Answers in Genesis hilarity - dino bones

[lordsnooty]

Dear folks,

We all know that AIG is one of the funniest sites on the Web. Their crazy wrong-brained antics have been keeping us amused for years. And yet we still see some people pretending that it's a serious scientific resource.

Is anyone here willing to defend this article? : http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/250.asp

The basis of it is that this swashbuckling Christian has seen 'thousands' of unfossilized dino bones.

Keep in mind here, there is no such thing as an unfossilized dino bone. If this joker has really seen thousands of them, you would think he'd be able to show us some evidence (and no folks, him saying 'I've seen them' is not evidence).

Any AIG fans (at least, any that are allowed near keyboards unsupervised) want to take up the challenge of defending these claims?

I'm holding my breath, starting... NOW!

Cheers,

Paul

[Socrates]

LordSnotty spruiked:We all know that AIG is one of the funniest sites on the Web. As if an ignoramus like you would know humor if it kicked you in the shin.Their crazy wrong-brained antics have been keeping us amused for years.A crazy brain-dead non-response. And yet we still see some people pretending that it's a serious scientific resource.It is.Is anyone here willing to defend this article? : http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/250.aspNo, not unless you attack it with something substantial.
The basis of it is that this swashbuckling Christian has seen 'thousands' of unfossilized dino bones.

Keep in mind here, there is no such thing as an unfossilized dino bone.I presume he was using it in the colloquial sense of non-permineralized. And since T. rex bone has been found with blood cells and the chemical signature of hemoglobin http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4232cen_s1997.asp, I think Snotty would have a hard job disproving that. If this joker has really seen thousands of them, you would think he'd be able to show us some evidence (and no folks, him saying 'I've seen them' is not evidence). And Snotty dogmatically saying 'it's not possible' is also not evidence.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 03:23 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42912#post42912)
Socrates:
[quote]
The basis of it is that this swashbuckling Christian has seen 'thousands' of unfossilized dino bones.

Keep in mind here, there is no such thing as an unfossilized dino bone.
I presume he was using it in the colloquial sense of non-permineralized.
You presume wrong, read the article before you make comment. I quote from it:

"The Liscomb Bone Bed has probably thousands of frozen unfossilized dinosaur bones — some of them have the ligaments still attached.".

If you're still unsure as to the meaning of the document you are so vehemently defending, I suggest you look the word 'ligaments' up in a dictionary.

And since T. rex bone has been found with blood cells and the chemical signature of hemoglobin http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4232cen_s1997.asp, I think Snotty would have a hard job disproving that.
It may well have been found, but that really doesn't help the creationist cause. If you would like to read a real scientific report on this finding (as opposed to the baseless assertion of Christian pseudoscientists) then please see here: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/94/12/6291.pdf

If this joker has really seen thousands of them, you would think he'd be able to show us some evidence (and no folks, him saying 'I've seen them' is not evidence).
And Snotty dogmatically saying 'it's not possible' is also not evidence.

The really great thing is, of course - I never said that. I merely implied that AIG is lying about having seen and collected unfossilized bone.

If they have these remarkable specimens (doubtless the paleontological find of the century) then you'd think they'd be the first to parade them about.

Paul

[tgamble]

Today @ 12:31 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42859#post42859)
lordsnooty:

Dear folks,

We all know that AIG is one of the funniest sites on the Web. Their crazy wrong-brained antics have been keeping us amused for years. And yet we still see some people pretending that it's a serious scientific resource.

Yeah, it really is quite sad that such drivel is taken seriously.

AIG must be greatly desperate to buy the delusions of some song writer with no scientific training or knowlege!

And since T. rex bone has been found with blood cells and the chemical signature of hemoglobin http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4232cen_s1997.asp, I think Snotty would have a hard job disproving that.

Your link doesn't work.
Also see
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4232cen_s1997.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0325rbcs.asp

Those are the lies, now here's the truth.

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/dinosaurs/bones.jsp

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/dinosaurs/cooldna.jsp

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/94/12/6291.pdf

"Email from Jack Horner

Young Earth Creationists are all about misinformation and
taking things out of context that serve their purposes.

Mary Schweitzer, a research scientist here in Bozeman (MSU), and
one of my recently graduated PhDs discovered what we believe are the
remnants of bood cells, identified by the mineral heme, which is apparently
a biological product. Red blood cells were not found, but instead,
evidence of their presence, and that is very exciting, and was published in
the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 94: 6291-6296 in 1997.
Mary found heme and other biomolecules including some proteins.

And, as in all good science the object, particularily in historical science
where we cannot repeat an experiment, is to attempt to falsify hypotheses
(prove that an hypothesis is false by finding contradictive data).

We can never be sure of anything in historical sciences so we formulate
testable (by falsifiability) hypotheses. Mary could not prove that the
structures were the remnants of blood cells, but only that they were not.
In the end she was not able to falsify the hypothesis, and therfore, like
all our other hypotheses, we can state that until the hypothesis is
falsified it is likley that the structures are in fact the remnants of
blood cells.

A remnant of a blood cell is not a blood cell, however.

