific meaning...Talkorigins.org redefine innumerable definitions of "information" and end up evading the hard facts of the question.

I would carefully emphasize that this isn't about
"changes" that are really not unequivocally new information as measured by a universally accepted standard e.g., including several information experts (not, for example, to the exclusion of the likes of Royal Truman). In other words, I am not interested in the mere just-so stories of so many evolutionists.

The danger that arises when "information" is whatever the evolutionist arbitrarily wants to call "information" is that it leads to leaps in logic and findings that are at best un-scientific.

Tell me, is it impossible to require that a single, established definition and standard for information be espoused?

Creationists see that "new information" does not mean shuffled "old information" (or if we are to accept that, we must see unequivocal evidence that the shuffled "old information" is measurably "new information."

From what I have seen, mutations have not resulted in new information...which essentially is what concerns evolution in general and macroevolution specifically. As Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D. have noted in their refutation of Scientific American's "Creationist Nonsense" article,

"Mutations in bacteria, for example, may result in antibiotic resistance. But in the end, the resistant microorganisms are still the same species of microorganisms they were before the mutations occurred." [1]

They also quote Alan Hayward and his assessment that:

"...mutations do not appear to bring progressive changes. Genes seem to be built so as to allow changes to occur within certain narrow limits, and to prevent those limits from being crossed. To oversimplify a little: mutations very easily produce new varieties within a species, and might occasionally produce a new (though similar) species, but—despite enormous efforts by experimenters and breeders—mutations seem unable to produce entirely new forms of life (1985, p. 55, emp. added, parenthetical item in orig.)."

So it appears, from the evidence here, that mutations do not present a clear case that macroevolution has taken place.

How do you respond to this?

Thanks for your comments...God bless you.

Richard Romano.

[1] http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2002/dc-02-safull.htm

[adam.naranjo]

in regards to evolution:

I just say a video called, "the deep waters of evolution"
I suggest that everyone reads this concise review of the video.
click here for review (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF3-97Pun.html)

Here's a quote which discusses one of the Scientists in the video, who used to be an evolutionist (I don't think he is a religious person)

"Dean Kenyon, Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University, wrote a book entitled Biochemical Predestination which promulgated the evolutionary origins of life before he changed his world view. Now he believes that the biochemical evidence for abiogenesis of the first cell is meager and abiogenesis is thermodynamically improbable. "

Adam.

[Woman]

"Dean Kenyon, Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University, wrote a book entitled Biochemical Predestination which promulgated the evolutionary origins of life before he changed his world view. Now he believes that the biochemical evidence for abiogenesis of the first cell is meager and abiogenesis is thermodynamically improbable."

That's an interesting opinion that this fellow has about the origins of life (which, when we say "evolution" few of us are talking about...despite Socrates' infamous quote by some long dead guy whose definition of evolution INCLUDES origins theory) BUT - I fail to see how it address's the question "How old is the earth?"

[Socrates]

adam.naranjo:
Dean Kenyon, Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University, wrote a book entitled Biochemical Predestination which promulgated the evolutionary origins of life before he changed his world view. Now he believes that the biochemical evidence for abiogenesis of the first cell is meager and abiogenesis is thermodynamically improbable.

Woman:That's an interesting opinion that this fellow has about the origins of lifeWhich is well backed up since Kenyon was a LEADER in the field. And his objections make perfect chemical sense to people like me and Epoetker who are trained in that area. (which, when we say "evolution" few of us are talking aboutSpeak for yourself. Abiogenesis is OFTEN called "chemical evolution", and most biology textbooks include Miller/Urey "origin of life" experiments, and Dawkins' overtly atheistic evolutionary propaganda pieces include a lot of handwaving about origin of life scenarios. The evolutionary websites generally include some desperate defences of chemical evolution too....despite Socrates' infamous quote by some long dead guy whose definition of evolution INCLUDES origins theory)Oh, how long ago did Kerkut die -- please tell us. And why his death should make his argument wrong.: BUT - I fail to see how it address's the question "How old is the earth?"It doesn't, but neither does a lot of the stuff from YOUR side and even your post! But it DOES address the question, is materialism / methodological naturalism an adequate explanation for life on Earth?

SherBear rightly takes Rufie to task:

so far removed from your original assertion of " the YEC movement originated with them."

RA continues to defend the indefensible:
I haven't changed my subject at all. I have always been referring to the modern yec movement. (Remember that was what tgamble was calling a "cult.")And told all sorts of LIES about YEC to try to fit them in with his criteria of a cult, which are not followed by the major counter-cult experts. As I have demonstrated with Socrates help, the modern yec movement involves much more than a simple belief in a young earth and is different than the those people who believed in a young earth centuries ago. It isn't the historical revival that people believe it to be.It is, because organizations like AiG make it clear that their main focus is the authority of the Bible. And I have shown that their interpretation of Genesis is actually the historical Christian view. The MODELS by which YEC have changed with new evidence, but AiG makes it clear that all these models should be "held loosely". RA dishonestly conflates doctrine with models so he can continue with his genetic fallacy, of trying to discredit YEC by his desperate attempts to trace it to SDA.

[tgamble]

>>Which is well backed up since Kenyon was a LEADER in the field. >>

So was Ilya Prigogine who won the Nobel prize in 1977 for his work on the thermodynamics of nonequilibrium systems. He wrote a related article in 1972 explaining how nonequilibrium thermodynamics solves the puzzle of how life can originate and increase its state of order in spite of entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Prigogine 1972)..

Of course, being a leader in the field doesn't make one right. But kenyon is saying what you want to hear so you assume his opinions are the absolute truth!

>>Speak for yourself. Abiogenesis is OFTEN called "chemical evolution", and most biology textbooks include Miller/Urey "origin of life" experiments, and Dawkins' overtly atheistic evolutionary propaganda pieces include a lot of handwaving about origin of life scenarios. The evolutionary websites generally include some desperate defences of chemical evolution too.>>

Which only shows that these sources cover different topics. "chemical evolution" still has nothing to do with biological evolution. They are two different topics but are both part of biology so of course biology books discuss both!

[Socrates]

Socrates

When has any doctrine EVER depended on an old-earth view?

RA, who should stick to polulation genetics instead of the history of Christianity:

Day-Age This is hardly a doctrine of Christianity as a whole. It was unknown in the early church or the Reformers. And even its proponents today would regard it as a theory or model rather than a "doctrine".

Even if it's true, what of it -- it's the genetic fallacy anyway. There is no distinctive aberrant SDA doctrine on which YEC depends.

Except for the fact that YEC is an aberrant SDA doctrine. Like Göbbels, RA thinks that repeating a lie often enough might persuade people to believe it. Of course it is a lie, since I've conclusively shown that the Church Fathers and Reformers were all Young-Earth Creationists!
I never claimed that YEC is based on a doctrine that you disagreed with. Sure sounded like it, with your obsession with linking YEC to the SDAs because some regard them as a cult (although I don't).However, other Christians do see it differently than you.Then give us their arguments, because they are as indefensible as yours! Of course you probably dismiss them as not True Christians (TM).It would depend. If they denied the resurrection, definitely. If they married non-Christians, then I would have every reason to doubt their faith. But as I've often pointed out, denying YEC doesn't per se make one non-Christian, despite RA's dishonest straw man.

RA goes outside his field yet again (but that's OK for evolutionists to do, just not for creationists).

What an ironic statement coming from a man who hasn't claimed that church history is his field either.It isn't, but then I didn't make inane comments that YEC began with SDAs, and proved it by citations.

Your Calvin quote only supports the historicness of no Human death, before the fall. However, modern YECs go a lot farther than that.Modern YECs merely apply what Calvin and everyone else taught, and try to build models to explain the origin of carnivory, for example. But the Biblical doctrine of no human death before sin was always taught.

Creationists have always pointed out that they, following the Bible, are talking about the death of creatures that are nephesh chayyah. That phrase is used only of vertebrates, never of invertebrates or plants.

Isn't it amazing how a reported tale of creation leaves out 99% of the biological world?What do you mean? Plants were created on Day 3. If you mean bacteria, what would have been the point of saying this before microscopes were invented? And since when is an incomplete report an incorrect report, simply because God didn't kiss one misotheist's patoot and include his own idiosyncratic preferences?

And as SherBear pointed out, I was refuting your dishonest straw man that creationist had overlooked plant death.

I see that Wesley uses the generic word "food" in his sermon. Got any other writings of his that would indicate that he was thinking of "plants" here.Have you got any writing to the contrary? I've done the legwork, and this was clearly linked to the vegetarian diet for both humans and animals (Genesis 1:31). So do your own legwork!

I have already cited Irenaeus, Augustine and Luther who clearly taught that the world was &lt;6000 years old at time of writing, and this is what I favor. I do not deign to argue for support for positions I disagree with.

So you admit that many yecs, including AiG, do not have a historic view of the age of the earth. For example, AiG: Evidence for a Young World argues for the 6,000-10,000 year range with more emphasis on the latter. I rest my case.At the time of writing, some creationists did have an unhistorical age of 10,000 years (Origen had also said <10,000 years). Dr Humphreys and most AiG scientists plump for 6,000 years, but realize that this was a minor point compared to thousands v billions, so they just didn't think it was worth fighting over. I won't fight over it either, but will stand by the 6000 years that historic Christianity taught. RA is trying to avoid this fact in his pathetic attempt (parroting the apostate SDA Ron Numbers) to link this teaching to SDAs.

Since the whole notion of taxonomic families is recent and a man-made category, of course there is no historical reference for it.

Again you admit that a modern yec doctrine is not historic. I rest my case (again).This is not a DOCTRINE!! No YEC would ever claim dogmatically "kinds = families". This was simply a MODEL of how kinds match up to a modern taxonomic categories in some circumstances (e.g. when there is trans-generic hybridization).

For the same reason, it is ridiculous to equate kinds with biological species.

Why, your church fathers and reformers did it? What on earth is RA on about now? How could they have, when this notion wasn't coined till last century by Ernst Mayr.

Once again, this WORD wasn't coined till 1841. But the (re)discovery of such creatures has enabled us to suggest an identity for the behemoth of Job 40.

Once again you admit that a modern yec doctrine is not historic. I rest my case (once again).Yawn, stretch -- again this is not a DOCTRINE. It is merely a suggestion that the recently discovered sauropod matches the description of behemoth. YECs are not dogmatic even though we think the case is strong -- see Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n2_behemoth.asp) And no Christian, whether YEC or not, would ever claim that the identity of behemoth was a doctrine of Christianity.
Once more, YEC is just reaffirming the historic view of the Church which was creation in six normal-length days about 6000 years ago, the Fall and a global Flood.

YEC doctrines go beyond that, as such discussions like these demonstrate.Mainly because RA has no idea what a doctrine is! There is NO new doctrine, but some new EXPLANATIONS of them.If YECs claim to be so historic in their docrines, why are almost all of them protestants?Because the Protestant Reformation aimed to return the Church to Biblical doctrine and away from traditions of men that were not taught in Scripture.

[adam.naranjo]

Women

Sorry I thought the discussion had shifted to random mutation.
At this point I should just dodge this discussion becase it's obviously in deep, and I'm just coming into for the first time. And I dont want to read everything to chatch up.

but, is sounds like Socrates is kicking your but hard.

Never the less you should watch that videol...It's another example of the fact that, "evolution [is] a theory in crisis" (denton)

sorry about the typos, i dont care right now.

adam

[QED]

Today @ 03:28 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42750#post42750)
Richard Romano:

Dear QED, please excuse my delayed response. I hope you are well.

I'm fine as frog hair, thank you. I hope you are well too.

I wanted to start with this:
So it appears, from the evidence here, that mutations do not present a clear case that macroevolution has taken place.

I want to clear it up - that we don't make the case for common descent or "macro-evolution" using the existence of mutations as a central line of evidence. There is strong evidence that the mechanism of macroevolution relies on mutation for introducing variety, and that common descent of two so different organisms as humans and fish (for instance) would be impossible without mutation. But we have to understand that mutations represent a part of the mechanism for the phenomenon, not the bulk of the evidence that the phenomenon takes place.

Thank you for your comments on mutations, they are well taken. My only concern is that the term &quot;information&quot; doesn't seem to have a specific meaning...Talkorigins.org redefine innumerable definitions of &quot;information&quot; and end up evading the hard facts of the question.

It is somewhat unusual for biologists to approach evolution using terminology from information theory.

It may well be true that we can make statements about trends in the change of information that must occur in the events that neo-darwinism describes - but if we do so, we must be careful to employ those terms with consistency and accuracy. This is very difficult, because there is no single, simple, and obvious application of the term "information" to any biological system.

I want to stress that "information increase" is not a generic claim of macro-evolution. Evolution of diversity is the generic claim of macro-evolution/common descent. There are those among creationists who hold that the evolution of novelty requires that evolutionary mechanisms be responsible for an apparent increase in "information", and that that this increase is "impossible". I want to doubly stress that this is their claim - it does not originate in the scientific literature, and for it to be taken seriously, they must:
1) Define information in a consistent and accurate way as applied to a biological system
2) Show that an evolutionary change that they object to does actually require an increase in information as they have defined it and
3) Show that mutation and natural selection are in fact incapable of increasing information as they have defined it.

I have examined the "no new information" claims of creationists more than once, and have not found them to be successful on these three points. In particular, I find that they often define "information" as "specified complexity" (where "specified is fairly easily quantifiable", and "complexity" is more difficult to quantify). This has the potential to make a good measure of information, and it seems that the application is correct - that specified complexity must often increase for the larger claims of evolution to be true. What they have failed to do is to show that mutation plus natural selection is inadequate for that task.

I would carefully emphasize that this isn't about
&quot;changes&quot; that are really not unequivocally new information as measured by a universally accepted standard e.g., including several information experts (not, for example, to the exclusion of the likes of Royal Truman). In other words, I am not interested in the mere just-so stories of so many evolutionists.

Just-so-stories have no evidential importance. But, if you tell me that new information is impossible, then a just-so-story about how mutation (or mutation+natural selection) could produce it should be sufficient to dismiss that claim, unless you have empirical evidence showing that new information is impossible or unlikely.

The danger that arises when &quot;information&quot; is whatever the evolutionist arbitrarily wants to call &quot;information&quot; is that it leads to leaps in logic and findings that are at best un-scientific.

That seems to go for either side. In the "information" battle between evolution and creationism, the evolutionists have proposed a few specific definitions of information, and have shown that by those definitions information has measurably increased in historical mutations (i.e. as in the globin family of proteins). This can be then end of the argument, or the beginning of the chase, depending on the sincerity of the parties involved on both sides.

I did try to be specific about how I was using the term in my previous reply, and I did try to apply it in a way that would make it possible to address the claims or requirements of evolution and common descent.

Tell me, is it impossible to require that a single, established definition and standard for information be espoused?

No, not impossible. It is not necessarily productive either. Your definition of information should specifically inform your understanding of the system or mechanism under discussion. It is important to use the right application for the right task. That being said, I don't think this is consistently done by creationists who claim "no new information". I think the application that some of them look for is the one that can give the appearance of a real problem, depending on the context of the debate and discussion.


Creationists see that &quot;new information&quot; does not mean shuffled &quot;old information&quot; (or if we are to accept that, we must see unequivocal evidence that the shuffled &quot;old information&quot; is measurably &quot;new information.&quot;

The "shuffling" of the substrate (here, nucleotide sequences in DNA) - may lead to an increase or a decrease in "specified complexity", and may lead to an increase in variation (upon which selection acts, creating information by other definitions of the term).

From what I have seen, mutations have not resulted in new information...which essentially is what concerns evolution in general and macroevolution specifically. As Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D. have noted in their refutation of Scientific American's &quot;Creationist Nonsense&quot; article,

&quot;Mutations in bacteria, for example, may result in antibiotic resistance. But in the end, the resistant microorganisms are still the same species of microorganisms they were before the mutations occurred.&quot; [1]

This is true, but seems irrelevant. Information has little to do with speciation. Speciation does occur, but why do we only consider information to have increased when it does? If speciation is the deciding factor on whether information increases, then why not consider any newly created species (of the many who have been documented) as examples of "new information"? More importantly, why would we want to consider speciation and increase in information equivalent in the first place?

They also quote Alan Hayward and his assessment that:

&quot;...mutations do not appear to bring progressive changes. Genes seem to be built so as to allow changes to occur within certain narrow limits, and to prevent those limits from being crossed.

We have been begging for evidence of this from creationists for quite a while. In fact, DNA repair mechanisms do limit the ability of a mutation to survive and become expressed in the genome. Furthermore, selection eliminates most mutations that cause large changes in phenotype. But no limiting mechanism has ever been found that keeps "changes" from escaping a "predetermined limit" of variability over many generations of mutation.

By the way, Alan Hayward is an Old-Earth Creationist, and this view was published in a non-referreed popular book expounding OEC.

To oversimplify a little: mutations very easily produce new varieties within a species, and might occasionally produce a new (though similar) species, but—despite enormous efforts by experimenters and breeders—mutations seem unable to produce entirely new forms of life (1985, p. 55, emp. added, parenthetical item in orig.).&quot;

1) This is talking about the creation of new "forms" of life (not information).

2) Mutations are not accused of this (by themselves). Natural selection (or some form of selection) is required.

3) Hayward begs the question by using the unscientific term "new forms of life", in describing what hasn't occurred within a few geological blinks of the eye by breeders and scientists. He does not define "forms" in such a way as to make his claim testable.

This is his way of saying that the new breeds that exist in abundance (think hairless chihuahua vs sheep dog), the new species that have evolved under our watching eye, and the novel adaptive traits that have evolved in recent history (nylon-digesting bacteria) don't constitute what he thinks of as a "new form" of life.

This really isn't about what mutations are capable of per se. This is about what nature is capable of. If you had been watching 400 million years ago, you might not have seen the innovative lobe-finned fish as a different "form" from their closest relatives. You would not have lived to see, a few million years later, the innovative Acanthostega and Icthyostega, with their bony fins. But if you had, you would have likely not seen much difference between them and their closest relatives - or between their closest relatives and the relatively unchanged descendents of the lobe-finned fish. You might have considered these new scuttling fish as being not of a new "form" of life. "Form" is a subjective term. You would have considered the first amphibians of a few million years later as being the same "form" of life as Acanthostega, but a different form from Acanthostega's lobe-finned relatives. Even with the strictest artificial selection, there is a limit to what nature can accomplish in a period of a few hundred years. That limit is not so small as to prevent detectable and measurable changes - including speciation changes. We cannot conclude that these changes will stop a thousand or hundred thousand years after we die. There is no reason to believe that if there are living descendants of both sheep dogs and hairless chihuahuas in 100,000 years that these descendants will be no more different from one another than their ancestors are, living today.

I have seen much about the seeming limits on "change" from breeders selecting for a particular trait (tomato size, for instance). Several points about this:
1) Breeding for a particular trait effectively narrows the gene pool, decreasing variation. Artificial selection of this kind is analogous to natural selection, but is different in that includes quite a bit more truncation of less "successful" lines over short periods of time.
2) When breeding for a particular trait, one does run into physical limitations. At some point, the roughly spherical shape of the tomato and its thin skin will cause it to break under internal pressure and gravitational pressure. Breeders must begin introducing characteristics that are undesirable for the marketplace in order to overcome these physical limitations and produce still larger fruit: tougher skin, decreased water content, etc...
3) Natural selection can still overcome artificial selection when artificial selection is exclusive to a single trait. Intensive inbreeding or cross-breeding may reduce fertility or pest resistance, resulting in unviable crops, and stopping efforts to further increase tomato size.
4) Variability does not increase merely because selective pressure increases. Dodos went extinct because the selective pressure was so great that the rate of introduction of new variety was too slow to provide adequate adaptation.

On this basis, I dismiss claims that limited ability to breed for a trait shows the existence of a genetic mechanism for limiting the effect of cumulative mutations.

So, my reply is this: "increasing information" is not, generically a claim of evolution. It is true, however that one could infer the necessity of increasing information (under certain definitions) from the theory. If it were in fact the case, one should be able to show that mutation + natural selection certainly was not capable of producing it. I don't believe that I have seen this demonstrated. All demonstrations I am aware of have shown quite the opposite.

Many regards, until our next exchange.
:)

[tgamble]

[i]Today @ 05:17 PM
Never the less you should watch that videol...It's another example of the fact that, "evolution [is] a theory in crisis" (denton)


Denton has come over to the light side of the force. He now not only fully accepts evolution but calls it inevitable. He's realized the errors of his first book and written a second. Nature's destiny.

Naturally, AIG doesn't care and is still selling his first book. Go figure!

"Mutations in bacteria, for example, may result in antibiotic resistance. But in the end, the resistant microorganisms are still the same species of microorganisms they were before the mutations occurred."

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/new_info.html

To oversimplify a little: mutations very easily produce new varieties within a species, and might occasionally produce a new (though similar) species, but—despite enormous efforts by experimenters and breeders—mutations seem unable to produce entirely new forms of life (1985, p. 55, emp. added, parenthetical item in orig.)."

And of course, this is entirely consistent with what one expects. If creationists expect speciation to produce something entirely different, they're living in a dream world.

Oh wait, they ARE living in a dream world! :rofl:

[Woman]

Adam: Women

Sorry I thought the discussion had shifted to random mutation.
At this point I should just dodge this discussion becase it's obviously in deep, and I'm just coming into for the first time. And I dont want to read everything to chatch up.

but, is sounds like Socrates is kicking your but hard.

Never the less you should watch that videol...It's another example of the fact that, "evolution [is] a theory in crisis" (denton)

Hey Adam, I wasn't trying to be rude. I'm sorry if I was. Socrates kicking my booty???? AAAACCCCKKK!! PFFFT!!!!


tgamble says: Denton has come over to the light side of the force. He now not only fully accepts evolution but calls it inevitable. He's realized the errors of his first book and written a second. Nature's destiny. Naturally, AIG doesn't care and is still selling his first book. Go figure.

Two different takes on Denton made me curious. So I checked it out.

AiG says of his first book.: This book by a non-creationist is hard-hitting, factual, and objective. It does not argue in favor of Creation, but is a clear, balanced, responsible, and scientifically accurate account of the ever-growing crisis in evolutionary circles.

Denton, a self proclaimed agnostic when he wrote this book, is not in denial of evolution, but he has serious problems with much of the currently accepted neo-Darwinian thought.

AiG presents his book in an honest and straight-forward way. Frankly, I was impressed.

It is true that Denton's views have changed since the publication of this book. His newer one, Natures Destiny, concedes that evolution is a fact but that there are still many questions it cannot answer.

And get this, he now describes himself as a theistic evolutionist. Interesting progression. There seems to be a feeling among some that his book has been sort of hijacked by the ID folks. I don't know, but plan to check it out.

AiG does not carry his second book.

Hey I like this guy! Michael Denton appears to be a scientist with a truly open mind. He is still critical of aspects of "Darwinian" theory. And he doesn't buy a goo to you scenario. But he's certainly no creationist. He allows that Intelligent Design, Evolution and an old earth are all possible and not mutually exclusive.

Thus, the fundamentalists call him heretic and sell-out. The atheist evolutionists claim he still has holes in his science. So he's caught in the middle now. A tough position. One I favor.

[tgamble]

>>This book by a non-creationist is hard-hitting, factual, and objective. >>

Actually, it isn't. Which is why Denton abandoned many of the inaccurate claims in it. See for example.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/denton.html

http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/argresp/sequence.html

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho18.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

http://www.2think.org/eatic.shtml

<<It does not argue in favor of Creation, but is a clear, balanced, responsible, and scientifically accurate account of the ever-growing crisis in evolutionary circles.>>

No it isn't. Which is why Denton changed. Actually it DOES argue in favor of creation, even if it isn't the simplistic nonsense of AIG.

Perhaps creationists should stop claiming that there's only two sides?

<<His newer one, Natures Destiny, concedes that evolution is a fact but that there are still many questions it cannot answer.<<

Can you name one area of science that has unanswered questions?

>>AiG does not carry his second book. >>

Of course they don't. His second book doesn't attack evolution. It's proscience and that's something AIG can't stand.

If you're interested, try amazon.com

>>Hey I like this guy! Michael Denton appears to be a scientist with a truly open mind. He is still critical of aspects of "Darwinian" theory.>>

So are lots of scientists. Creationists often misrepresent them as claiming evolution is wrong.

>> And he doesn't buy a goo to you scenario.>>

That's ok. Neither does anyone else. It's just a creationist strawman!

[Socrates]

Woman wrote:AiG presents his book [Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/en/product/10-3-014)] in an honest and straight-forward way. Frankly, I was impressed.But it's typical. Only muckraking gutter-dwellers like tgamble who rely on the dregs of the Internet would say otherwise.It is true that Denton's views have changed since the publication of this book. His newer one, Nature's Destiny, concedes that evolution is a fact but that there are still many questions it cannot answer.[/i]Yes, it is a detailed study of design in various chemical elements, water, light and fire. Denton also has fascinating material on the design in the double helix, every cell, the various types of eye, the bird’s lung, and man. But he argues against special creation, using discredited arguments for alleged suboptimal design. He should stick to what he's good at.AiG does not carry his second book. I wasn't aware that AiG was obliged to carry ANY book.

Then Woman claims:Thus, the fundamentalists call him heretic and sell-out.And your proof of this is, what? Did you realise that AiG produced a video where he is prominently featured, called From a Frog to a Prince (http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/3e7e6b090157d2012719ac141001059d/Product/View/30&2D1&2D065), produced at about the same time as Denton wrote Nature's Destiny (1998)? And they wrote an article featuring his views on the impossibility of evolving an avian lung from a reptilian one http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4217cen_s1999.asp, a year after Nature's Destiny. So you REALLY must be careful before spouting off like that.The atheist evolutionists claim he still has holes in his science.But in reality, atheists DECREE a priori that a designer is not part of reality, and they simply stipulatively define "science" as naturalism. So he's caught in the middle now. A tough position. One I favor.Oh yes, a much easier position because it doesn't make you accountable to your Creator.

[tgamble]

>>Yes, it is a detailed study of design in various chemical elements, water, light and fire. Denton also has fascinating material on the design in the double helix, every cell, the various types of eye, the bird’s lung, and man. But he argues against special creation, using discredited arguments for alleged suboptimal design. >>

Discredited only according to AIG of course!

AIG seems to flip flop between denying imperfect design and blaming imperfect design on the mythical fall.

Here's a review of his second book if you're interested.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/natures_destiny.html

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/Spieth-on-Denton.pdf

>>And your proof of this is, what? did you realise that AiG produced a video where he is prominently featured, called From a Frog to a Prince >>

Another piece of dishonest antiscience driveil.

>>And they wrote an article featuring his views on the impossibility of evolving an avian lung from a reptilian one http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4217cen_s1999.asp, a year after Nature's Destiny. >>

Views that were probably corrected in his second book.

>>But in reality, atheists DECREE a priori that a designer is not part of reality, and they simply stipulatively define "science" as naturalism.>>

But in reality, you are as usual, WRONG! Atheists do not decree "a priori that a designer is not part of reality". They simply don't believe in one.

If you understood anything about science you'd realize that it doesn't include anything at all about the supernatural, negitive or positive.

>>Oh yes, a much easier position because it doesn't make you accountable to your Creator.>>

Assumeing there is one. Any evidence for that?

It doesn't force you to lie to yourself and ignore reality. That's a good reason right there.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 08:18 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42872#post42872)
Socrates:

This is hardly a doctrine of Christianity as a whole. It was unknown in the early church or the Reformers. And even its proponents today would regard it as a theory or model rather than a &quot;doctrine&quot;.

It clearly is a doctrine, since it is a teaching of how to interpret scripture. Despite your hand-waving, it still is a doctrine that depends on an old earth.

Like Göbbels, RA thinks that repeating a lie often enough might persuade people to believe it. Of course it is a lie, since I've conclusively shown that the Church Fathers and Reformers were all Young-Earth Creationists!

Which matters not since we have shown in this thread that the modern yec movement is different then what the "church fathers and reformers" believed.

Then give us their arguments, because they are as indefensible as yours!

Google Search: "old-earth creation" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=old-earth+creation)

It would depend. If they denied the resurrection, definitely. If they married non-Christians, then I would have every reason to doubt their faith.

Wow. The fact that I have a Christian wife must really bug you if you have to keep bringing it up. It's rather pathetic that you'd doubt my wife's faith simply because she is married to me. Good thing God is apparently less superficial.

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." (1SAM 16:7)

But as I've often pointed out, denying YEC doesn't per se make one non-Christian, despite RA's dishonest straw man.

Then what did you mean when you called Weins a "compromising churchian" back on page three of this thread? I never figured that "compromising churchian" == "True Christian (TM)."

Modern YECs merely apply what Calvin and everyone else taught, and try to build models to explain the origin of carnivory, for example. But the Biblical doctrine of no human death before sin was always taught.

So what? The docrine of no "animal" death before sin is a new one.

If you mean bacteria, what would have been the point of saying this before microscopes were invented?

Accuracy.

I see that Wesley uses the generic word &quot;food&quot; in his sermon. Got any other writings of his that would indicate that he was thinking of &quot;plants&quot; here.Have you got any writing to the contrary? I've done the legwork, and this was clearly linked to the vegetarian diet for both humans and animals (Genesis 1:31). So do your own legwork!

LOL. It's your claim that Wesley is refering to plants. You need to support it. Got any other sermons of Wesley that indicates that he is probably thinking of a vegetarian diet?

So you admit that many yecs, including AiG, do not have a historic view of the age of the earth. For example, AiG: Evidence for a Young World argues for the 6,000-10,000 year range with more emphasis on the latter. I rest my case.At the time of writing, some creationists did have an unhistorical age of 10,000 years (Origen had also said &lt;10,000 years). Dr Humphreys and most AiG scientists plump for 6,000 years, but realize that this was a minor point compared to thousands v billions, so they just didn't think it was worth fighting over. I won't fight over it either, but will stand by the 6000 years that historic Christianity taught.

I doesn't matter what you want to stand by. The fact is that 6,000-10,000 is the age range favored by the modern yec movement. As you have demonstrated, this is an unhistoric belief.

This is not a DOCTRINE!!

It is obviously a doctrine, since it must interprete what the bible means when it uses the term "kinds."

What on earth is RA on about now? How could they have, when this notion wasn't coined till last century by Ernst Mayr.

:rofl: You really have no knowledge of the history of biology, do you? Mayr is famous for the "biological species concept," although he wasn't the first to use it. He did not invent the term "species." Until the late nineteenth century, "species" were believed to be what modern creationists would call "holobaramins" or simply "kinds." In fact the Vulgate uses the phrase "in species suas" to refer to things being created after their own kind.

Yawn, stretch -- again this is not a DOCTRINE. It is merely a suggestion that the recently discovered sauropod matches the description of behemoth. YECs are not dogmatic even though we think the case is strong -- see Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n2_behemoth.asp) And no Christian, whether YEC or not, would ever claim that the identity of behemoth was a doctrine of Christianity.

It is a doctrine since it is a teaching as to what scripture is refering to.

Mainly because RA has no idea what a doctrine is! There is NO new doctrine, but some new EXPLANATIONS of them.

A "doctrine" is a religious teaching, correct? Such as how to properly interprete and understand scripture. As I have shown, modern yecs do interprete scripture differently than these church fathers and reformers you keep providing.

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 09:55 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43287#post43287)
RufusAtticus:

A &quot;doctrine&quot; is a religious teaching, correct?Only in the most archaic, secular definition of the word, from Latin teacher, to teach. :hrm: That doesn't really cover the definition from a religious standpoint, past or present, being too vague. :no:

:read: Nelson's Bible Dictionary: DOCTRINE -- A body of beliefs about God, man, Christ, the church, and other related concepts considered authoritative and thus worthy of acceptance by all members of the community of faith.:read:It is a doctrine since it is a teaching as to what scripture is refering to.For it to be an actual PART OF a doctrine (doctrine being the whole belief system, not a solitary part), it would have to be an authoritative belief supported by a whole denomination.

I don't believe there is any denomination in which the whole believes that the behemoth was a dinosaur, or any denomination as a whole that disbelieves it.

For example: Some denominations believe in infant baptism, some do not. For each, this is part of the belief system of the whole, ergo part of their doctrine.

And it is neither here nor there whether it is part of their doctrine anyway:

Example 2: I believe that Jesus had skin colored more like the area He was born in, light-to-medium brown, while He walked the earth. However, this is not necessary for my faith, not part of salvation, and not even part of the denomination to which I belong. It is not doctrine; it is my belief based on facts of area nationality.