The creationists hopped on Mary's findings like flies on you know what.
The words "blood cells" were all that they could see.

Every now and again I teach a class on critical thinking, how science
works, and the evolution/creation business. You'd be amazed at the numbers
of students on our campus that follow the young earth creationists, and
have virtually no understanding of how science actually works.

I hope this all helps some.

Maybe some day we can discuss some ways to get some of this info to the
incoming Freshman so that they have a foundation upon which they can
evaluate the difference between data based information and opinion based
"information."

Jack Horner
Curator of Paleontology
Museum of the Rockies - 600 W. Kagy Blvd.
Bozeman, MT 59717
(406) 994-3982 / jhorner@montana.edu "

The email wasn't to me, it was posted on another message board.

http://www.bibleandscience.com/ken%20ham.htm

It's quite sad the wqy Socrates believes anything AIG tells him. Despite their well deserved reputation for dishonesty and distortion.

Here's some discussion on talkorigins newsgroup.

http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_592173896

http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=594411959

http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=592586165

[Socrates]

tgamble spouts some obfuscation by Jack Horner. But this misses the point that hemoglobin (as shown by the immune response) and blood cells remnants are evidence that the bone has not been permineralized (my initial point). It still raises the question of how blood cells remnants and hemoglobin could last for 65 million years.It's quite sad the wqy Socrates believes anything AIG tells him. Despite their well deserved reputation for dishonesty and distortion.WHAT reputation? We have only the of a bigot that shouldn't be trusted as far as you could kick him.

[tgamble]

Today @ 04:42 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42944#post42944)
Socrates:

tgamble spouts some obfuscation by Jack Horner.

No no, those are facts. Obviously you can't refute them so you simply ignore them.

But this misses the point that hemoglobin (as shown by the immune response) and blood cells remnants are evidence that the bone has not been permineralized (my initial point). It still raises the question of how blood cells remnants and hemoglobin could last for 65 million years.

Not that you'd be interested in any answers of course.....

You'd rather cling to the myth of dinosaurs and humans living togather.

It's quite sad the wqy Socrates believes anything AIG tells him. Despite their well deserved reputation for dishonesty and distortion.WHAT reputation?

Their reputation amoungst scientists who've been the victims of their distortion and out of context quoting and others on the proscience side of the debate.

[lordsnooty]

Want to answer any of my points Socrates, or are you quite happy to rest on your ad-homs?

I'm guessing you'll just avoid the points and post more abuse, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Today @ 04:42 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42944#post42944)
Socrates:
It still raises the question of how blood cells remnants and hemoglobin could last for 65 million years.
The question has raised and answered. From the report I linked to:

'This relatively unaltered state may be due to minimal exposure to water. Dehydration would favor preservation of endogenous biomolecules, including hemoglobin'

It's not a definitive answer, but it doesn't seem that the author of the report was renouncing science and reaching for his Bible.

But speaking of questions that have to be raised, here's some good 'uns:

How did all of these fossils form in as little as six thousand years? We find plenty of unfossilized human and animal bone from that period. Where are the completely unfossilized dino bones?

Why are dino bones and human bones never found together? Or even close?

Why did prehistoric man never make use of dinosaurs? We see no evidence that they ever ate dinosaurs, wore their skin, or even used their teeth/claws.

How is it a Christian folk singer can track down unfossilized bones by the thousand, when skilled paleontologists cannot?

The world demands answers. No, wait. We've already got answers. Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, as backed up by all available evidence in geology, paleontology, and biology. AIG is not a genuine source of fact-based information.

Still, I suppose it's wrong of me to try and tempt Socrates over to the side of wickedness and depravity with my true facts.

Paul

[Jimmy Higgins]

Socretes, you've got to stop it with the insults. Alot of credible information has been offered in this thread and you just retort with vague responses and insults.
LordSnotty spruiked...:
As if an ignoramus like you...
I think Snotty would have a hard job disproving that....
And Snotty dogmatically saying 'it's not possible' is also not evidence.
We have only the of a bigot that shouldn't be trusted...
And this is from only two posts in this thread. I ask you to at the very least stop responding with name calling and empty retorts. Any credible knowledge you offer just seems to be lost within them. If you have nothing credible to add, could you possibly just ignore the thread? Thanks for your understanding.

[Woman]

lordsnooty asks: Why are dino bones and human bones never found together? Or even close?
Good question!
Why did prehistoric man never make use of dinosaurs? We see no evidence that they ever ate dinosaurs, wore their skin, or even used their teeth/claws. This is the first time I've heard this obvious query. Why indeed, are no dino teeth or claws found strung on a piece of sinew around a human's neck. Surely those would have been an amazing prize! And, it occurred to me also that since we have found evidence that prehistoric man revered/worshiped various large animals. For example, cave bear skulls and long bones (and mammoth tusks) have been found arranged in ways that suggest they were tribe or clan totems. If cavemen were in awe of these creatures, where is the evidence that they were even aware of the existance of an entity as huge and powerful and amazing as a T-Rex or Brontosaurus? Hmmmm - And oh, one more question. Do YEC's believe that the word prehistoric has no meaning? I mean, since they are convinced that Adam began recording history from the first years of earth's existance, do they maintain that nothing happened before man began to keep accurate records?
How is it a Christian folk singer can track down unfossilized bones by the thousand, when skilled paleontologists cannot?
No way, you mean "scientific claims" are being made by an entertainer?

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 07:53 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43057#post43057)
Woman:
No way, you mean "scientific claims" are being made by an entertainer?
So far as I am aware, Christian Folk music does not qualify as entertainment in any real sense.

Paul

[tgamble]

Today @ 08:58 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43080#post43080)
lordsnooty:
So far as I am aware, Christian Folk music does not qualify as entertainment in any real sense.
Paul

And there's nothing scientific about his claims!

:rofl:

Today @ 07:53 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43057#post43057)
Woman:
Good question!


Wait a minute! There was this one time... Nope, they were fakes. Well, another case. Nope, it was an April fools joke.

Must be that the evil darwinist establishment is hiding them to surpress the truth! :teeth:

This is the first time I've heard this obvious query. Why indeed, are no dino teeth or claws found strung on a piece of sinew around a human's neck. Surely those would have been an amazing prize! And, it occurred to me also that since we have found evidence that prehistoric man revered/worshiped various large animals. For example, cave bear skulls and long bones (and mammoth tusks) have been found arranged in ways that suggest they were tribe or clan totems. If cavemen were in awe of these creatures, where is the evidence that they were even aware of the existance of an entity as huge and powerful and amazing as a T-Rex or Brontosaurus?

Well, the best evidence YECs can come up with is a vague reference to a creature with a large tail. They assume it was a dinosaur.

Draw your own conclusions! :teeth:

Oh, and here's another creationist gem you'll love. "Dr" Kent Hovind thinks humans killed a T-Rex by tearing it's arms out. With their bare hands. :teeth: Gotta love them wacky creationists!

Hmmmm - And oh, one more question. Do YEC's believe that the word prehistoric has no meaning? I mean, since they are convinced that Adam began recording history from the first years of earth's existance, do they maintain that nothing happened before man began to keep accurate records?

You mean aside from the whole creation bit? I suppose so. All of history has to be cramed into 6000 years.

Oh, and any claim natives make about being around past 6000 years is obviously a lie. Go figure! :teeth:

[Socrates]

Jimmy Higgins spluttered:
Socretes, you've got to stop it with the insults. Alot of credible information has been offered in this thread and you just retort with vague responses and insults.Hah -- from someone who posts on his website the crassest village atheist style attacks and pathetic attempts at wit! Better clean up your own act before pontificating to others. I did ask you nicely before, and warned that it would adversely affect your ethos.

In any case, I DID respond with facts, and you conveniently overlook that the thread starter and the ever present slanderer gamble were huge on insults.

Lord Snotty:
Why did prehistoric man never make use of dinosaurs? We see no evidence that they ever ate dinosaurs, wore their skin, or even used their teeth/claws.Talk about an argument from silence!

Woman:
This is the first time I've heard this obvious query. This is more a reflection on your education. AiG has long ago addressed this, at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp under "If humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, why aren’t their fossils found together? Is there other evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived together?" If cavemen were in awe of these creatures, where is the evidence that they were even aware of the existance of an entity as huge and powerful and amazing as a T-Rex or Brontosaurus?A bit hard with the latter, since that is an invalid taxon :bonk: Hmmmm - And oh, one more question. Do YEC's believe that the word prehistoric has no meaning? I mean, since they are convinced that Adam began recording history from the first years of earth's existance, do they maintain that nothing happened before man began to keep accurate records?Of course there was -- the first five days of Creation Week!

[Sauron]

Today @ 08:13 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42931#post42931)
tgamble:



Yeah, it really is quite sad that such drivel is taken seriously.


Hey, if JP Holding points to AiG as a reputable source, then it must be so!

:bonk: :bonk: :bonk:

[Woman]

Lord Snotty:
“ Why did prehistoric man never make use of dinosaurs? We see no evidence that they ever ate dinosaurs, wore their skin, or even used their teeth/claws.”

Socrates: Talk about an argument from silence!

Woman: This is the first time I've heard this obvious query.

I haven't, and went on to say that it would seem that at least some evidence of dino teeth strung on sinew would be found. All other large animal teeth are found that way. But Socrates thinks the answer is obvious and that I am uneducated.

Socrates: This is more a reflection on your education. AiG has long ago addressed this, at http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom...q/dinosaurs.asp under "If humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, why aren’t their fossils found together? Is there other evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived together?"

Well Soc, as I often do I checked this AiG article out. Read it all the way through, in fact. And it gives absolutly NO evidence at all for humans and dinosaurs living together except some odd opinions about about cave art. Fran Barns, an expert on "Rock Art" also believes that the mythological Native American thunderbird often found in their designs is really a dinosaur. Barnes writes "There is a petroglyph in Natural Bridges National Monument that bears a startling resemblance to a dinosaur, specifically a Brontosaurus, with a long tail and neck, small head and all."