Likewise, scripture about the behemoth: "Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; he eats grass like an ox. See now, his strength is in his hips, and his power is in his stomach muscles. He moves his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are tightly knit. His bones are like beams of bronze, his ribs like bars of iron. He is the first of the ways of God; only He who made him can bring near His sword. Surely the mountains yield food for him, and all the beasts of the field play there. He lies under the lotus trees, in a covert of reeds and marsh. The lotus trees cover him with their shade; the willows by the brook surround him. Indeed the river may rage, yet he is not disturbed; he is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth, Though he takes it in his eyes, or one pierces his nose with a snare. (Job 40:15-24)and the leviathan:"Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook, or snare his tongue with a line which you lower? Can you put a reed through his nose, or pierce his jaw with a hook? Will he make many supplications to you? Will he speak softly to you? Will he make a covenant with you? Will you take him as a servant forever? Will you play with him as with a bird, or will you leash him for your maidens? Will your companions make a banquet of him? Will they apportion him among the merchants? Can you fill his skin with harpoons, or his head with fishing spears? Lay your hand on him; remember the battle-- never do it again! Indeed, any hope of overcoming him is false; shall one not be overwhelmed at the sight of him? No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up. Who then is able to stand against Me? Who has preceded Me, that I should pay him? Everything under heaven is Mine. I will not conceal his limbs, his mighty power, or his graceful proportions. Who can remove his outer coat? Who can approach him with a double bridle? Who can open the doors of his face, with his terrible teeth all around? His rows of scales are his pride, shut up tightly as with a seal; One is so near another that no air can come between them; They are joined one to another, Yhey stick together and cannot be parted. His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lights; Sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke goes out of his nostrils, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth. Strength dwells in his neck, and sorrow dances before him. The folds of his flesh are joined together; they are firm on him and cannot be moved. His heart is as hard as stone, even as hard as the lower millstone. When he raises himself up, the mighty are afraid; because of his crashings they are beside themselves. Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail; nor does spear, dart, or javelin. He regards iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee; Slingstones become like stubble to him. Darts are regarded as straw; he laughs at the threat of javelins. His undersides are like sharp potsherds; he spreads pointed marks in the mire. He makes the deep boil like a pot; he makes the sea like a pot of ointment. He leaves a shining wake behind him; one would think the deep had white hair. On earth there is nothing like him, which is made without fear. He beholds every high thing; he is king over all the children of pride." Job 41:1-34are interpreted differently by different people.

I think that "hippo" is way too weak for a behemoth (tail like a cedar??) and "whale" doesn't fit leviathan (limbs?? maybe to a mistaken evolutionist :lol:). But it doesn't hurt my faith in God one little bit if they weren't some type of dino/dragon. For someone to base all their faith in interpretation of one insignificant word, they are setting themselves up for failure. It is the whole thing together that lends credence to the smaller interpretations. Scripture interprets scripture.

And just because something is considered doctrine, doesn't mean it is sound doctrine, i.e. truth:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.(2 Tim 4:3-5)

BTW, anybody ever wonder why there were dinosaur and dragon stories from ancient times, when the first full dino skeleton wasn't found until the 1850's? While most have been dismissed as fairy tale, the common theme makes one wonder what the inspiration was. :huh:

[Woman]

Sherbear:BTW, anybody ever wonder why there were dinosaur and dragon stories from ancient times, when the first full dino skeleton wasn't found until the 1850's? While most have been dismissed as fairy tale, the common theme makes one wonder what the inspiration was.

Dragons are indeed part of ancient mythology. So are Satyrs, unicorns, Cyclopes and Minataur. Dinosaurs are NOT!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Socrates]

Socrates:
Like Göbbels, RA thinks that repeating a lie often enough might persuade people to believe it. Of course it is a lie, since I've conclusively shown that the Church Fathers and Reformers were all Young-Earth Creationists!

RA continues with his misinformation campaign:
Which matters not since we have shown in this thread that the modern yec movement is different then what the "church fathers and reformers" believed.And I have shown that they were all YECs, and that obliterates RA's original claim that YEC itself is derived from SDAs.

Then give us their arguments, because they are as indefensible as yours!

Google Search: "old-earth creation"Go on, give us your best shot!!

It would depend. If they denied the resurrection, definitely. If they married non-Christians, then I would have every reason to doubt their faith.

Wow. The fact that I have a Christian wife must really bug you if you have to keep bringing it up. It's rather pathetic that you'd doubt my wife's faith simply because she is married to me. It must really bug you that I've shown that your wife's supposed Christian testimony is worthless because she has disobeyed a clear Christian teaching (once again, with the proviso that if she converted after marriage this wouldn't be the case, but she was a professing Christian when she married you wasn't she?!)Good thing God is apparently less superficial.

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." (1SAM 16:7)
Exactly, unlike your wife, because the Bible is clear that the heart of a non-Christian is darkened and his thoughts are futile (Romans 1:21).

But as I've often pointed out, denying YEC doesn't per se make one non-Christian, despite RA's dishonest straw man.

Then what did you mean when you called Weins a "compromising churchian" back on page three of this thread? I never figured that "compromising churchian" == "True Christian (TM)."Well, that's more a reflection on your reading comprehension ability. The term actually gives him the benefit of the doubt as far as Christianity is concern, but states the fact that he has compromised the historic teaching of the church to man-made dating theories.

Modern YECs merely apply what Calvin and everyone else taught, and try to build models to explain the origin of carnivory, for example. But the Biblical doctrine of no human death before sin was always taught.

So what? The docrine of no "animal" death before sin is a new one.And I've shown that Wesley believed that the pre-Fall diet was vegetarian, which is strongly related. Rather, it's the idea of pre-Fall animal death that's the novelty.

If you mean bacteria, what would have been the point of saying this before microscopes were invented?

Accuracy.It IS accurate. Incompleteness is NOT inaccuracy. You sound like those village atheists who believe that God should have mentioned redwoods in North America as "proof" of divine inspiration, but would have been totally useless without the means to travel there. It's like some claimed prophet claiming that on a planet around Barnard's Star, there are three-tailed six legged Zork beasts. Would this be impressive for his contemporaries who would probably lock him up, even if 2000 years hence we might be able to prove him right?
It doesn't matter what you want to stand by. The fact is that 6,000-10,000 is the age range favored by the modern yec movement. As you have demonstrated, this is an unhistoric belief.You're arguing with ME, and I affirm 6000 years which IS the historic belief, so it's irrelevant what any other creationist thinks.

What on earth is RA on about now? How could they have, when this notion wasn't coined till last century by Ernst Mayr.

You really have no knowledge of the history of biology, do you? Mayr is famous for the "biological species concept," although he wasn't the first to use it. He did not invent the term "species."Rather, you have RCDD (reading comprehension deficit disorder). I never said he did -- I specifically said BIOLOGICAL species.Until the late nineteenth century, "species" were believed to be what modern creationists would call "holobaramins" or simply "kinds." In fact the Vulgate uses the phrase "in species suas" to refer to things being created after their own kind.Again, irrelevant. In those days, the Latin word species MEANT kinds, and that's all Jerome intended. But this doesn't mean that Biblical kinds had historically ever had the baggage of MODERN notions of species. There is no proof that the historic Christian church ever equated Biblical kinds (holobaramins as you say) with Linnaean or Mayran notions of species.

Linnaeus made a mistake of equating what HE called species with what the Latin Bible called species. So this was the novelty. And in any case Linnaeus came to realise that the Biblical kinds had to be broader than what he had called species.

His own hybridization studies showed that even what creationists would now call monobaramins (all that can be ascertained by hybridization) was broader than his taxonomic species. So the error is in equating a modern notion with a Biblical term simply because the same words were used.

[Woman]

Soc, done!

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 01:32 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43484#post43484)
SherBear:

For it to be an actual PART OF a doctrine (doctrine being the whole belief system, not a solitary part), it would have to be an authoritative belief supported by a whole denomination.

Why a denomination? Can't religious movements that span across multiple denominations but never completely also have doctrines? What about religious organizations, like AiG, that aren't denominations?

I think that &quot;hippo&quot; is way too weak for a behemoth (tail like a cedar??)
"Tail" is a common euphamism, even among ancient hebews I've been told, for "penis." In fact, penis is the Latin word for "tail." :smile:

and &quot;whale&quot; doesn't fit leviathan
But crocidile does. :smile:

Today @ 04:34 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43550#post43550)
Socrates:

And I have shown that they were all YECs, and that obliterates RA's original claim that YEC itself is derived from SDAs.

Socrates still keeps harping on this strawman. My contention is not that SDAs invented young earth belief, but rather that the modern young-earth creationism movement originated with them.

It must really bug you that I've shown that your wife's supposed Christian testimony is worthless because she has disobeyed a clear Christian teaching (once again, with the proviso that if she converted after marriage this wouldn't be the case, but she was a professing Christian when she married you wasn't she?!)

Yes she was a Christian and I was not when we got married. Took you long enough to ask. I always thought Christianity was based on forgiveness of past deeds, yet you keep harping on this past deed of hers as proof that she is not Christian. Yet I ask you, have you ever disobeyed a clear Christian teaching? Should we question the faith of everyone who is not a "Perfect True Christian (TM)."

Well, that's more a reflection on your reading comprehension ability. The term actually gives him the benefit of the doubt as far as Christianity is concern, but states the fact that he has compromised the historic teaching of the church to man-made dating theories.

So he is a Christian but not a True Christian (TM).

And I've shown that Wesley believed that the pre-Fall diet was vegetarian, which is strongly related. Rather, it's the idea of pre-Fall animal death that's the novelty.

I've read the sermon, and I saw no mention of a vegetarian diet. I did see "The paradisiacal earth afforded a sufficiency of food for all its inhabitants." All I've been asking is for you is some argument why we should think that Wesley was refering to "plants" here.

It IS accurate. Incompleteness is NOT inaccuracy.
But why would the Creator leave us an incomplete record of his Creation? Why does this record ignore the majority of life on this planet? Nevertheless, can you tell me on what day God created bacteria?

You're arguing with ME, and I affirm 6000 years which IS the historic belief, so it's irrelevant what any other creationist thinks.

LOL Have you even been paying attention to this discussion? What other creationists think is very relevant to the topic at hand. I'm addressing the modern young-earth creationist movement, not what socrates thinks.

Rather, you have RCDD (reading comprehension deficit disorder).
:read: (http://www.absolutedivas.com/alanis/lyrics/jlp/ironic.shtm)

I never said he did -- I specifically said BIOLOGICAL species.

You're right, I missed that one.

Linnaeus made a mistake of equating what HE called species with what the Latin Bible called species.

When Linnaeus established his taxonomy he placed his "species" where it was commonly thought that kinds were. Hence his use of the term species.

So this was the novelty. And in any case Linnaeus came to realise that the Biblical kinds had to be broader than what he had called species.

Correct. The naturalists realized that what were previously thought to be unrelated "kinds," were themselves related to one another. What we now know is that there is only one "kind" (a group of organisms that share a common ancestor) on earth, biota. Even creationists who deny this, still draw the kind barrier in a different place than christians did centuries ago.

[Socratism]

What we now know is that there is only one "kind" (a group of organisms that share a common ancestor) on earth, biota.

I think you are overstating your case. I seem to remember an evolutionists recently posting information that indicated it would never be possible to "prove" descent from a single ancestor because of hypothetical horizontal gene transfer or some other excuse.

The fact is that the major classifications of life are admitted to be distinct with no plausible pathways from a "common ancestor".

[Woman]

Soc!

:gim: :cheers: :gim:

[Socrates]

I wrote:
It must really bug you that I've shown that your wife's supposed Christian testimony is worthless because she has disobeyed a clear Christian teaching (once again, with the proviso that if she converted after marriage this wouldn't be the case, but she was a professing Christian when she married you wasn't she?!)

RA wrote:

Yes she was a Christian and I was not when we got married.Right, that proves my point that compromise in the first book of the Bible (where marriage was first instituted) leads to compromise in other areas of Scripture, e.g. choice of who to marry. Took you long enough to ask.And you kept on using diversionary tactics like "how do you she was a Christian when we married?" which smacks of dishonesty since she obviously claimed to be one. And I had ALWAYS made the proviso that if she had converted after marriage, then she would have to stay in the marriage as long as you wanted her to.
I always thought Christianity was based on forgiveness of past deeds, yet you keep harping on this past deed of hers as proof that she is not Christian.Yes, indeed there is forgiveness of past mistakes. But we expect the person concerned to AGREE that it was a mistake. And I "harped on at this" NOT to show that she was not a Christian, but to show that her opinions about it lacked credibility because she disobeyed God in a key area that affects the rest of her life. While of course she can be forgiven for the mistake, she can't escape the Earthly consequences of a weakened testimony, and effects on her children having a non-Christian father.

Yet I ask you, have you ever disobeyed a clear Christian teaching? Should we question the faith of everyone who is not a "Perfect True Christian (TM).Everyone knows that Christians are not perfect. But since we can't see anyone's faith, all we can see are their works (cf the book of James). And we also know that a Christian should not PERSIST in a sinful behavior and should repent of sin. E.g. someone who practises homosexual acts can certainly be forgiven, but we have every right to question the Christianity of anyone who persists in living in a homosexual relationship.

[Socrates]

RA asks about Wesley and an original vegetarian diet. But I've already cited his Sermon 56 on "God’s approbation of his Work" http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/Wesley/sermons/serm-056.stm


‘For as the human body, though not liable to death or pain, yet needed continual sustenance by food; so, although it was not liable to weariness, yet it needed continual reparation by sleep. By this the springs of the animal machine were wound up from time to time, and kept always fit for the pleasing labour for which man was designed by his Creator.

‘However, none of these [animals] then attempted to devour, or in anyway hurt, one another. All were peaceful and quiet, as were the watery fields wherein they ranged at pleasure. …
‘It seems the insect kinds were at least one degree above the inhabitants of the waters. Almost all these too devour one another, and every other creature which they can conquer. Indeed, such is the miserably disordered state of the world at present, that innumerable creatures can no otherwise preserve their own lives than by destroying others. But in the beginning it was not so. The paradisiacal earth afforded a sufficiency of food for all its inhabitants; so that none of them had any need or temptation to prey upon the other. The spider was then as harmless as the fly, and did not then lie in wait for blood. The weakest of them crept securely over the earth, or spread their gilded wings in the air, that wavered in the breeze, and glittered in the sun, without any to make them afraid. Meantime, the reptiles of every kind were equally harmless, and more intelligent than they …

‘But …there were no birds or beasts of prey; none that destroyed or molested another; but all the creatures breathed, in their several kinds, the benevolence of their great Creator.’

So it's clear that according to Wesley, we needed to eat, and that animals were not eating each other. So he didn't have to spell out the obvious, that they were eating vegetables, because he realised that hearers were smart enough to figure that out for themselves, especially with the explicit teaching of Genesis 1:29-30.

So I have conclusively shown that YEC is the historic teaching of the Church, while modern YECs differ only in their outworking of this. Conversely, RA hasn't provided the slightest evidence that long ages or evolution (or flat Earth belief for that matter) were known in the Church for the first 1800 years or so of its existence.

[Socrates]

SherBear rightly points out:

I think that "hippo" is way too weak for a behemoth (tail like a cedar??)

RA replies:"Tail" is a common euphamism, even among ancient hebews I've been told, for "penis."OK, told by WHOM?? Any translations to back this up (apart from nonsense by the loopy Stephen Mitchell so beloved by the Skeptics' Annotated Bible (http://www.tektonics.org/sab.html))? There is no lexical support for translating the Hebrew zanab as anything other than "tail". In fact, penis is the Latin word for "tail."The Latin word for "tail" is cauda, from which we get the anatomical adjective "caudal", and the Oxford Latin Minidictionary simply says that "penis" means the male sexual organ. In any case, this is just a RA smokescreen, since the OT was not written in Latin!

[Socrates]

Woman wrote:Dragons are indeed part of ancient mythology. So are Satyrs, unicorns, Cyclopes and Minataur. Dinosaurs are NOT!The WORD dinosaur is not, because it wasn't invented till 1841, by the leading anatomist and paleontologist of his day Sir Richard Owen (a staunch anti-Darwinist). But the descriptions of creatures like Behemoth and many dragons fit features of dinosaurs. It's likely that the dragon legends are the result of sightings of real dinosaurs. But they grow in the telling after they have all died off, and possibly the features of several different dinosaurs were conflated into one creature (e.g. horns, sharp teeth, wings of the flying ono-dinosaurian reptiles called pterosaurs).

The Chinese zodiac has 12 animals, and 11 are undoubtedly real, and the dragon is not treated any differently. they also had expressions such as "Crouching tiger, hidden dragon" which suggests a time when the dragons existed alongside tigers.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 06:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44000#post44000)
Socratism:

I think you are overstating your case. I seem to remember an evolutionists recently posting information that indicated it would never be possible to &quot;prove&quot; descent from a single ancestor because of hypothetical horizontal gene transfer or some other excuse.

Nope. Horizontal gene transfer is only a problem when trying to construct phylogenies for uni-cellular life. What Woese is refering to is tracing the lineage of cell divisions based on a single or relatively few genes. Not determing common ancestry. Even creationists agree that organisms able to exchange genetic material are related.

The fact is that the major classifications of life are admitted to be distinct with no plausible pathways from a &quot;common ancestor&quot;.

You got a scientific reference for that one?

[Woman]

Socrates: But the descriptions of creatures like Behemoth and many dragons fit features of dinosaurs. It's likely that the dragon legends are the result of sightings of real dinosaurs. But they grow in the telling after they have all died off, and possibly the features of several different dinosaurs were conflated into one creature (e.g. horns, sharp teeth, wings of the flying ono-dinosaurian reptiles called pterosaurs).

The Chinese zodiac has 12 animals, and 11 are undoubtedly real, and the dragon is not treated any differently. they also had expressions such as "Crouching tiger, hidden dragon" which suggests a time when the dragons existed alongside tigers.