Stupid man! Wrong taxon!! :bonk:

The most amazing line in the article though was this one.

The extinction of mammoths (and dinosaurs) must have occurred sometime in the last 4,000 or so years.

:rofl:
I can add nothing to that.

[Socrates]

Woman writes:
But Socrates thinks the answer is obvious and that I am uneducated.This was a reflection of your previous instruction (or lack thereof) in apologetics, so was more a reflection on those who should have taught you.
Well Soc, as I often do I checked this AiG article out. Most commendable.Read it all the way through, in fact. And it gives absolutly NO evidence at all for humans and dinosaurs living together except some odd opinions about about cave art. That was only ONE article, and it addressed one of your objections, i.e. alleged lack of cave art depicting them. Fran Barns, an expert on "Rock Art" also believes that the mythological Native American thunderbird often found in their designs is really a dinosaur. Barnes writes "There is a petroglyph in Natural Bridges National Monument that bears a startling resemblance to a dinosaur, specifically a Brontosaurus, with a long tail and neck, small head and all."

Stupid man! Wrong taxon!!Did you read the footnote in the article, "Brontosaurus is of course a misnomer, since it was the result of the wrong head being placed on the wrong body. However, this is undoubtedly a representation of the body of a large sauropod, such as Apatosaurus."
The most amazing line in the article though was this one:

The extinction of mammoths (and dinosaurs) must have occurred sometime in the last 4,000 or so years.

I can add nothing to that.Typical -- Woman can offer no coherent argument against it.

[Woman]

Soc, you old reprobate! :smile:

YES! I did notice the footnote, but I still couldn't resist the little dig!

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 04:17 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43365#post43365)
Socrates:
Lord Snotty:
Talk about an argument from silence!

No, it's called 'drawing conclusions from evidence'. Your theory can be rejected because the evidence doesn't fit. If we did find a T-Rex with a human skeleton in it's stomach, or a human being with a necklace of dino teeth, then we could revise our theories appropriately.
This is more a reflection on your education. AiG has long ago addressed this,[...]
Yes, Woman! You've been reading about real science, rather than the 'special' science of AIG! Your education in 'applied BS' is substandard.

[...] at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp
I read these articles (I'm a glutton for idiotic punishment), and to be honest, I really have difficulty in believing that anyone truly believes the stuff AIG publish.

If AIG is the sort of contrived rubbish that people have to defend in order to sustain their beliefs, then it's a very dark day for religious fundamentalism.

Paul

Appended Post:

Oh Socrates - I'm waiting for you to explain how AIG claims to own completely unfosillized dinosaur bones - complete with ligaments! You seem to have avoided that issue.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yesterday @ 11:17 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43365#post43365)
Socrates:

Jimmy Higgins spluttered:...Amazing. SO amazing. You can't have a decent discussion with anyone that doesn't agree with you. I pity your existence. It must be so full of hate.
Clicks on Ignore Socretes

[Bald Ape]

Today @ 04:30 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43886#post43886)
Jimmy Higgins:

Amazing. SO amazing. You can't have a decent discussion with anyone that doesn't agree with you. I pity your existence. It must be so full of hate.
Clicks on Ignore Socretes
<spew>
To avoid this sort mischaracterization, I try to provide Socrates with helpful hints. In this case, I am spewing, not spruiking, and you'll notice I've made the difference clear to him with helpful pseudo-HTML tags (before and after my words). In your case, you did not place a <respectful reply> tag before your post, so it's understandable that Socrates might have mistaken your respectful reply for spluttering (an honest mistake, I'm sure). I blame his hatred* of Leprechauns and yoking* with atheists for such errors.


hate: to not believe in something
yoke: to agree with somebody on something
</spew>

[Socrates]

JH:Amazing. SO amazing. You can't have a decent discussion with anyone that doesn't agree with you. I pity your existence. It must be so full of hate.Once again, there is one rule for YECs and another for its detractors. When JH removes the disreputable village-atheist anti-Christian stuff from his website, I might take him more seriously. I have already advised him politely to do so because it ruins any credibility he might have had. And naturally, he still ignores the derogatory comments that started this thread.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 08:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44418#post44418)
Socrates:
And naturally, he still ignores the derogatory comments that started this thread.
Those comments were entirely justified. Unless, that is, you have managed to find these amazing unfossilized bones (with ligaments) that were found and collected by AIG.

I ask you again Socrates - do you believe that these bones exist? And if so, why have they not been shown to the world?

If you do not believe they exist, what does this say for the credibility of AIG?

Paul

[Socrates]

I have no reason to doubt that they exist. They are consistent with other reports of unpermineralised dino bones, and those with blood cell remnants and hemoglobin. Maybe they are waiting for the right time -- this is hardly a major AiG article after all.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 01:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44502#post44502)
Socrates:
I have no reason to doubt that they exist. They are consistent with other reports of unpermineralised dino bones, and those with blood cell remnants and hemoglobin. Maybe they are waiting for the right time -- this is hardly a major AiG article after all.
Those 'blood cell remnants' that have been found are not the cells themselves, just imprints of the cells. They haven't got any actual blood cells whatsoever.

Now, AIG are claiming that they have found thousands of unfossilized bones (with ligament tissue still attached!), and shipped back a large quantity to the US. To the best of my knowledge, only one 'premineralised' bone has ever been found to exist, and that itself is controversial.

That doesn't give you the tiniest twinge of doubt? Are you really that willing to believe something so utterly incredible?

Note that AIG does not purport to be the word of God (at least not yet - I think they're getting to it though). You can express doubt in them without expressing doubt in the Bible. I'm not trying to trick you.

Paul

[Tycho]

Today @ 07:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44524#post44524)
lordsnooty:
Now, AIG are claiming that they have found thousands of unfossilized bones (with ligament tissue still attached!), and shipped back a large quantity to the US. To the best of my knowledge, only one 'premineralised' bone has ever been found to exist, and that itself is controversial.

That doesn't give you the tiniest twinge of doubt? Are you really that willing to believe something so utterly incredible?
Creationists will believe that a global flood happened for no better reason than "the Bible says so." But tell them that they share a common ancestor with other primates, and they'll ask for the exact history of every primate from 10 million years ago to today.

[tgamble]

Today @ 08:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44781#post44781)
Tycho:


Creationists will believe that a global flood happened for no better reason than &quot;the Bible says so.&quot; But tell them that they share a common ancestor with other primates, and they'll ask for the exact history of every primate from 10 million years ago to today.

And even if they got it they would just cry "IS NOT" themp the bible and continue to ignore reality.
:rofl: :argh:

[Socrates]

I've never claimed that AiG is infallible. But I know enough of them ALWAYS to give them the benefit of the doubt whenever website run by God-haters or their churchian allies makes a vicious attack on them.

In the case in point, AiG was perfectly reasonably going by the information current at the time. I.e. based on what Mary Schweitzer wrote (M. Schweitzer and I. Staedter, ‘The Real Jurassic Park’, Earth, June 1997 pp. 55–57), the AiG article said www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4232cen_s1997.asp:

‘The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, “You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells!”’ Schweitzer confronted her boss, famous paleontologist ‘Dinosaur’ Jack Horner, with her doubts about how these could really be blood cells. Horner suggested she try to prove they were not red blood cells, and she says, ‘So far, we haven’t been able to.’

Regardless of what Snooty claims, this certainly doesn't look like mere imprints!! And a later AiG response to a critic said www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0325rbcs.asp:

When you read this, remember that to these people, the truth is that the millions of years are fact. Therefore—and this is not said in any disparaging way—they must have some sort of explanation. Let me put it this way, before looking at the explanation in more detail—when DNA was first reported in a fossil millions of years old, a well-known scientist in Nature said that it was just as well that those looking for it were not aware of laboratory-measured rates of decay which indicated that DNA should not last more than about 10,000 years (he later said 100,000)—or else they would not have looked for it. His implication: by definition, once you find the DNA, the previous belief, i.e. that it would not last, is proved wrong. Thus, if one finds heme, hemoglobin, and/or red blood cells in a millions-of-years-old bone (as they see it), this proves that under certain, remarkable, rare conditions, such things can happen. Note—I would not claim that the preservation proves the millions of years is wrong, but it strongly suggests it, and it is certainly more consistent with the belief that the fossil is only thousands of years old.

Now, let’s look at what has been said here. Hemoglobin is what was being looked for, and hemoglobin consists of heme (the small molecule we are looking for) and globin (protein which consists of long chains of amino acids strung together in a specific sequence). Heme certainly is tougher than the globin, but to suggest that therefore it is no problem to explain how it lasted millions of years is again disingenuous, as it was certainly a surprise to the researchers, when you read the paper, and no wonder. But note that the immune response is specific to the sequence of amino acids, which forms the protein, not to the heme. To suggest that 3–4 amino acids may have given a response specific to that protein is mindblowing. There would have to be far more specificity (i.e. a specific sequence) than that. I asked a Ph.D. molecular biologist who works with us and who did work for his thesis on identifying proteins using monoclonal antibodies. He is most sceptical about the notion that 3–4 amino acids, even with the heme, will be recognised by the antibody.

Remember that the evolutionists cited may be experts in their field, but their field is not immunology or molecular biology. Above all, remember that this is their way to ‘explain away’ the evidence. There is no evidence that this reaction was spiked by only ‘3–4’ amino acids, they are surmising this, but there is evidence that there was a reaction to hemoglobin, not ‘heme’ as such. Their chain of reasoning probably goes something like this: ‘Well, we have to explain the specificity of the immune response. What is the smallest no. of amino acids that could give that response?’ (As indicated, I believe their assumption is way out, that it almost certainly would have to be many more, as antibodies lock onto shapes rather than short amino acid sequences. Thus, the onus of proof is on them to show you evidence that 3–4 could do it. Then (continuing my suggestion on their chain of thought), ‘how could even that number have survived in that sequence? Well, we’ll have to assume that they were glued into position by being stuck to heme, and heme is more durable as a molecule.’ (It is still a surprise to find any organic structure in any millions of years old fossil by normal chemical laws.) And so on.