The Chinese also had an established mythology, art culture and written language before and immediately after the Flood was supposed to have happened. And several flourishing cultures, especially the Egyptitans, ought to have recorded pictures and sightings of dinosaurs, (presumably they were still roaming around) since the article in AiG which insists that people and Dinos co-existed also says that mammoths and dinosaurs must have disappeared about 4,000 years ago.

Thats the article in AiG ("just because there is no evidence of man and dinosaurs co-existing doesn't mean it didn't happen") which also takes the tack that certain primitive cave pictures and petroglyphs look just like one type of dinosaur or another. It should be noted, however, that those same kinds of pictures and glyphs have used by the "Alien seed theorists." to establish the ancient presence of extra-terrestrials.


:dufus:

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 10:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44162#post44162)
Socrates:

[quote]There is no lexical support for translating the Hebrew zanab as anything other than &quot;tail&quot;

You do know what euphemisms and metaphors are; don’t you? Take Job 40:16-17 (NASB) together.

Behold now, his strength in his loins And his power in the muscles of his belly.
He bends his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together.

This is talking about sexual prowess, i.e. “strength in his loins.” “Tail” refers to its penis and the “sinews of his thighs” refer to its testicles. The Vulgate does translate this latter one unambiguously as “nervi testiculorum eius.”

The Latin word for &quot;tail&quot; is cauda, from which we get the anatomical adjective &quot;caudal&quot;, and the Oxford Latin Minidictionary simply says that &quot;penis&quot; means the male sexual organ.

That's what you get for relying on a minidictionary. Lewis's "Elementary Latin Dictionary" indicates that "penis -is" means tail and later was picked up as a euphemism for mentula. Or as Cicero put it "caudam antiqui penem vocabant." For more information see pages 35 and 36 in J.N. Adams' book The Latin Sexual Vocabulary.

So I have conclusively shown that YEC is the historic teaching of the Church, while modern YECs differ only in their outworking of this. Conversely, RA hasn't provided the slightest evidence that long ages or evolution (or flat Earth belief for that matter) were known in the Church for the first 1800 years or so of its existence.

Once again Socrates jumps on this straw-man. I never claimed that long ages, evolution, or flat earth are historical Christian teachings. (The latter have apparently jumped out of nowhere in this thread.) My contention is that the modern yec movement originated with the Seventh Day Adventists. He has claimed that the modern movement is just a historical revival, yet as I have demonstrated, with his help, it is clearly not.

Everyone knows that Christians are not perfect. But since we can't see anyone's faith, all we can see are their works (cf the book of James). And we also know that a Christian should not PERSIST in a sinful behavior and should repent of sin.

Which is neither here nor there since marrying an infidel is not a sin. (Do you see the word “sin” used in 2 Cor 6? I don’t.) However, even if she made a mistake marrying me she still is obliged to say with me and love me is she not?

[rogerthomas]

This is my first post, but I have been watching the board for quite some time. Long enough to make some obvious conclusions. QED...while I am not in favor of the evolution side of science, your arguments are concise, informative and best of all POLITE. Socrates....change your nick, it doesn't fit. You debate fact with rhetoric, are rude and belittling. The things you have said about people in THIS THREAD ALONE are worthy of being banned. I see that you have not yet been chastised, but that is not unusal, as I have seen Dee Dee tends to overlook rudeness if the person being rude is on our side of the line, whereas she is intolerant of the other side(To me debate is about fairness to both sides, not just the side you LIKE). I have read threads here for quite a while, and most are excellent, but the tendency to let the remarks and arguments of those who DISDAIN rational debate TOTALLY SLIDE are very telling. I abhor that so many people are unknown to god, but I cannot fail to see how such attitudes are antagonistic to the word. I also browse other boards, and among them, I find that no matter what side of the fence they sit on, both sides are treated fairly. Here, one cannot but see which side the moderators sit on, and what they HOLD to be the truth. Why have debate when you do not wish to be EQUAL to both sides? Moderators, why have you chosen to allow....more...TO CONDONE socrates statements? I have seen much milder statements, nay, I have seen peoples arguments trashed by moderators for things that are not a percent of the venom and hate in socrates statements! I find you, the moderators, to be propagating these actions. While I may be behind god 100%, I fail to see how this flagrant abuse of ANY side is helpful to the spreading of the word. It merely reflects a SMALL and MEAN view of how the christian world sees the secular world. Before you state that Pilgrim asked them to tone it down...He called no one down, only one had been rude, Socrates, and the moderator then followed it up with an attaboy of a fallacious argument with "Very interesting insight. One side always expcts the other to have all the answers and if it doesn't accuses them of being totally wrong." Which could be equally applied to the other side as well. Irony. I am surprised that more people aren't turned away by this abuse of power. This is my first and last post to this site, I have enjoyed many of the threads here, but there is a tumor growing, and apparently it is unseen by those who should have been the ones to excise it in the first place. To all those who have given a big "attaboy" to socrates: Grow up, he loses his debates to fact, doesn't bother to find decent sources to back up his bluster and then lowers himself to namecalling and rudeness on such a regular basis that I feel he believes he has no recourse but insult. If you would give an attaboy, at least give it to one who deserves the praise. Like Vinnie, or those like him. I respect his debate enough that I've even started following his threads at infidel! Come to find out that at least they have unbiased debate there. And when EITHER side steps out of line they are smitten. Sure there are trolls there as well, but I have yet to see the kind of flagrant homage given to them that is given to trolls here. If I were WEHAPPYFEW, I would have left after the things socrates said after he had posted only ONE time. Socrates, who is probably the worst thread spammer in recent memory! You are supposed to be SHARING the word with the atheists, not hitting them over the head with it! The fact that more than one of the posters at infidel are converted from theism BY CHRISTIANS!! should go a long way to letting you see the error of your ways. Politeness is never a bad thing, why do you consider it so? So far with few exceptions, the atheists that have posted here have been of much more peaceful nature than the so called CHRISTIANS. Does that not embarrass you? And the moderators CONDONE this! Are you not embarrassed by what you have created? An environment of abrigated rights, of intolerance! The things that socrates said about woman alone would have gotten him his first of three strikes anywhere else. You are not teaching or sharing, you are insulting. And it will be called to order. Goodbye, you can find me at infidels, sharing truth and not insult. Maybe you should go take a look, it's where the minds of vinnie and others like him are respected, despite their views.

[Socrates]

rogerthomas posted a fact-free whinge. Obviously he has no problem with the venom that tgamble spouted against YECs with his ridiculous claims that it was a cult. And does he really expect us to believe that the Infudgels are polite and honest? He muct be very naive.

Evidently he would have a problem with many of the things Jesus said, e.g. "brood of vipers", "whitewashed sepulchres full of dead men's bones". The apostles often rebuked false teachers — the Apostle Paul even opposed the Apostle Peter when he was carrying away others with his hypocrisy (Gal. 2:11 ff.). Also, Paul commanded Timothy to rebuke error (2 Timothy 4:2), and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says ‘We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God.’ Elijah even mocked the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:27). It’s also interesting that the Reformers like Martin Luther, who reasserted the authority of Scripture and salvation by grace through faith alone, were also accused of being ‘divisive’.

RT also seems ignorant of the Biblical challenge/riposte paradigm www.tektonics.org/madmad.html and the meaning of love in the Bible www.tektonics.org/whatlove.html . There is no command to be a Wimp For Jesus. It's that sort of person who has let the secular world view strangle our educational and media systems.

[rogerthomas]

Today @ 10:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44444#post44444)
Socrates:

rogerthomas posted a fact-free whinge. This is definately something you should be able to recognize[irony] Obviously he has no problem with the venom that tgamble spouted against YECs with his ridiculous claims that it was a cult. And does he really expect us to believe that the Infudgels are polite and honest? He muct be very naive.
Again, you find no recourse but ad hominem attacks. I disagree with tgambles stance, but his "harangue" consisted of an off the cuff word, the typing of something as a "cult" which technically is correct. If I am not mistaken, you are the one who chose to blow up about it instead of politely bringing it to his attention. Talk about mountains and molehills....The only person I have seen who consistantly "spouts" is YOU.

Evidently he would have a problem with many of the things Jesus said, e.g. &quot;brood of vipers&quot;, &quot;whitewashed sepulchres full of dead men's bones&quot;. The apostles often rebuked false teachers — the Apostle Paul even opposed the Apostle Peter when he was carrying away others with his hypocrisy (Gal. 2:11 ff.). Also, Paul commanded Timothy to rebuke error (2 Timothy 4:2), and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says ‘We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God.’ Elijah even mocked the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:27). It’s also interesting that the Reformers like Martin Luther, who reasserted the authority of Scripture and salvation by grace through faith alone, were also accused of being ‘divisive’.
You are not being "divisive" you are being RUDE. There is not lesson in your rudeness, you're interactions with people could easily be seen as simply RUDE. Anyway, I apologize to the readers for continuing this and now return you to regularly scheduled program. And socrates, take a look in the mirror occasionally, or ask people how you come off, because to me, and I generally consider myself pretty understanding...you come off as an asshole. Perhaps that is your goal, I do not know....nor care.


RT also seems ignorant of the Biblical challenge/riposte paradigm www.tektonics.org/madmad.html and the meaning of love in the Bible www.tektonics.org/whatlove.html . There is no command to be a Wimp For Jesus. It's that sort of person who has let the secular world view strangle our educational and media systems.
Never said be a wimp, I think people would just appreciate it if you toned down your high level of sarcasm and bitterness and tried to be POLITE

[Socrates]

I wrote:

Obviously he has no problem with the venom that tgamble spouted against YECs with his ridiculous claims that it was a cult. And does he really expect us to believe that the Infudgels are polite and honest? He muct be very naive. Again, you find no recourse but ad hominem attacks. I disagree with tgambles stance, but his "harangue" consisted of an off the cuff word, the typing of something as a "cult" which technically is correct. If I am not mistaken, you are the one who chose to blow up about it instead of politely bringing it to his attention. Talk about mountains and molehills....The only person I have seen who consistantly "spouts" is YOU.
You're really something else -- what an absolute hypocrite. Apparently it's OK for gamble to continually character-assassinate YECs as liars, deceivers, money grubbers, "lies of AIG crackpots", etc., but oh, no, RT thinks that THESE ad hominem attacks are OK. And gamble has claimed that the YECs are guilty of: Deception in recruitment and/or fund raising
The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities).
The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity). I have to conclude that rogerthomas is not here to offer contructive comments but only to inflame. If he was truly concerned about rudeness, he would object to the nastiness of gamble and those who support him. So maybe he should go back to his infidel buddies rather than wasting time with verbose one-paragraph posts. He and gamble both can't take the fact that here is a Christian who can hit anti-Christians like them back harder -- I guess they've had it too easy with WFJs for too long.

And you're WAY off topic!!

[rogerthomas]

Today @ 11:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44458#post44458)
Socrates:

You're really something else -- what an absolute hypocrite. Apparently it's OK for gamble to continually character-assassinate YECs as liars, deceivers, money grubbers, &quot;lies of AIG crackpots&quot;, etc., but oh, no, RT thinks that THESE ad hominem attacks are OK.

He is an atheist, I expect such behaviour from him. Perhaps I expect to much out of my brothers in christ, but DECORUM is never a bad road to take. Less emnity involved. Perhaps you should take that counsel. And as far as I can tell, most groups on earth could be considered cult. He has been rude in the thread about cults(actually most everybody in that thread has). Do two wrongs make a right? Yes or No? It's not a complicated question! If you continue to be a picture of what a venomous fringe of the faith looks like to the world, then you should not act surprised when someone discounts the faith! You are more effective in pushing people away than any 10 atheists, who most theists NEVER see. I cannot tell you the times I have tried to counsel those who are considering leaving the church, EXACTLY because the face of the church(it's members) are vulgar, small minded, children! What more does one who is sitting on the fence require than a good look at the rotted yard you are giving to them?

Whatever...I tire of your posts. Like I said, I expect some degree of doubt and arrogance from those who do not believe...But I don't expect the level of Self-worship and arrogance I have seen here.

[Socrates]

I wroteYou're really something else -- what an absolute hypocrite. Apparently it's OK for gamble to continually character-assassinate YECs as liars, deceivers, money grubbers, "lies of AIG crackpots", etc., but oh, no, RT thinks that THESE ad hominem attacks are OK.

He is an atheist, I expect such behaviour from him. Perhaps I expect to much out of my brothers in christ, but DECORUM is never a bad road to take. A brother in Christ? You, decorous? Hah, you haven't shown this by unequally yoking with atheists to come in all guns blazing against a brother in Christ! And if you had a problem, and truly are one, you should have followed Mt. 18 instead of hijacking this thread to character-assassinate me -- and the mods for that matter.

And I bet you would have attacked Elijah for mocking the prophets of Baal. Fact is, it's only the modern American victim culture that's so wimpy against counterattacking dishonest atheists. Well bad luck -- we've tried your way, and the unbelievers now dominate the media, educational system and even most seminaries. Time to fight back! :fight:

Actually that's one reason I like www.tektonics.org/ as well -- he's another one who will argue reasonably against anyone who wants to learn, but won't take any crap from vexatious infidels. :bonk:

[rogerthomas]

Today @ 12:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44474#post44474)
Socrates:

And I bet you would have attacked Elijah for mocking the prophets of Baal. Fact is, it's only the modern American victim culture that's so wimpy against counterattacking dishonest atheists. Well bad luck -- we've tried your way, and the unbelievers now dominate the media, educational system and even most seminaries. Time to fight back! :fight:


Actually, we did that already. It was called the auto da fe, and I pray that it will never happen again! And I do not see atheism as being in schools or media. Most have some portion of their program directed to the secular world...but for the majority, I feel they are headed in the right direction. I have spent time auditing classes in local schools as well, and the selections of evolution are rarely ever covered, and if so....only briefly. Most school age children in my region are non-secular....often rabidly, which to me is a bad thing, as we are the church. Who wishes to go to an uncomfortable church? I think you seek a conspiracy where there is none! From the presidency down, secularism is a fading thing. Of course we don't have the streets of 12th century rome....but we also don't have the brutality of it either. This is a good age, and if theists and atheists alike could manage to put down their fists for a time, it would be a great deal better!

[rogerthomas]

A brother in Christ? You, decorous? Hah, you haven't shown this by unequally yoking with atheists to come in all guns blazing against a brother in Christ!

And what guns, pray tell are blazing? I merely pointed out that we are straying as a community. For you personally, I pointed out that you were being a smartass, but I doubt that would the first you have heard of it(yes insult). My point is that you need to get the ark's worth of planks out of your own eye before instructing some (I have seen at least three people you attacked in this thread who did not even merit anything except for politeness). Yes, I must work on my own plank, but apparently you were unaware that yours existed....either that or you have given up the faith for a flag and sword, forgetting why you picked them up in the first place.

[Socrates]

RT, you are obviously way too sensitive -- but selectively so. You're evidently insensitive when the Word of God is blasphemed and Christians character assassinated. And you violated Mt. 18, and I'm not interested in self-righteous excuses why you thought you should. Who needs atheists when people like you are tearing down Christians. :help:

Anyway, I'll be willing to delete my posts if you'll do the same to yours, and hopefully we can start with a clean slate. :deal: ?

[Socratism]

Although it may be true that Socrates goes a bit far at times in his attack on antiChristians and even luke warm Christians, I would ask if any Christian here pictures Jesus Christ as being meek and mild in his dealings with those who disagreed with his teachings?

[tgamble]

>>BTW, anybody ever wonder why there were dinosaur and dragon stories from ancient times, when the first full dino skeleton wasn't found until the 1850's? While most have been dismissed as fairy tale, the common theme makes one wonder what the inspiration was. >>

An active imagination. Do you think the Hipplegrif (Harry Potter books) is real just because J.K. Rowling wrote about it?

[rogerthomas]

Yesterday @ 02:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44525#post44525)
Socratism:

Although it may be true that Socrates goes a bit far at times in his attack on antiChristians and even luke warm Christians, I would ask if any Christian here pictures Jesus Christ as being meek and mild in his dealings with those who disagreed with his teachings?


Actually, I think if socrates would only stop character assasination, and the constant insults at people, his debates would be excellent. When he posts on topic, his data and logic are flawless. He may represent a minority belief system within the church, but at one time he was much more polite in it's message. But he has steadily become more like Mr. Holding in the increasing usage of off topic and insulting content(To the point where I was surprised to be agreeing with the young man who suggested that they remove all content not dealing with the salient points of some argument that they were involved in....Despite the sad and lost young man's convictions...I had to agree with his assessment of Mr. Holding's debate...HE CAN DO BETTER!). While I feel most of Mr. Holding's ideas and writings to be valid, I cannot stand to read his work anymore because he has chosen to worship himself instead of the word. He is a poor example of our faith, and getting poorer by the day. I read one of his posts, where he was debating Mr. Sauron, and I think Mr. Holding intentionally, with a juvenile glee mispelled Mr. Sauron's name at every opportunity, and not simply a misspelling but an insulting method of doing it. Such a arrogant and demeaning attitude are revolting. He acts the child, and like a child has lost his way. I'm sure that my view of the persons on this board will be nay-sayed in the extreme, as it would appear that many follow Mr. Holding, not for his content or ability, but rather for his "attitude". Something I find amazing, as he in no way represents the lord in his actions or his attitude. Beatific does not come into Mr. Holding's personality. I am saddened to see others follow this path, when it is not only not necessary, but is contrary to the growth of any church. That said, I found Mr. Saurons personal attack also abominable, and would suggest he focus more on his argument and less on the personal life of ANY poster. I do not feel that it was completely his fault, as Mr. Holding began that particular line of insult, but I feel Mr. Sauron's argument would be much better off without "joining in" juvenile theatrics and brawling. Please Mr. Sauron, remain calm and try to refrain from such things. Your debate points were strong(not convincing, but enough to cause doubt at the least...some of it WAS sensationalism however....hint...)