NB: they argue that ‘well, we do sometimes find heme in millions of years old fossils’ but once again this begs the question of how they know that the fossils are millions of years old, and would they have predicted this finding from chemical knowledge? The answer to the second is most certainly no, but as indicated, once they find it, then by definition it is possible to get heme in bones millions of years old. But note that osteocalcin has also been found, a protein which is much more fragile than heme, and note how below they squirm around the issue.

[Socrates]

Tycho, fittingly named after the last major geocentrist, wrote:
Creationists will believe that a global flood happened for no better reason than "the Bible says so." But tell them that they share a common ancestor with other primates, and they'll ask for the exact history of every primate from 10 million years ago to today.Here's the difference -- the Bible is an eye-witness account, and the Flood was affirmed by Jesus Christ who proved His divine claims by rising from the dead. But the divergence claim is NOT based on eye-witness evidence, but on an INTERPRETATION of molecular similarities and mutation rates under the ASSUMPTION of common-ancestry evolution.

[kiwimac]

Ah Socrates,

So you, I presume, believe in Biblical infallibility?

Kiwimac

[TheFiveSolas]

Socrates wrote:


Here's the difference -- the Bible is an eye-witness account, and the Flood was affirmed by Jesus Christ who proved His divine claims by rising from the dead. But the divergence claim is NOT based on eye-witness evidence, but on an INTERPRETATION of molecular similarities and mutation rates under the ASSUMPTION of common-ancestry evolution.


Exactly! :thumb:

I'm always amazed when otherwise intelligent people miss the important distinction between facts and interpretation of facts.

A relevant question is which worldview can offer a rational, comprehensive, and coherent interpretation of ALL facts, including the concept of "fact" itself.

Can the premise offered by evolutionary theory (i.e., millions of years of accidents with NO purpose or goal, only chance surviveability) provide a rational account of human freedom (i.e., in the sense that human thinking itself is NOT fully governed/determined by fixed physical laws), immaterial laws of logic, reliability of sense perception, rationality, etc.? It would seem these do not comport with the evolutionary premise stated above.

[Socrates]

Kiwimac:

Yes, since Jesus said "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). I totally affirm the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm)

[Tycho]

[i]Today @ 08:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45104#post45104)
Socrates:
Here's the difference -- the Bible is an eye-witness account, and the Flood was affirmed by Jesus Christ who proved His divine claims by rising from the dead. But the divergence claim is NOT based on eye-witness evidence, but on an INTERPRETATION of molecular similarities and mutation rates under the ASSUMPTION of common-ancestry evolution.
If the Genesis is an eye-witness account, then clearly the witness is unreliable--none of the supposed account (taken literally) regarding the early Earth or its life is actually backed up by evidence! Let me put it this way: the only way to verify a supposed account is with evidence. So regarding the early Earth, why not just go with the evidence anyway? If you believe that the resurrection of Jesus proves his divinity, you should believe that Luke Skywalker's incredible telekinetic powers proves his claim to being a Jedi Knight! Circular reasoning is a fallacy, and this is exactly why.

Socrates betrays his anti-scientific agenda further with his talk of "assumptions" and "interpretations." Clearly, if one tests a theory, that theory can hardly be said to be an assumption. Furthermore, predictions and observations are anything but "interpretations." For example, if I suspect that a disease is caused by a certain bacterium, I can predict that I would find this bacterium in the victims. This observation cannot be "interpretted" to show that the victim is instead demon-possessed, no matter how much Socrates wishes it could be so.

[Tycho]

Today @ 09:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45123#post45123)
TheFiveSolas:
A relevant question is which worldview can offer a rational, comprehensive, and coherent interpretation of ALL facts, including the concept of &quot;fact&quot; itself.

Can the premise offered by atomic theory (i.e., trillions of trillions of accidental collisions with NO purpose or goal, only chance) provide a rational account of human freedom (i.e., in the sense that human thinking itself is NOT fully governed/determined by fixed physical laws), immaterial laws of logic, reliability of sense perception, rationality, etc.? It would seem these do not comport with the atomic premise stated above.
Notice how your post works just as well when arguing against atomic theory as it does when arguing against evolutionary theory. In fact, it works even better since atoms more closely determine your thoughts than your ancestory!

So, do you believe your argument to be invalid, or will you attack atomic theory even more viciously than evolutionary theory?

[TheFiveSolas]

Tycho,
Atomic theory doesn't assert as a premise that the universe is purposeless, evolutionary theory does. Atomic theory doesn't assert that man is solely a product/construct of the physical world, evolutionary theory does.

In other words, my critique was against evolutionary theory as a philosophical theory.

By the way, if you would like to propose how human freedom can be rationally accounted for on evolutionary grounds (i.e., the philosophy of strict materialism) I'd love to hear it.

[kiwimac]

Couple of things then,

I affirm that the Wise Lord is capable of and, IMO, does use the laws of the universe in order to bring to fruition the things that are purposed by God. So I accept that the universe took more than 6 days to create / bring to be.

I do not accept the view that a religious world-view is superior to a 'scientific' one, IMO, God created the laws of the universe and is pleased when our understanding of them widens with the discovery of new information.

I believe the Bible to contain God's words, I do not accept it as infallible. There is simply too much in the way of purely human prejudices, bigotries and hatreds in the record which scripture is for me to uncritially accept it all as divinely inspired.

Kiwimac

[Tycho]

Yesterday @ 11:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45185#post45185)
TheFiveSolas:

Tycho,
Atomic theory doesn't assert as a premise that the universe is purposeless, evolutionary theory does.
One can find quite a bit more purpose in evolutionary theory than in atomic theory--namely, reproduction and adaptation. What's there in atomic theory? "Sharing one's electrons to fill valence layers" just doesn't sound as catchy.
Atomic theory doesn't assert that man is solely a product/construct of the physical world, evolutionary theory does.
Once again, I am at a complete loss as to how you could possibly misrepresent evolutionary theory so badly. Furthermore, it's easy to see that atomic theory leaves little room for immaterial souls in the human body. Where does evolutionary theory proclaim this? Only in the fevered imaginations of the anti-science crowd.
In other words, my critique was against evolutionary theory as a philosophical theory.
Evolution isn't a philosophical theory any more than atomic theory. If anything the supposed "philosophy" of atoms is much more devastating to Christian views than anything evolution could be used to support.
By the way, if you would like to propose how human freedom can be rationally accounted for on evolutionary grounds (i.e., the philosophy of strict materialism) I'd love to hear it.
The philosophy of strict materialism, if I understand your term correctly, applies to atomic theory and evolutionary theory equally. Of course, since atoms have much more to do with "human freedom," or whatever term you wish to make up, you should be arguing against them even before you consider evolution. While I despair every time I see an anti-science poster, I would be emboldened if they would at least be honest about their supernatural bias. Instead, they pretend as if evolution were the only thing they wanted to tear down!

[Socrates]

Kiwimac:
I affirm that the Wise Lord is capable of and, IMO, does use the laws of the universe in order to bring to fruition the things that are purposed by God. So I accept that the universe took more than 6 days to create / bring to be. A misunderstanding of scientific laws. They are not things that cause anything, but are DESCRIPTIONS of observed regularity. They have no ontological reality, so talk about "using" them is misleading. The laws are really like the outline of a coastline on a map -- the map is likewise a description of the coastline; it did not CAUSE the shape of the coastline.

The orthodox view is that natural laws are a description of the way God acts to sustains His creation in a regular, repeatable way (cf. Col. 1:16). Miracles are the way God acts in special ways. Creation was one week of special acts. Whereas because creation is finished, now He acts in ways we describe as natural laws, except for a few distinct events where He acted miraculously and told us He did!

Because God has informed us of times when He acted miraculously, He is not being misleading if misotheists ignore His Word and ASSUME that there has been no miraculous activity. Rather, the misotheists deceive themselves!
I do not accept the view that a religious world-view is superior to a 'scientific' one, IMO, God created the laws of the universe and is pleased when our understanding of them widens with the discovery of new information.But this has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with history. THat's why I'll accept a reliable eye-witness account like Genesis over circumstantial evidence interpreted by fallible people who weren't there. Alternatively, it's the distinction between operational and origins science www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Naturalism
I believe the Bible to contain God's words, I do not accept it as infallible. There is simply too much in the way of purely human prejudices, bigotries and hatreds in the record which scripture is for me to uncritially accept it all as divinely inspired.Another ipse dixit. What this really means is, "I'll do what's right in my own ideas, and pick and choose bits of Scripture I happen to agree with."

[Tycho]

Today @ 12:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45196#post45196)
Socrates:
Because God has informed us of times when He acted miraculously, He is not being misleading if misotheists ignore His Word and ASSUME that there has been no miraculous activity. Rather, the misotheists deceive themselves!
By now, I despair of Socrates ever understanding that he is the one making assumptions while scientists are the ones testing concepts. What drives this man to eviscerate his own credibility on message forums like this?

I do not accept the view that a religious world-view is superior to a 'scientific' one, IMO, God created the laws of the universe and is pleased when our understanding of them widens with the discovery of new information.But this has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with history. Alternatively, it's the distinction between operational and origins science www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Naturalism
The idea that science works on past events as well as present conditions is another concept lost on Socrates. I was skeptical as to how anyone could possibly believe that events that happen even a millisecond in the past are forever lost to scientific investigation. Yet here's Socrates, apparently denying the efficacy of science in his quest to save his God of the Gaps.

Another ipse dixit. What this really means is, &quot;I'll do what's right in my own ideas, and pick and choose bits of Scripture I happen to agree with.&quot;
I take it that Socrates believes that there are really windows in the sky through which the rain pours and that the Earth truly is flat.

Perhaps it's time to find a couple of Landover Baptist's Bible Quizzes and see if Socrates does any picking and choosing of his own.

[Woman]

It's that all-or-nothing attitude that I find so counter-productive. Science, mathematics, music, art, psychology, theology and philosophy are not competeting studies. They are simply different ways, different methods and ways of thinking about things, naming things and organizing them, to help us understand the world we live in and our place in it.