I realize that I said I would only post once, but I feel compelled to put a mirror in front of some who have decided that they need to take the wheel, and have put someone vastly more important in the back seat. What is happening is sad, and I think a bit of prayer for intercession in their personal lives would not be out of order.

[tgamble]

Yesterday @ 10:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44444#post44444)
Socrates:

rogerthomas posted a fact-free whinge. Obviously he has no problem with the venom that tgamble spouted against YECs with his ridiculous claims that it was a cult.

A claim I supported with facts.

[rogerthomas]

Today @ 03:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45347#post45347)
tgamble:



A claim I supported with facts.


And thus the cycle of animosity is started anew. Lessons unlearned.....
:argue:

[Snowball]

Yesterday @ 07:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44474#post44474)
Socrates:
Actually that's one reason I like www.tektonics.org as well -- he's another one who will argue reasonably against anyone who wants to learn, but won't take any crap from vexatious infidels. :bonk:

This is true Roger -- both JP and Socrates are very polite and reasonable to those who are truly interested in intelligent and amicable dialogue. When their "opponent" turns out to be someone who's mind is closed and is interested in nothing more than attacks, they then resort to satire and, let's face it, calling a spade a spade.

I used to think JP was rough on his opponents until I witnessed him being very polite to certain people. It was then that I decided to really look into what was going on (what the difference was), and it turns out that there is a reason why he writes the way he does about certain people.

[rogerthomas]

Today @ 07:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45500#post45500)
Snowball:



This is true Roger -- both JP and Socrates are very polite and reasonable to those who are truly interested in intelligent and amicable dialogue. When their &quot;opponent&quot; turns out to be someone who's mind is closed and is interested in nothing more than attacks, they then resort to satire and, let's face it, calling a spade a spade.

I used to think JP was rough on his opponents until I witnessed him being very polite to certain people. It was then that I decided to really look into what was going on (what the difference was), and it turns out that there is a reason why he writes the way he does about certain people.


In other words, it's acceptable to lower yourself for some people, vs. being true to your spiritual faith?

[Snowball]

Today @ 04:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45541#post45541)
rogerthomas:
In other words, it's acceptable to lower yourself for some people, vs. being true to your spiritual faith?

I guess I just don't consider satire to be an example of lowering oneself. From what I've seen, JP is dead-on in his assessments of skeptics.

[Tycho]

Today @ 12:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45500#post45500)
Snowball:
This is true Roger -- both JP and Socrates are very polite
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha!

When their &quot;opponent&quot; turns out to be someone who's mind is closed and is interested in nothing more than attacks, they then resort to satire and, let's face it, calling a spade a spade.
Funny, whenever people treat the creationists with disdain (i.e. calling a spade a spade), they get rather snippy. What's with this double-standard?

[Socrates]

OK Roger, please explain to us why it is NOT being Christ-like to deal in the same way He did with vexatious critics? Was Elijah wrong to mock the prophets of Baal? Were Christ and the Apostles wrong to follow the challenge-riposte paradigm -- and if you have a problem, then please refute Is It "un-Christian" to Engage in Satire? (http://www.tektonics.org/madmad.html
)

Snowball has rightly pointed out that JP Holding and I will be polite to people who disagree but who are themselves polite and willing to learn. But other critics persist in misrepresenting their opponents and try to drag Christians into their unbelief. Then it's perfectly acceptable to try to destroy their credibility to undermine their destructive influence. As said, there are Biblical precedents, and it's within the Biblical definition of agape love which is concerned with the wider community. Perhaps RT would care to try to refute What is Agape and How Did It Work? (http://www.tektonics.org/whatlove.html)

I repeat my concern: the wider Christian community has NOT followed the Apostle Peter's command in 1 Peter 3:15:


Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

Nor has it followed the Apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 10:5:

We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

As a result of NOT defending the faith and refuting its enemies, there has been, according to Dr francis Schaeffer's book of the title, The Great Evangelical Disaster. The Evangelicals either compromised or retreated into a pietism that withdrew from the world. Theological Liberals (who are not Christians) have captured many denominations, starting with the seminaries; the mass media is run mainly by people who oppose everything Christianity stands for, and the education system is dominated by the philosophy that we are just rearranged pond scum so there are no moral absolutes. And Schaeffer pointed out that the rot started by denying that the whole Bible is God's propositional revelation to mankind, in whatever it touches upon.

[rogerthomas]

Today @ 04:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45867#post45867)
Socrates:

OK Roger, please explain to us why it is NOT being Christ-like to deal in the same way He did with vexatious critics? Was Elijah wrong to mock the prophets of Baal? Were Christ and the Apostles wrong to follow the challenge-riposte paradigm -- and if you have a problem, then please refute Is It &quot;un-Christian&quot; to Engage in Satire? (http://www.tektonics.org/madmad.html
)

Snowball has rightly pointed out that JP Holding and I will be polite to people who disagree but who are themselves polite and willing to learn. But other critics persist in misrepresenting their opponents and try to drag Christians into their unbelief. Then it's perfectly acceptable to try to destroy their credibility to undermine their destructive influence. As said, there are Biblical precedents, and it's within the Biblical definition of agape love which is concerned with the wider community. Perhaps RT would care to try to refute What is Agape and How Did It Work? (http://www.tektonics.org/whatlove.html)

I repeat my concern: the wider Christian community has NOT followed the Apostle Peter's command in 1 Peter 3:15:


Nor has it followed the Apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 10:5:


As a result of NOT defending the faith and refuting its enemies, there has been, according to Dr francis Schaeffer's book of the title, The Great Evangelical Disaster. The Evangelicals either compromised or retreated into a pietism that withdrew from the world. Theological Liberals (who are not Christians) have captured many denominations, starting with the seminaries; the mass media is run mainly by people who oppose everything Christianity stands for, and the education system is dominated by the philosophy that we are just rearranged pond scum so there are no moral absolutes. And Schaeffer pointed out that the rot started by denying that the whole Bible is God's propositional revelation to mankind, in whatever it touches upon.

Our critics would point out that there is precedent for slavery, rape, and murder. Does that mean that you should engage in such things? I'm glad you see yourself as a worthy representative of Elijah, but wouldn't it be better to be a representative of Christ? I cannot but wonder that you fail to see the dichotomy that you are trying to justify. Every one seems to want to justify bad behavior with verse these days, I don't remember that being the purpose of those who follow the lord. What would he say to your tactics of "Then it's perfectly acceptable to try to destroy their credibility to undermine--." Are you saying that you feel what you do is not wrong, not underhanded? And to say that you only do such things to those who are impolite first, is an outright lie. I have seen both Mr. Holding and Mr. Socrates do that very thing to those who not only were polite, but merely voiced a MINOR discord with the aforementioned people's pet ideas. Before you ask for examples, I will provide THIS VERY THREAD. Who did you cite as a spamming troll Socrates? With only 1 or 2 posts, a person who did nothing? I think you wish to excuse your actions, claiming expedience!

[Socrates]

RogerThomas:I'm glad you see yourself as a worthy representative of Elijah, but wouldn't it be better to be a representative of Christ? So this means that RT disapproves of Elijah? And he fails to address the fact that Jesus was often harsh to vexatious critics as opposed to those who were honestly seeking or repentant. It would be nice if Christians concentrated on opposing the atheistic indoctrination rather than fighting others who are.

[Woman]

Snowball:
This is true Roger -- both JP and Socrates are very polite and reasonable to those who are truly interested in intelligent and amicable dialogue. When their "opponent" turns out to be someone who's mind is closed and is interested in nothing more than attacks, they then resort to satire and, let's face it, calling a spade a spade.

I used to think JP was rough on his opponents until I witnessed him being very polite to certain people. It was then that I decided to really look into what was going on (what the difference was), and it turns out that there is a reason why he writes the way he does about certain people.

Well, I don't want to tell you who to choose for a hero, but do you consider Socrates and JP to be "open-minded?"

Socrates:
I will be polite to people who disagree but who are themselves polite and willing to learn.

Some may be seeking to teach.

:brow:

[rogerthomas]

Agreed woman, Jesus MOST often taught by kindness, questions, and thoughtful response. While I am aware that most of us do not have the capabilities to teach a lesson with kindness, it seems wrong to never ATTEMPT it.

Mr. Socrates, you consistently try to defend your behavior to me. That is unnecessary. I think you need to defend it to yourself, without the attempts at justification. I would suggest you re read John 15. Keeping in mind, that Jesus, being who he was....KNEW WHEN TO BE HARSH! You are not Jesus, so I think a little more thought as to a particular tack to take with another would be in order.

[rogerthomas]

Woman;

Could you tell me how you lost your faith, or if by chance you were always secular? I know it is an intrusion, but I am curious. I assure you I will not try to push you into the faith, but perhaps you would be open to discussion on various things? I promise not to beat you over the head with the bible.:bonk: :smile:

[Socrates]

RT:
Mr. Socrates, you consistently try to defend your behavior to me. I'm not. Do you think you're the only one I write for? That is unnecessary.It's unnecessary for you to attack me. I think you need to defend it to yourself, without the attempts at justification.I.e. just agree with you, and ignore the Biblical precedents. I would suggest you re read John 15. Keeping in mind, that Jesus, being who he was....KNEW WHEN TO BE HARSH And in so doing, He set a model for us to follow. And once again, you fail to note that his repartee and insults confirmed him as a prophet of honor in His culture's challenge-ripost paradigm.

[rogerthomas]

Matthew 5:43

[rogerthomas]

Then read some more....

[Socrates]

Matthew 23:27
Matthew 12:34
John 7:24
Luke 17:3
Titus 1:13
Titus 2:15
Then read some more

:read:

[Woman]

rogerthomas:
Woman;

Could you tell me how you lost your faith, or if by chance you were always secular? I know it is an intrusion, but I am curious. I assure you I will not try to push you into the faith, but perhaps you would be open to discussion on various things?

You can tell I'm a "fallen Woman?" :teeth: Does it show?

I was not always secular. I've been on a journey for decades. I'm the kind that was curious about all of it. Shoot, I used to invite the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormon missionaries in. My past includes Sunday school & gospel music, baptism through confirmation as a Roman Catholic(age 7 - 15), agnostic - atheist - agnostic and now I'm absolutely certain that we are all spiritual beings and that our personal search for God is hard-wired in. I don't mean that in an airy-fairy way. I'm not a new-age, mall-religion shopper.

I've studied Eastern thought and philosophy and found some measure of peace. I think all the wisdom traditions have something to teach us, have part of the truth. But I'm no longer convinced that I'm a good candidate for formal religion. My intellect (average though it may be) gets in the way of the creation myths, etc.

I'm not opposed to discussion of anything as long as you only smack me up side the head with a couple of chapters at a time!

:bonk:

[rogerthomas]

Today @ 07:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45969#post45969)
Socrates:


Matthew 23:27

Excuse me, but how does that jutify your actions? If you find them not of value enough to attempt to save, then why to you bother responding to them? Jesus was discussing those who APPEARED to be devout. What has that to do with those who would be enemy?

Matthew 12:34

No one is saying they are speaking good things, but your heart abundantly speaks foulness. I fail to see how any of these apply to your treatment of those who oppose you.

John 7:24

Does judge mean to slander in this verse?

Luke 17:3

You give them NO REASON to repent their trespass. You have barred the door to them.

Titus 1:13

You would seek to be as paul, rather than Jesus? Paul was not known for his manners.

Titus 2:15

Then read some more

I think you wish only the mailed fist, and would never try the silk glove first. As I said, justify it any way you like, you need to reconsider who you would deify.
:read:

[rogerthomas]

Today @ 07:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45971#post45971)
Woman:

rogerthomas:


You can tell I'm a &quot;fallen Woman?&quot; :teeth: Does it show?
Judging by your responses it was a fair assumption, but safer still to ask and not assume.
I was not always secular. I've been on a journey for decades. I'm the kind that was curious about all of it. Shoot, I used to invite the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormon missionaries in. My past includes Sunday school &amp; gospel music, baptism through confirmation as a Roman Catholic(age 7 - 15), agnostic - atheist - agnostic and now I'm absolutely certain that we are all spiritual beings and that our personal search for God is hard-wired in. I don't mean that in an airy-fairy way. I'm not a new-age, mall-religion shopper.

I've studied Eastern thought and philosophy and found some measure of peace. I think all the wisdom traditions have something to teach us, have part of the truth. But I'm no longer convinced that I'm a good candidate for formal religion. My intellect (average though it may be) gets in the way of the creation myths, etc.
To me it would seem a safe assumption that we should not throw out the baby with the bath water(age showing). Is it inconcievable that god has MORE than one plan for our journey?
I'm not opposed to discussion of anything as long as you only smack me up side the head with a couple of chapters at a time!
I would not, nor condone it. Those who seek and question, often do so with a destination in mind, not for whim. If some remain outside of the faith, that is poor reason to assault them, but rather to assist them in their search, even if it leads elsewhere, or to at least make their present journey more comfortable. If you remain agnostic, a kindness shown to you could hardly be a sin on mine or anyone else's part, could it? I wish you only well. That said, I wouldn't deign to bully you with the bible. Just tell me what feelings and circumstances led you to feel neglected within the christian faith?
:bonk:

[Woman]

rt:
You would seek to be as paul, rather than Jesus? Paul was not known for his manners.

LOL - Paul is the biggest stumbling block for me in the new testament. And it seems like he wrote half of it!


:argh:

[Socrates]

RT fails to deal with the obvious precedents for challenge and riposte in the Bible. E.g. he says:
You would seek to be as paul, rather than Jesus? Paul was not known for his manners.First, RT ignores the fact that some of the harshest denuciations come from Jesus. Second, if he denies that Paul's writings are inspired Scripture, then evidently he is no evangelical.

So I see no further point arguing with him, esp. as he just repeats his WFJ arguments without listening to anything I say. It's notable that I have backed up my case with Scripture, while RT resorts to vague claims about WWJD.

[rogerthomas]

Today @ 08:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45980#post45980)
Woman:

rt:


LOL - Paul is the biggest stumbling block for me in the new testament. And it seems like he wrote half of it!


:argh:

Pauline ideology has been a stumbling block for more than one. Personally, I'm of a mind, that Jesus is the MOST important focus of the NT, not paul. And some, who would attack rather than embrace those on the other side of the fence, have forgotten the value of Saul to Paul. It speaks directly as to value.

[rogerthomas]

Today @ 08:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45982#post45982)
Socrates:

Second, if he denies that Paul's writings are inspired Scripture, then evidently he is no evangelical.



I fail to see how not being an evangelical is a BAD thing. And inspired or not, to not accept that man is fallible, in thought, deed, and communication of a message....is to be held a fool. Mistakes are made, mistakes are repeated.

BTW....What WOULD Jesus do? Would you lock Saul out? What would you gain? And what would you lose?

[Socrates]

:eek: Yep, typical of a compromiser like RT to pick and choose the parts of Scripture that agree with him! And while giving lip service to Jesus, he conveniently ignores a lot of what He said and did! :bonk:

[rogerthomas]

Evangelicals to me have always seemed a desparate group. I do not mind being cast as a "non-evangelical". It is appealing in fact. I find it rude that it is the cornerstone of the evangelical movement to discount everyone's opinion and faith but your own. Such a proud stance to take...Such a long fall.

[rogerthomas]

Today @ 08:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45998#post45998)
Socrates:

:eek: Yep, typical of a compromiser like RT to pick and choose the parts of Scripture that agree with him! And while giving lip service to Jesus, he conveniently ignores a lot of what He said and did! :bonk:

Are you speaking to me, or the crowd? I have seen the same approach from Mr. Holding, and find it as childish in this instance as when he uses it. A poor debate tool, designed more for personal attack than discussion and consideration. Are you sure you would not rather another method? You might find this one a bit useless when conversing with those who choose not to accept the challenge to be equally petty.

[rogerthomas]

I have noted also, that several of the "top" debaters here get very unhappy when someone on their "own" side questions their actions or beliefs. Is this a common thing, because it seems very uncommon to me. Are we supposed to be so superior that we will not tolerate the questioning of our motives and beliefs? I welcome any question of faith and am open to criticism. But perhaps that comes with time and comfort with one's faith. Perhaps your faith is not so strong that you worry over a tiny splinter? I have always felt the key to be prayer. When you pray as much as those who are the most serene, you also become serene. Occasionally it becomes necessary to stir, but it should be for a greater need than to defend one's self and one's own beliefs. It just seems wrong to try and bully people into the faith, and if they do not immediately jump aboard...why forbid their presence? Perhaps "being" the message, rather than "preaching the message" is become an archaic custom.

I think you would do well to remember

Matthew 6:5. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

[Socrates]

We ARE supposed to preach the Gospel, because the Gospel has propositional content (cf. 1 Cor. 15:1-4, Romans 10:14). A "be the message" is a cop-out. And what sort of message is RT sending by his pick'n'mix not only of the Bible but of Jesus's sayings too.

Further, JP and I do NOT try to "bully people into the faith" but to trounce :bonk: ANTI_CHRISTIAN bullies who try to intimidate our brethren AWAY from the faith. People on TW have PMed me for neutralizing vexatious critics who were giving them a hard time, and it seems that people appreciate www.Tektonics.org for the same reason.

Last, RT brings up a passage (in King Jimmy English) about not praying for show, but maybe he's attacking me and JP for show.

[jpholding]

Yo Rog my main man,

I have *never* seen exegesis as bad as yours. Man, you could not do worse decontextualization unless you used explosives. Awesome. If I extract some points into a new thread, you hip to debate me one on one? :smile:

[rogerthomas]

Today @ 03:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46128#post46128)
jpholding:

Yo Rog my main man,

I have *never* seen exegesis as bad as yours. Man, you could not do worse decontextualization unless you used explosives. Awesome. If I extract some points into a new thread, you hip to debate me one on one? :smile:


So, you declare that my interpretation of the will of god is flawed? Somehow less valid than your reactionary one? Debate what exactly? That is the underlying problem with attitudes such as yours and Mr. Socrates. You wish to debate that which should be felt, and lived. What exactly would you debate about jesus? Or would you debate the Pauline ideology, since it is fundamental to the evangelical movement? What if it really just came down to a rather obvious "observation" that Mr. Socrates seems in need of prayer and meditation? That both you and he seem to enjoy fighting with people, and seem to actually crave a conflict. Am I wrong? Such relish for the failure of an enemy, this is an impure thing. Even the romans had no desire for such sport, and brutality was a part of their lives. You would create such a divisive community? I've watched your posting for a while Mr. Holding. With the exception of the framed debates, like the one vs. Mr. Altman and the like, where the pattern is set, you react much like Mr. Socrates--Trying to demean and demoralize. You are arrogant in the extreme, unless that person is already in your "camp" so to speak. You waste potential, and that is truly a shame.

Unfortunately, you seek only contest, and I'm sure you would try to make me look sloppy or whatever. I take much time for thought, that is true. And I have no craving to argue for a fortnight about pointless conjecture. I'm sure you are anxious to try and get that one more "victory" over someone who doesn't see the world as you do...But you will not have it at my expense. I search only for the presence of god. I will leave debate, for the most part to those who wish to immerse themselves in the world of dispute to accomplish nothing. Who was the last soul you converted? When was it? You have lost the way, and you don't even realize it! Those who prefer "argument" to interaction and friendship? I will work with the people in my fold, and laugh with them, grieve with them, pray with them, and I will continue to give them comfort when they die, as I did when they lived. I'm sure that your theological debate is satisfying to you, but do you not want more than that?

Laugh, be derisive about me as you like. Be in good humor because you must have just scared away someone who didn't see god the way you did. Interpret it for what you will, but look to your own plank before you find an ending you thought you knew and find that you did not.

[Socrates]

RogerThomas wrote to JPH:
So, you declare that my interpretation of the will of god is flawed?Of course. It hasn't the slightest backing in Scripture, which is all that matters. In fact, it hasn't the slightest backing by the words and actions of Christ, whom you profess to believe in -- when it suits you!
Debate what exactly?That your Wimp For Jesus approach has no basis in the teachings of Christ?
That is the underlying problem with attitudes such as yours and Mr. Socrates. This is a debate site, last time I checked.You wish to debate that which should be felt, and lived. Would you care to debate THAT ipse dixitWhat exactly would you debate about jesus? How about what He said and did?Or would you debate the Pauline ideology, since it is fundamental to the evangelical movement?Actually to ALL branches of historic Christianity, i.e. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as well. Paul's letters, especially Romans, are "Christianity Explained". And the Chief Apostle Peter affirmed Paul's writings as "Scripture" (2 Peter 3:15-16), and I would rather believe Peter than RT. What if it really just came down to a rather obvious "observation" that Mr. Socrates seems in need of prayer and meditation? More likely, you need prayer for some backbone to follow 1 Peter 3:15 and 2 Cor. 10:5 and stand up to the atheists, rather than fighting those of us who ARE following this.That both you and he seem to enjoy fighting with people, and seem to actually crave a conflict. Am I wrong?Yes. More likely, you are one of the many WFJs who would let the atheists run roughshod over Christians without challenge. It is largely the fault of the Church that Christianity is increasingly becoming marginalized, and the State religion in effect is Secular Humanism. They have abandoned the "real world" of politics and science to the atheists, under the mistaken impression that the Bible is about only "faith and morals" but can't be trusted when it speaks about history or geography (cf. what Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3:12 --

I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

Such relish for the failure of an enemy, this is an impure thing.On what basis do you judge this? Evidently not by Scripture, since you don't believe it. Oh, now I know -- it's because RT doesn't like it! Unfortunately, you seek only contest, and I'm sure you would try to make me look sloppy or whatever.We wouldn't have to -- you do an excellent job of that alll by yourself. But you will not have it at my expense. I search only for the presence of god.But only on your own terms rather than His, which He has revealed in Scripture. Who was the last soul you converted? When was it? You have lost the way, and you don't even realize it!The Holy Spirit does the conversion; I will just follow His instructions in 1 Peter 3:15 and 2 Cor. 10:5. And as I've said, tearing down arguments by God-haters has provided IMMENSE encouragement to people who were given a hard time by these people.

[TheFiveSolas]

rogerthomas wrote:

Such relish for the failure of an enemy, this is an impure thing.


For some reason that statement just reeks of false piety.

You continued:

Even the romans had no desire for such sport, and brutality was a part of their lives.


To assert that polemics is more brutal than the "sports" of the Roman period is one of the most absurd posts I've read so far.

Socrates wrote:

And as I've said, tearing down arguments by God-haters has provided IMMENSE encouragement to people who were given a hard time by these people.


Amen! :thumb:

[Snowball]

Today @ 08:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46473#post46473)
Socrates:

Actually to ALL branches of historic Christianity, i.e. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as well. Paul's letters, especially Romans, are "Christianity Explained". And the Chief Apostle Peter affirmed Paul's writings as "Scripture" (2 Peter 3:15-16), and I would rather believe Peter than RT.


:thumb:



It is largely the fault of the Church that Christianity is increasingly becoming marginalized, and the State religion in effect is Secular Humanism. They have abandoned the "real world" of politics and science to the atheists, under the mistaken impression that the Bible is about only "faith and morals" but can't be trusted when it speaks about history or geography (cf. what Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3:12 --


This statement is, sadly, true.



The Holy Spirit does the conversion; I will just follow His instructions in 1 Peter 3:15 and 2 Cor. 10:5. And as I've said, tearing down arguments by God-haters has provided IMMENSE encouragement to people who were given a hard time by these people.

Amen! Amen! Amen!! JP and Socrates and edifying to me and many others.

[Butters]

Am I still on the right thread? This IS how old is the Earth!? I couldn't wade through all this "stuff", what about the varves? The creationist claims that fossils can't form slowly is just plain stupid, but what about the layers of volcanic ash?

[Socrates]

Butters: Am I still on the right thread? This IS how old is the Earth!?[list]About 6000 years. See The earth: how old does it look? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n1_earth_how_old.asp)[list] I couldn't wade through all this "stuff",Who's fault is that? Possibly the person who diverted the thread into abusive ad hominem attacks on TW apologists. what about the varves? What about them -- see How can many fine layers of rock be formed very quickly? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp#layers)
The creationist claims that fossils can't form slowly is just plain stupid, A comment like that is just plan stupid!!but what about the layers of volcanic ash?Answered in above link.

[tgamble]

They have abandoned the "real world" of politics and science to the atheists, under the mistaken impression that the Bible is about only "faith and morals" but can't be trusted when it speaks about history or geography (cf. what Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3:12 --
”

This statement is, sadly, true.


Which is actually a good thing. The bible really CAN'T be trusted with history or science! It's often been shown to be wrong.

what about the varves?
What about them -- see How can many fine layers of rock be formed very quickly?


Then there's the accurate information.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/henke/krh-floodnonsense.html#A04

I think Butters has realized by now that AIG can't be trusted.

[Socrates]

Rather, it's gamble and his atheistic sources that he relies on uncritically who can't be trusted. Either they ignore the fact that layers can form quickly, or it's "geologists knew that all the time, but it can't apply to these specific examples". Fact is, we have OBSERVED layers to form quickly, so the creationists are being SCIENTIFIC. Coversely, the evolutionists have NEVER observed thousands of layers been laid down one per year, so they are UNSCIENTIFIC.

[tgamble]

Today @ 03:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46607#post46607)
Socrates:

Rather, it's gamble and his atheistic sources that he relies on uncritically who can't be trusted.

Or even the Christian sources. But only because you say so. Which isn't much of a reason!

Either they ignore the fact that layers can form quickly, or it's &quot;geologists knew that all the time, but it can't apply to these specific examples&quot;.

And you totally ignore the reasons behind such claims and continue to cling to an utterly refuted and childish myth like Noah's flood!

Fact is, we have OBSERVED layers to form quickly, so the creationists are being SCIENTIFIC.

Wrong. They are leaping to false conclusions on the false assumption that Noah's flood happened. Nothing scientific about that.

Coversely, the evolutionists have NEVER observed thousands of layers been laid down one per year, so they are UNSCIENTIFIC.

You're ignorance of geology is really quite pathetic.

[Woman]

rogerthomas:
...both you and he seem to enjoy fighting with people, and seem to actually crave a conflict. Am I wrong?
Socrates:
Yes. More likely, you are one of the many WFJs who would let the atheists run roughshod over Christians without challenge. It is largely the fault of the Church that Christianity is increasingly becoming marginalized.

I agree that it is the fault of the Church, if by that you mean its members, that she is splintered, polemic and failing to spread the message of Love that her founder preached.

What is a Wimp for Jesus?

[Socrates]

Woman:

Jesus never separated love from holiness. This is so even in the most famous passage of John 3:16, if you read the continuation:

16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
Also, Jesus's teachings make sense only in the framework of the Creation and Fall, which He endorsed. Yet these are under attack by the God-haters and their churchian allies. So defending Christianity must include defending the foundation that's under attack.

[rogerthomas]

It would seem that your defense of the "foundations" takes precedence over his word and message. But then again, I am only one "wimp for jesus" as you so eloquently put it. Raise your flags and swords then, thanks...But I'll keep my rosary and prayers. You never did say how many you have converted by your methods. How many people have you comforted and shown into the way? Exactly what are you accomplishing? For who's benefit are you running over people?

[tgamble]

[i]Today @ 05:51 AM
Also, Jesus's teachings make sense only in the framework of the Creation and Fall, which He endorsed. Yet these are under attack by the God-haters and their churchian allies. So defending Christianity must include defending the foundation that's under attack.

And don't feel you have to be honest while doing it!

What a joke!

[Bald Ape]

edit - okay, think i got this in the right place now...
Socrates said:
What about [varves] -- see How can many fine layers of rock be formed very quickly?
<spruik>
I'd be very interested to hear a detailed young-earth explanation for the precise relationship between carbon dates and varve counts, demonstrated by this graph
http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/image/PE-05L.gif
Caption reads:
Figure PE-5. Atmospheric radiocarbon calibration for almost the complete 14C dating range (<45 ka cal BP) reconstructed from annually laiminated sediments from Lake Suigetsu (Japan).
Read more (http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htm).

This graph exactly matches the predictions of old-earth theorists (namely, the varve count = number of years ago formed = carbond date). Does the rapid-varve formation predict anything close to this graph? More pointedly, what part of rapid-varve formation causes the carbon date to increase linearly with each additional layer?
</spruik>

[Snowball]

Today @ 08:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46861#post46861)
rogerthomas:

It would seem that your defense of the "foundations" takes precedence over his word and message.



On the contrary, it seems Socrates values the Word and message more-so than you do.


You never did say how many you have converted by your methods. How many people have you comforted and shown into the way? Exactly what are you accomplishing? For who's benefit are you running over people?

Actually, he did say. Socrates said that it is the job of the Holy Spirit to convert, not his, which is the biblical position to take. Christians don't convert anyone, they are merely tools used by an awesome God to reach out to people. I don't mean to speak for Socrates, but I sincerely doubt that his aim in this forum is to convert those with whom he is debating (and I know for sure that isn't JP's intent) --- instead, I believe he is debating them for the sake of the others who are reading, for the purpose of edification. The best we can do, as Christians, is to say "Here am I, send me."

If you are truly a Christian, God has good works set aside for you. You can choose to pray over your rosary beads, or you can both pray and let Him use you for His purposes. He never intended for us to just accept His gift, then sit back and do nothing with it -- as a matter of fact, when you truly understand what it is that He has given you, you can't help but want to get out there and shout it to the world!!

Now, having said all that, I realize this all should be part of a different thread.

[Socratism]

Bald Ape,

I am surprised that you were not easily able to see some obvious gaping holes in the varve analysis. On second thought no evolutionist would think of being skeptical of studies that show what they already think they know, so studies like this rarely get the kind of skeptical "peer review" they should for the simple reason that the reviewers also "like" the results.

Hint: the analysis implicitly "assumes" the varve layers are annual.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 12:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47038#post47038)
Socratism:
Hint: the analysis implicitly &quot;assumes&quot; the varve layers are annual. I thought varves were laid down biannually, that's why they are seperate. I don't know if you've actually ever seen varved silty clays (pondering if they come in clayey silts too), but if you take a cylinder of it, cut half of the radius and pull it open, the individual layers pop out. One thicker than the one immediate to it. The other issue regarding varving is that the varved layers are rather symmetric is size. I've yet to see an example of continuous differentiations between bedding sizes in varved silty clays. If a huge event were to create these varves, one would expect to see massive changes in bedding sizes, due to the great amount of forces being seen.

One other issue regarding varved silty clays is the soil it is made of. The silty clays I've dealt with tend to consist of large percentages of silt and clay and very low percentages of find sands (0.45 mm to 0.05 mm in diameter), virtually no gravel (particles greater than 2 mm in diameter). Medium to coarse sands (2 mm to 0.45 mm in diameter), is rare. The question is this: How did a massive flood event manage to capture only high percentages of silts and clays together, while barely getting any sand at the same time. If all this soil is whipping around in the water, why is it even possible to think that all the soil tended to ignore physics and stay with its own type? Shouldn't sand have been in the mix as well?

Of course, I'm only speaking from experience and education. I don't have any AIG links to give you, so you can probably just ignore this as more ba-hum-bug anti creationist blather.

[Bald Ape]

What part of rapid-varve-formation predicts that the ratio of Carbon-14 atoms to Carbon-12 atoms will steadily decrease for each of 40,000 layers?

[Butters]

Thanks for the link tgamble! I doubt that any creationists have even read it. Btw, There seems to be a decided Atheist vs. Christian thing going on here. Don't you people know that MOST Christians accept an old Earth, and evolution? Don't you know the Bible was never meant to be taken literally? I mean, when Jesus said, "tell the mountian to move, and it will move", he didn't mean that literally! It's a figure of speech! You can spin the Galileo incedent all you want. What it comes down to is the Christian church did not like the facts that Galileo presented, it contredicted their own interpretation of scripture, and since religion was power, they did what they could to stifel him. Now we know better (I hope no one here is arguing that the sun revolves around the earth, but I wouldn't be suprised)

[Socratism]

Butters,

I do not deny that there was a dispute between the Church and Galileo. I simply pointed out the abbrieviated story you usually read fails to point out that Galileo was fighting against the conventional science of his day. Socrates then remarked that the Church is making the same mistake as they did then by betting on the wrong scientific "horse".

Incidently I do not defend the paganized Church which gives more weight to its own faulty tradition than it does to serious study of scripture. Most (all?) mainline denominations err by placing fallible and transient theories of men above clear teaching of scripture.

"If you don't like the current theories of science about Origins just wait a minute". Perhaps the new ones will be more to your liking.

[Bald Ape]

Socratism,
I've moved this question to the more pertinent Dating Methods thread - please respond there... Thanks!

[Woman]

Socrates:
There is no command to be a Wimp For Jesus. It's that sort of person who has let the secular world view strangle our educational and media systems.

Fact is, it's only the modern American victim culture that's so wimpy against counterattacking dishonest atheists. Well bad luck -- we've tried your way, and the unbelievers now dominate the media, educational system and even most seminaries. Time to fight back!

I submit that there are people for whom animosity, argument and anger are a means of energizing themselves; that they become almost addicted to the adrenaline rush that hostility engenders.

These are not people who are willing to "turn the other cheek." They are unwilling to be seen as pacifists because they equate it to weakness. These people are fond of the use of militaristic phrases in their discussions. They are quick to search for any hint that a new acquaintance may not agree with their dogmatic notions and will attack unprovoked, filled with self righteous indignation. They will scour their doctrine to find passages which they suppose support their general antagonistic attitude to the world. They apparantly think that Christ meant something else when he told his desciples to love one another and to let their ways be a witness for the world. Are these following ideals not important? Don't they represent Christ's teachings?


By now you have certainly forgotten the five loaves that fed the five thousand, with twelve baskets left over, or the seven loaves that fed the four thousand and the plenty that remained. But I am not speaking to you about earthly food. No, I have come to warn you against feeding on the ideas and false teachings of those who market religion.

In vain such people worship me, teaching as doctrines what are merely the inventions of men. They're so busy clinging to their own superstitions that they have forgotten the commandments of God.

Beware of false teachers who stand before you wearing sheep's clothing. Beneath the disguise hides a ravenous wolf.

To these swindlers who set themselves up to be your judges I say: Judgment upon you, false religious leader and teachers, hypocrites! You bar the doors of the kingdom of heaven, closing the way to those who truly wish to enter.

You may impress people by your outward show of righteousness, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and sin. How can you believe, you who live for your colleague's praise, and never seek the praise that comes from God alone?

It is not by repeating, "Lord, Lord," that you will enter in to the kingdom of heaven, but by doing the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Bless them that curse you. Do good to them that hate you. Pray for them that despise and persecute you. By doing this, you will be the children of your Father who is in heaven: for he makes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. If you only love those that love you, what good is that? Even the corrupt behave in a similar manner. If you are hospitable only to your friends, what reward is there?

Instead, love one another as I have loved you. By doing this, everyone will see that you are my disciples, because you are full of such selfless love. Don't be deceived; if someone truly loves me, you will know it. That person will live life according to my words; honoured by my Father, and blessed with the presence of his fellowship. If you listen to what I am saying, and do it, and love me, you will be loved by my Father, and by me. We will come and make our dwelling within you in the house of your heart.

Blessed are you who are peacemakers, for you will be called the children of God.

Live your lives, doing towards others as you would have them do to you.

So will my heavenly Father judge you, if you refuse to forgive your brothers and sisters from the depths of your hearts.

Don't be willing to forgive just seven times, but seventy times seven times. Make peace, even with you enemies. Constant striving will only lead to greater trouble.

Find forgiveness for the wrongs that people have inflicted on you, and your life will be overwhelmed with mercy and grace.

"Come, blessed by my Father; enter into the inheritance of the kingdom, prepared for you since the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you offered me food. I was thirsty, and you brought me cold water to drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me in. I was without clothes, and you clothed me. I was ill, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me."

Then the righteous will answer in amazement: "Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you something to drink? When did we see you as a stranger, and give you shelter; or needing clothes, and clothe you? Did we ever see you ill, and take care of you; or in prison, and visit you?"

The King will reply: "Truly, I tell you now, inasmuch as you have done these things for the least of my brothers and sisters, you have done the same for me."

But to the ones on his left, the King will say: "Depart from me! For I was hungry, and you gave me no food. I was thirsty, and you offered me nothing to drink. I was a stranger, and you turned me away. I was naked, and you gave me no clothes. I was sick, yet you didn't care for me. I was in prison, but you didn't visit me."

Then they will answer him: "Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not comfort you?" The King will answer: "Truly I say to you, inasmuch as you have failed to do these things for the least of my brothers and sisters, you have failed to do them for me."

These then will be sent away into eternal darkness, but the righteous will be ushered in to the place of life.

You call me master and Lord, and you are correct, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and master, am willing to be your lowest servant, then you too should be willing to serve one another. I have given you an example; you should do the same as I have done for you.

[jpholding]

Howdy, er, Woman ---

I submit that there are people for whom animosity, argument and anger are a means of energizing themselves; that they become almost addicted to the adrenaline rush that hostility engenders.

Isn't a little presumptuous to assume that that's a motive? :smile:

These are not people who are willing to &quot;turn the other cheek.

Exegetically that directive applies only to interpersonal relations, not public discourse.

They will scour their doctrine to find passages which they suppose support their general antagonistic attitude to the world.

And are you up to defeating their exegetical arguments?

They apparantly think that Christ meant something else when he told his desciples to love one another and to let their ways be a witness for the world.

As I think has been noted, love often means being on the attack against those who would do harm. The greatest example of agape today is not Mother Teresa, as it happens, but Joe Clark.

With due respect, you have decontextualized the words of Jesus just as others have

[jpholding]

Yo Roger Dodger!

(Note to mods -- if ya'll split this thread, cool!)

So, you declare that my interpretation of the will of god is flawed?

Soc pretty much answered well for me here. Your exegesis sure is, if you think it supports your sort of hide-behind-the-wallism. C'mon, dewd -- challenge and riposte. Social world of NT Christianity. Get the drift?

What if it really just came down to a rather obvious &quot;observation&quot; that Mr. Socrates seems in need of prayer and meditation?

Sounds very JUDGMENTAL to me, Rog! :rofl:

Even the romans had no desire for such sport, and brutality was a part of their lives.

Please!!! Riposte and challenge was an essential part of life in the ancient Mediterranean. This is what I mean when I say that people like you do such contemptible exegesis. You read your modern values into the text with no concern at all.

I've watched your posting for a while Mr. Holding. With the exception of the framed debates, like the one vs. Mr. Altman

Alward, actually. And with him, he's been mannerly and not threatening like those who have gotten the riposte treatmnt. Think about it.

You waste potential, and that is truly a shame.

You destroy "potential" when you kill smallpox, too. Get it?

Unfortunately, you seek only contest, and I'm sure you would try to make me look sloppy or whatever

I think you can manage well enough on your own. Obviously you have no exegesis but the narrow one that you have stapled to your heart based on presuppositions that the real Jesus is the one that Makes You Feel Warm All Over.

Who was the last soul you converted? When was it?

Beats me. 50K a month check in to my site. I hear lots about empowered and rescued faith, and let's face it, most evangelism today is just "file 'em in and out" stuff with no discipleship or growth. And don't tell me that discipleship isn't important. I have my gift and it is to empower OTHERS who evangelize. Ask rather how many have been saved by the work of those whose faith my work has emboldended because they no longer fear rebuke from an atheist or because they are confident their own faith is well rooted. How many dimensions can you think in, Rog, beyond your immediate sensations?

I will work with the people in my fold, and laugh with them, grieve with them, pray with them, and I will continue to give them comfort when they die, as I did when they lived

And they'll pass on as weak, uneducated Christians, will they? having done little or nothing other than keep the playground a little cleaner.

Interpret it for what you will, but look to your own plank before you find an ending you thought you knew and find that you did not.

Been there. Done it. I did my homework. And I learned that those who don't tend to be the most overconfident in their own position. :brow:

[Butters]

Wow. One thing I notice here, you guys at least treat everyone the same. You insult, belittle, and make fun of each other just as much as you do to the evolutionists.

Butters law

The degree that a person talks about being a Christian is inversly proportional to the degree that they act like one.

[TheFiveSolas]

Bald Ape,
I don't pretend to have any backround in "varves" but I did read the article you linked to. Now, perhaps I'm not qualified to read articles such as this one, however two things did stand out that seem to be large problems with the interpretation of the data.

The author makes two pertinent statements:

From the laminated sediments we selected terrestrial-origin macrofossils such as leaves, branches and insects for AMS 14C measurements.


And:

The Lake Suigetsu floating varve chronology consists of 29,100 varves. The sedimentation or annual varve thickness is relatively uniform (typically 1.2 mm yr-1 during the Holocene and 0.62 mm yr-1 during the Glacial). The age below 30.45 m depth is obtained by assuming a constant sedimentation in the Glacial (0.62 mm yr-1).


IF the author's interpretation is correct, then are we to conclude that animal and especially plants remained INTACT, on the bottom of this lake, over the course of many years UNTIL they were completely covered with sediment? From what little I know it takes burial in sediments (or lava flow) for a fossil to form. Given the sedimentation rate of .62mm per year it would take quite a while for "leaves, branches, and insects" to become encased in sediment AND do so without first breaking down (or being torn apart by scavengers).

Lastly, this assumption flies in the face of actual scientific data which shows that submerged organic matter starts to break down within a mere few days.


Experiments by scientists from the Chicago Natural History Museum have shown that fish carcasses lowered on to the muddy bottom of a marsh decay quite rapidly, even in oxygen-poor conditions. In these experiments, fish were placed in wire cages to protect them from scavengers, yet after only six-and-a-half days all the flesh had decayed and even the bones had become disconnected.
R. Zangerl and E.S. Richardson,‘The paleoecological history of two Pennsylvanian black shales‘, Fieldiana: Geology Memoirs 4, 1963.

Taken from "Green River Blues" at the following link:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/213.asp

[Butters]

IF the author's interpretation is correct, then are we to conclude that animal and especially plants remained INTACT, on the bottom of this lake, over the course of many years UNTIL they were completely covered with sediment? From what little I know it takes burial in sediments (or lava flow) for a fossil to form. Given the sedimentation rate of .62mm per year it would take quite a while for "leaves, branches, and insects" to become encased in sediment AND do so without first breaking down (or being torn apart by scavengers).

Lastly, this assumption flies in the face of actual scientific data which shows that submerged organic matter starts to break down within a mere few days.

Well! Talk about your "observed" evidence. I have personal experience of "leaves, branches, and insects, (and small animals) being incased in sediment and remaining intact for at least several years in stagnent water. Leave a half empty swimming pool unattended for a few years. Then go clean it out, you will find that MUCH of this stuff is still intact. Wait until the first time you find a cat thats been dead for a few years under a few feet of debris, Nasty, but whole. What is this scientific data that shows these things start to break down in just a few days. (Although I would argue that they "start to break down right away, I know for an observed fact that they can remain whole for years, at least.

[Woman]

jpholding
Howdy, er, Woman ---

He quotes me: I submit that there are people for whom animosity, argument and anger are a means of energizing themselves; that they become almost addicted to the adrenaline rush that hostility engenders.

and responds:
Isn't a little presumptuous to assume that that's a motive?

To which I say: Actually that's a rather benign motive. It simply means that it's become a habit. Psychologists maintain that anger, while it is a normal human emotion, is most often habitually expressed by individuals who are immature and have low frustration levels and who are reacting from pain and fear.

quoting me:These are not people who are willing to "turn the other cheek.

says jp:
Exegetically that directive applies only to interpersonal relations, not public discourse.

Excellent! Then may I assume that while expressing yourself in an angry, aggressive way could be appropriate discourse in a book, editorial, on a soapbox, a website, etc. - that when you are addressing a specific individual, by name, that it would be more approriate in a Christian sense, to be polite?

he quotes me: They will scour their doctrine to find passages which they suppose support their general antagonistic attitude to the world.

and says: And are you up to defeating their exegetical arguments?

Indeed not. I am not a Biblical scholar. Nor do I believe it's necessary. Do you mean to suggest that only Christians who are versed in ancient languages, who are students of theology, are intellectuals or academics (or think they are) can understand Christ's message? Exegesis is not needed to comprehend "blessed is the peace-maker."

he quotes me:
They apparantly think that Christ meant something else when he told his desciples to love one another and to let their ways be a witness for the world.
then says:
As I think has been noted, (by whom, where?)
love often means being on the attack against those who would do harm. The greatest example of agape today is not Mother Teresa, as it happens, but Joe Clark.

Where do we learn that love means being on the attack? Who do you perceive is doing harm? How is being rude preventing harm? Harm to whom? Regarding Joe Clark, that is simply jp's opinion. Making a statement that includes the phrase "as it happens," in no way legitimizes it.

jp:
With due respect, you have decontextualized the words of Jesus just as others have.

Present company included. I am sure the simple message of love and peace would stand by itself without context.

In any case, the sort of personal insults and name-calling employed by you and Soc when someone, even your brothers and sisters in Christ, disagrees with you, cannot be defended by presuming to understand scripture on a deeper level than they do. Perhaps you truly believe you are somehow defending the faith, but it's just rude.

I know that I have a sharp tongue and enjoy arguing. It's something I struggle with. There are times I regret what I've said in here almost before I push the "send" button. And I've been called on it a time or two. The difference between us is that I know when I'm being a horse's *ss. And, with due respect, I don't pretend to be doing God's work while I'm at it.

[Richard Romano]

03-24-2003 @ 02:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42973#post42973)
QED:

So, my reply is this: &quot;increasing information&quot; is not, generically a claim of evolution. It is true, however that one could infer the necessity of increasing information (under certain definitions) from the theory. If it were in fact the case, one should be able to show that mutation + natural selection certainly was not capable of producing it. I don't believe that I have seen this demonstrated. All demonstrations I am aware of have shown quite the opposite.

Many regards, until our next exchange.
:)

Hi QED, thanks for the thoughtful response. Please give me some time to mull over what you have said...I'll provide a more detailed response once I finish some research in the area. Deal?

blessings,

Richard.

[Socrates]

Socratism rightly pointed out

Hint: the analysis implicitly "assumes" the varve layers are annual.

Jimmy "Hitler was a Christian" Higgins replied:

I thought varves were laid down biannually, that's why they are seperate. I don't know if you've actually ever seen varved silty clays (pondering if they come in clayey silts too),Yes I have. Did you see them FORM?!
... but if you take a cylinder of it, cut half of the radius and pull it open, the individual layers pop out. One thicker than the one immediate to it. The other issue regarding varving is that the varved layers are rather symmetric is size. I've yet to see an example of continuous differentiations between bedding sizes in varved silty clays. That itself is a problem, because you seriously expect us to believe that these layers remained smooth and symmetrical AND UNDISTURBED for thousands of years. Also, the number of layers between the same "radiometrically dated" horizons varies considerably.If a huge event were to create these varves, one would expect to see massive changes in bedding sizes, due to the great amount of forces being seen.Not at all. The sandy layers in the pic below were produced by a huge flow rate of over 400,000 litres of water and sand (equivalent to about 10 private swimming pools of water) per minute (from Sandy Stripes (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/458.asp)).

Also, Jimmy ought to familiarize himself with the detailed sedimentation experiments of Guy Berthault which have been published in secular journals (see his website www.geology.ref.ac/berthault/). He showed that fine layers can form by a self-sorting mechanism during the settling of differently sized particles. One of the most important findings was that the thickness of each band was found to depend mainly on the difference between the particle sizes rather than the flow conditions. There we have an experimentally verified explanation of the symmetry that Jimmy observes and interprets as annual deposition.

In one of Berthault's experiments, finely layered sandstone and diatomite rocks were broken into their constituent particles, and allowed to settle under running water at various speeds. It was found that the same layer thicknesses were reproduced, regardless of flow rate. This suggests that the original rock was produced by a similar self-sorting mechanism, followed by cementing of the particles together.

One other issue regarding varved silty clays is the soil it is made of. The silty clays I've dealt with tend to consist of large percentages of silt and clay and very low percentages of find sands (0.45 mm to 0.05 mm in diameter), virtually no gravel (particles greater than 2 mm in diameter). Medium to coarse sands (2 mm to 0.45 mm in diameter), is rare. The question is this: How did a massive flood event manage to capture only high percentages of silts and clays together, while barely getting any sand at the same time. If all this soil is whipping around in the water, why is it even possible to think that all the soil tended to ignore physics and stay with its own type? Shouldn't sand have been in the mix as well?No, because of the sorting action of water.Of course, I'm only speaking from experience and education.Save the fallacious argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) for those who might be fooled by it. You have NO experience of seeing thousands of biannual layers form. I have provided reports of many layers being OBSERVED to form rapidly. I don't have any AIG links to give you, so you can probably just ignore this as more ba-hum-bug anti creationist blather.As it deserves.

[Saxonella]

Today @ 02:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47449#post47449)
TheFiveSolas:

IF the author's interpretation is correct, then are we to conclude that animal and especially plants remained INTACT, on the bottom of this lake, over the course of many years UNTIL they were completely covered with sediment? From what little I know it takes burial in sediments (or lava flow) for a fossil to form. Given the sedimentation rate of .62mm per year it would take quite a while for &quot;leaves, branches, and insects&quot; to become encased in sediment AND do so without first breaking down (or being torn apart by scavengers).

Lastly, this assumption flies in the face of actual scientific data which shows that submerged organic matter starts to break down within a mere few days.

Taken from &quot;Green River Blues&quot; at the following link:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/213.asp

Yes, it generally does take burial in sediment, of some sort, in some manner, but rates and circumstances can vary hugely. I have noticed that creationist sources on fossilization tend to give a very misleading overall impression of how fossils can form. So superficial and misleading, in fact, to be pretty much useless as sources of information.

Basically all you need is for for *the possibility* of fossilization is for the organic material to be buried before it entirely disappears. If the conditions at the bottom of the lake are such that decay/breakdown is slow (such as very cold waters, or anoxic conditions), then what we might consider "slow" rates of sediment accumulation may well be enough. One would expect that most organic material does undergo some degree of decay or scavenging or disarticulation before it gets buried, and if you actually look at the vast majority of fossils, you will find that that is exactly what they look like. Most fossils show plenty of evidence of surface exposure, or decay, or damage and breakage, or scavenging.

Just keep in mind that the conditions often cited as "requirements" for fossilization" are not hard and fast rules, but are exceedingly generalized, and the actual specific circumstances can vary enormously, because there are just so many factors that can be involved.

To really understand how fossils form, you need to become familiar with a rather important discipline in paleontology called Taphonomy. One can't get very far into paleontology without it.

http://paleo.cortland.edu/tutorial/Taphonomy&Pres/taphonomy.htm

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yesterday @ 09:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47449#post47449)
TheFiveSolas:

IF the author's interpretation is correct, then are we to conclude that animal and especially plants remained INTACT, on the bottom of this lake, over the course of many years UNTIL they were completely covered with sediment? From what little I know it takes burial in sediments (or lava flow) for a fossil to form. Given the sedimentation rate of .62mm per year it would take quite a while for &quot;leaves, branches, and insects&quot; to become encased in sediment AND do so without first breaking down (or being torn apart by scavengers).

Lastly, this assumption flies in the face of actual scientific data which shows that submerged organic matter starts to break down within a mere few days.


Taken from &quot;Green River Blues&quot; at the following link:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/213.asp The only issue creationists seem to bring up with varving is dead organic material within the varving. Biggest problem with this is that if a flood caused the varving, should the vavred clays be littered with organic material? I've yet to have come across ANY significant organic bodies in varved clay. The creationists would like you to believe the exception disproves the rule.

I also would like to respond with what hasn't been responded to of mine.I don't know if you've actually ever seen varved silty clays (pondering if they come in clayey silts too), but if you take a cylinder of it, cut half of the radius and pull it open, the individual layers pop out. One thicker than the one immediate to it. The other issue regarding varving is that the varved layers are rather symmetric is size. I've yet to see an example of continuous differentiations between bedding sizes in varved silty clays. If a huge event were to create these varves, one would expect to see massive changes in bedding sizes, due to the great amount of forces being seen.

One other issue regarding varved silty clays is the soil it is made of. The silty clays I've dealt with tend to consist of large percentages of silt and clay and very low percentages of find sands (0.45 mm to 0.05 mm in diameter), virtually no gravel (particles greater than 2 mm in diameter). Medium to coarse sands (2 mm to 0.45 mm in diameter), is rare. The question is this: How did a massive flood event manage to capture only high percentages of silts and clays together, while barely getting any sand at the same time. If all this soil is whipping around in the water, why is it even possible to think that all the soil tended to ignore physics and stay with its own type? Shouldn't sand have been in the mix as well?

Of course, I'm only speaking from experience and education. I don't have any AIG links to give you, so you can probably just ignore this as more ba-hum-bug anti creationist blather.

[jpholding]

Howdy, er, Woman --

Actually that's a rather benign motive. It simply means that it's become a habit. Psychologists maintain that anger, while it is a

I see. Well, I will assure you that no anger lies behind what I do; those that have met me in person here -- which includes our Mama Moderator, Dee Dee -- would use the words "ice man" to describe me in person. My rhetoric is carefully planned and has no emotion behind it, though of course it suits my purposes for opponents to think so. :smile:

Excellent! Then may I assume that while expressing yourself in an angry, aggressive way could be appropriate discourse in a book, editorial, on a soapbox

Not if their work harms others. In private email exchanges your idea would obtain, however.


Do you mean to suggest that only Christians who are versed in ancient languages, who are students of theology, are intellectuals or academics (or think they are) can understand Christ's message

I do mean that those who try to defend a certain point of view had better be prepared to defend that view of proper grounds. Most do not. Most like Roger (and indeed many in today's church) simply read the decontextualized text ad assume to know the meaning. They are not always wrong, but that is more because of a lack of exegetical options than that they know what the text means in context.

Where do we learn that love means being on the attack? Who do you perceive is doing harm? How is being rude preventing harm? Harm to whom? Regarding Joe Clark, that is simply jp's opinion.

It is not. I have done a contextual study of agape and what it means. http://www.tektonics.org/whatlove.html -- what it meant to the people who used the word.

In terms of how rhetoric may help, ask yourself whether those who do evil might have done less had someone taken their inflated self-images down a notch. (There is a certain myth of self-esteem that fits in here as well.)

cannot be defended by presuming to understand scripture on a deeper level than they do.

If you wish to do more than say so, you will need proof. And I have personally to see anything objectionable from you. :smile:

[Woman]

"Ice Man" er...jpholding,

First I commend you for your restrained and appropriate demeanor in your reply.

I knew you could do it.

And, although you neglected to address most of my questions, I accept that you believe you are doing what you perceive to be right.

:smile:

[jpholding]

Howdy, er, Woman --

First I commend you for your restrained and appropriate demeanor in your reply.

You earned it and have done nothing to warrant otherwise. :smile:

And, although you neglected to address most of my questions,

I rather disagree. I think you simply don't like the answers. But fair enough. :yipee:

One more aside on the last. You appealed to psychology, but psychology as a whole is heavily biased towards Western values. :smile:

[Woman]

jp:
One more aside on the last. You appealed to psychology, but psychology as a whole is heavily biased towards Western values.

I'm sorry. I'm letting my presumptions show again. I thought you were one of us Westerners.




:brow:

[TheFiveSolas]

Butters wrote:

Well! Talk about your "observed" evidence.


Did you read what I quoted? It was a scientific study.

You continued:

I have personal experience of "leaves, branches, and insects, (and small animals) being incased in sediment and remaining intact for at least several years in stagnent water.


Also, having animals encased in sediment and remaining intact is not what I was critiquing. I was critiquing the idea that they remain intact with a sedimentation rate of less than 1mm per year. I gave the results of a scientific study (observed evidence) in support of my assertion that organic material breaks down, "even in oxygen poor conditions," quite rapidly.

You continued:

Leave a half empty swimming pool unattended for a few years. Then go clean it out, you will find that MUCH of this stuff is still intact.


Perhaps the scientists from the Chicago Natural History Museum should study your "hypothetical" pool. :rofl:

I've dealt with such pools on occasion, and the leaves are hardly intact. They end up more like sludge after just a short while.

[Woman]

Solas,

I'm just curious but are you saying that most os the fossil record is from the Flood?

[Butters]

"I've dealt with such pools on occasion, and the leaves are hardly intact. They end up more like sludge after just a short while."


You know, you are correct, I have also seen this. I'm sure the difference has to do with how anaerobic the water is. I am sure the temperature and make up of the debris are also contributing factors. This only goes to show that she cannot make an assumption based on one or two restricted experiments. I also realize that you are speaking of the small sedimentation rate. I don't see how this would be a problem. If the carcass is covered by even a thin layer of mud it would be separated from oxygen and decomposition would be hindered.

[TheFiveSolas]

Woman asked:

I'm just curious but are you saying that most of the fossil record is from the Flood?


I'm saying that fossil formation seems to come predominantly from rapid burial in sediment. Local floods are able, and have done that as well.

Now, whether or not most come from Noah's flood is a question I'm not qualified to answer.

[Socrates]

Butterball:Leave a half empty swimming pool unattended for a few years. Then go clean it out, you will find that MUCH of this stuff is still intact.And how many chlorinated pools are there in nature?

[Socrates]

Woman

You might find Dr Tas Walker's Biblical Geology site (http://www.uq.net.au/~zztbwalk) informative about what Creationists believe.

[jpholding]

Today @ 04:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48983#post48983)
Woman:

jp:


I'm sorry. I'm letting my presumptions show again. I thought you were one of us Westerners.



Only geographically. :yipee:

[Butters]

"And how many chlorinated pools are there in nature?"

Socrates, none of these pools contain any chlorine. However, I do realize that this is an artificial environment. Actually, I would suspect that the calcium plaster surface could make a difference. There again, to making a real assessment one would need to perform various experiments covering various conditions. Of course it seems to me that this experiment should be done by placing carcasses in a place where varves are formed. For all I know this may have been done already.

[Woman]

jpholding:
Only geographically. :yipee:

and psychologically...:teeth:

[jpholding]

Today @ 12:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49798#post49798)
Woman:

jpholding:


and psychologically...:teeth:

Nope. I left behind that sack of potatoes a year ago. :argh:

[keyser_soze]

03-28-2003 @ 04:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46987#post46987)
Snowball:



On the contrary, it seems Socrates values the Word and message more-so than you do.



Actually, he did say. Socrates said that it is the job of the Holy Spirit to convert, not his, which is the biblical position to take. Christians don't convert anyone, they are merely tools used by an awesome God to reach out to people. I don't mean to speak for Socrates, but I sincerely doubt that his aim in this forum is to convert those with whom he is debating (and I know for sure that isn't JP's intent) --- instead, I believe he is debating them for the sake of the others who are reading, for the purpose of edification. The best we can do, as Christians, is to say &quot;Here am I, send me.&quot;

If you are truly a Christian, God has good works set aside for you. You can choose to pray over your rosary beads, or you can both pray and let Him use you for His purposes. He never intended for us to just accept His gift, then sit back and do nothing with it -- as a matter of fact, when you truly understand what it is that He has given you, you can't help but want to get out there and shout it to the world!!

Now, having said all that, I realize this all should be part of a different thread.

I just wanted to point out that you were telling a priest that god might find use for him.


You people are so freaking stupid. No wonder you can't defend your faith, you attack yourselves:yipee: I've never laughed so hard.:thumb:

edited to add that banana....cool.

[keyser_soze]

I joined up so that I could link to the TRUE rebuttal of turkel the prison librarians' argument on ossuaries over at II. But I couldn't resist this one. That is too damn funny. I almost peed myself, the guy confesses my family(well, not me, I'm about as atheist as you can get. But still, my wife's family still goes in for superstition). Anyway, thanks for the laugh. You guys just ground pounded a NICE guy(although obviously deluded into relgious brain infarction) because he is a different sect than the other nut-jobs out there.

[keyser_soze]

Oh yeah, the link.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=48821

And the priest was wrong, don't ever change guys, I love you just the way you are!:cheers:

[keyser_soze]

Cool, it automatically substituted name with jpholding.... (Mod. note: edited for content)What, are we not supposed to tell anyone what name is? Are we to let everyone believe the sham that doesn't exist and this over the top 5 dollar name wearing conman is to be deified right here on the spot? What's wrong you like to dish names and insults but don't like to recieve. Knowing this place, this whole thing will be censored, so I am going to post it over at ii for posterity.

moderator note: sexual inuendo and profanity will not be tolerated under any circumstance. I also refer you to the TWeb rules (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/decorum/) regarding respect of privacy and anonymity. Specifically rules number 1 and 9

[jpholding]

Ah, another member of the Gas and Run crowd signs in.

Ready to have your own self taken to bits by me, Keyhole? :rofl:

[keyser_soze]

Today @ 11:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=52087#post52087)
jpholding:

Ah, another member of the Gas and Run crowd signs in.

Ready to have your own self taken to bits by me, Keyhole? :rofl:

I've seen you "take apart people". Usually it's you sidestepping issues and posting ad hominem attacks. What are you going to attack on me JPHolding? Are you going to argue that my web linkage style is wrong? Or that maybe I misspelled JPHolding? Or that you are not what is claimed? Where the hell did you come up with that ridiculous name anyway? holding. What kind of name is that? That's something you do after sex! Sometimes before, if you're not in a hurry. Why are you so afraid to use your real name? Don't give me some crap about prison inmates and your mother, inmates rarely use the net. And if they do, they have much better things to do that waste time on you! [/Sure, I'm wasting time on you, but I'm really bored so that offsets it a bit.:yipee:

Edited by moderator due to a violation of:

9. Participant Anonymity
In conjunction with our Privacy Statement please respect the anonymity of other posters on TheologyWeb. Unless otherwise stated only registered screen names are to be used when referring to participants. Personal information of another participant is not to be disclosed in any of the public forums. Requests for personal information such as name or location may be done but any refusal of the information by other participants is to be honored.

please respect people's anonymity.

[keyser_soze]

a


Edited to remove threat of physical violence

[keyser_soze]

a

Removal of reference to physical harm

[keyser_soze]

And I'll go a step further, I'll post my name and address HERE, if you'll do the same *******. Not that we don't already know your name, and anyone can find your address, but it always bugged me that you felt it necessary to come up with such a contrived story about your fictitious person. What do you say everybody? Want to see both of us weigh in, on a more world realistic match?You can pray to god to smite your enemy(me) and if a she-bear or an army come out of your ass and attack me, I promise not to have any hard feelings on the matter. :brow:

[jpholding]

Dear Loser_Sore,

nearly peed myself

Appropos, since you are still in diapers. :bawl:

I've seen you "take apart people". Usually it's you sidestepping issues and posting ad hominem attacks.

What you've "seen" is the cracks in the sidewalk up close as you were dropped to the floor by the backlash of your heroes getting the stuffing beaten out of them. :rofl: Your fantasies aside, if you have the nerve, pick 5 of my articles to debate and I'll put you down like day-old bologna on white bread.

BTW, if you ever want to take it up a notch, and into the physical world, let me know. I haven't savagely beaten an idiot in years.

Self-abuse will satisfy that craving for you. My, but we are frustrated. Well read, you say? Sorry, the back of your Lucky Charms box does not count. I also don't care how much you make at the Mr. Bubbles Car Wash and Grill.

As an aside, discussion of my reasons for using a pseudonym have been placed off limits by the chief Mod here, Ms. Warren. Of course by the time the mods are done with your 10-year-old-with-a-Playboy posts, there will probably be nothing left but :bawl:.

I will do my own smiting and leave you gasping for air, obsessed little man. :rofl:

[citizenkyle]

Question for Keyser Soze:

Do you consider yourself a Secular Humanist or are you another brand of atheist?

[yxboom]

Kaiser Soze's posting has been suspended due to multiple rules violations and is as we here in TWeb consider to be "Caught in the Matrix". As he has refused to accept any Private Messages or emails I am posting this here for him to see. I would request that you take a good look at the Forum Decorum (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/decorum/) and adhere to them if you wish to continue to participate here.

[Richard Romano]

03-24-2003 @ 02:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
QED:

So, my reply is this: "increasing information" is not, generically a claim of evolution. It is true, however that one could infer the necessity of increasing information (under certain definitions) from the theory. If it were in fact the case, one should be able to show that mutation + natural selection certainly was not capable of producing it. I don't believe that I have seen this demonstrated. All demonstrations I am aware of have shown quite the opposite.




Dear QED,

I hope you are well...thanks for being patient with me.

Your post, while fair and informative, does not seem to deal with the insurmountables in macroevolution that have caused many to question its veracity in recent times.

The fact of the matter is this: evolution MUST add NEW information to program the genetic code for new organs that did not previously exist but CANNOT do so by random chance mutation and natural selection. When the first wing with feathers came into existence where did the genetic code for it come from? When the first lung came into existence where did its genetic code come from? When insulin production came into existence where did the genetic code for it come from?

When you focus your thinking on SPECIFIC organs and biochemical systems you end up seeing the incredible odds that are against this ever happening. In other words, it simply will not do to mention generalities, since that would enable one to make colossal leaps in logic that proposes that something is "possible" then continually enlarge that to allow random chance to take on more than just a happenstance quality. The implication is that random chance becomes a regular occurrence throughout time, which is hard to swallow logically.

Creationists see that it isn't only not "possible," but rather physically IMPOSSIBLE.

I do appreciate your comments, and I will try to respond as quickly as possible.

God's blessings to you QED,

Richard.

[tgamble]

Today @ 12:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Richard Romano:

Dear QED,

I hope you are well...thanks for being patient with me.

Your post, while fair and informative, does not seem to deal with the insurmountables in macroevolution that have caused many to question its veracity in recent times.

The fact of the matter is this: evolution MUST add NEW information to program the genetic code for new organs that did not previously exist but CANNOT do so by random chance mutation and natural selection.

Your evidence for this is?

Creationists see that it isn't only not "possible," but rather physically IMPOSSIBLE.

And scientists know that it's not only possible, but a fact.

[wdwwilder]

although much of the modern yec movement owns a debt of gratitude to the sda creationists they actually were mostly soft gap people-they believed the earth lay empty for millions of years before the creation of life in six days. As to the root of the yec movement we must not forget early bibical geologist like Woodward, Whitehurst, whiston. ete.