Isn't it just possible that what we are able to see, hear, touch, smell, taste and understand is only a tiny bit of what is "here?"

That 1.00% or 99.999% is not known to us because of the limitations of human comprehension?

There isn't any kind of agreement on what role a supreme-being or Diety or God might play in the kosmos. There certainly is NO agreement on the nature or essence of that entity. And we're only fooling ourselves if we think we have a handle of what is True or Right, EXCEPT to the extent of our own understanding.

I believe in evolution because I see evidence of it. I believe in God because I have an intuitive sense about that. I have had direct experiences of something transcendent. It is not the God of Genesis who I think is too small, too much like a man only with super-powers. If one of the existing wisdom traditions does work for someone, great! Consider yourself blessed if this belief helps you to grow spiritually and to manifest Love.

But don't scoot your little portable box over by me, hop on it and start pontificating. I'll talk all day and night to you about what you believe and why, but the minute you presume to say that your understanding of life is somehow more apt, correct or moral than mine, simply because it comes wrapped in tradition and doctrine handed down from someone else's understanding...you lose me.

I'm fascinated with the Bible because I think there is a lot of truth in it and a great deal of beauty. But it's not my map. And I'm also interested in other world-views that have evolved. Hah! There's that word again. Yep, I think we evolve individually, we evolve as communities, cultures, species, spirits...and beyond.

I'm just not ready to settle.

***Woman steps daintily off her soap-box, tucks the folding legs under and carries it out the door***

[Socrates]

Tycho can persist with his ipse dixit mode of argumentation all he likes. But he clearly has no idea about the huge difference between origins and operational science, mainly because he's just a dilettante with no understanding of science.

And his understanding of Scripture is even less, since he still harps on about the obvious metaphor of windows in the heaven. Well, obvious to every Bible author and every commentator since he couldn't find ONE who would take that hyper-literally, except in misotheistic gutter sites. And if he still wants to assert that there is flat-earth teaching in the Bible, then he should take on the article What Shape is the Earth In? (http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_03_01.html)

[kiwimac]

Today @ 07:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45196#post45196)
Socrates:

Kiwimac:
I affirm that the Wise Lord is capable of and, IMO, does use the laws of the universe in order to bring to fruition the things that are purposed by God. So I accept that the universe took more than 6 days to create / bring to be. A misunderstanding of scientific laws. They are not things that cause anything, but are DESCRIPTIONS of observed regularity. They have no ontological reality, so talk about &quot;using&quot; them is misleading. The laws are really like the outline of a coastline on a map -- the map is likewise a description of the coastline; it did not CAUSE the shape of the coastline.

The orthodox view is that natural laws are a description of the way God acts to sustains His creation in a regular, repeatable way (cf. Col. 1:16). Miracles are the way God acts in special ways. Creation was one week of special acts. Whereas because creation is finished, now He acts in ways we describe as natural laws, except for a few distinct events where He acted miraculously and told us He did!

Because God has informed us of times when He acted miraculously, He is not being misleading if misotheists ignore His Word and ASSUME that there has been no miraculous activity. Rather, the misotheists deceive themselves!
I do not accept the view that a religious world-view is superior to a 'scientific' one, IMO, God created the laws of the universe and is pleased when our understanding of them widens with the discovery of new information.But this has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with history. THat's why I'll accept a reliable eye-witness account like Genesis over circumstantial evidence interpreted by fallible people who weren't there. Alternatively, it's the distinction between operational and origins science www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Naturalism
I believe the Bible to contain God's words, I do not accept it as infallible. There is simply too much in the way of purely human prejudices, bigotries and hatreds in the record which scripture is for me to uncritially accept it all as divinely inspired.Another ipse dixit.

What this really means is, &quot;I'll do what's right in my own ideas, and pick and choose bits of Scripture I happen to agree with.&quot;

Ah, Thank you Spartacus, you obviously are able to read my mind and know me much better than I know myself. I really enjoy the deep knowledge you share of others, Caractacus!

Kiwimac

[Tycho]

Today @ 03:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45234#post45234)
Socrates:
Tycho can persist with his ipse dixit mode of argumentation all he likes. But he clearly has no idea about the huge difference between origins and operational science, mainly because he's just a dilettante with no understanding of science.
You think that science should be replaced with religion and then have the nerve to assert that I have no understanding of science? Are you even speaking English, or is all this rancor the result of some horrible translations? Perhaps we should start building a "Socrates-to-English" dictionary?

And his understanding of Scripture is even less, since he still harps on about the obvious metaphor of windows in the heaven.
You're the one who wants to pick-and-choose what scripture to believe. Oddly enough, you still want to accuse others of picking-and-choosing.

Well, obvious to every Bible author and every commentator since he couldn't find ONE who would take that hyper-literally, except in misotheistic gutter sites.
Gee, you're saying that you don't need to take every detail of the Bible literally?! Wow! That's just what so many evolutionists have been saying all along.

And if he still wants to assert that there is flat-earth teaching in the Bible, then he should take on the article What Shape is the Earth In? (http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_03_01.html)
Hey, I'm not the one who thinks that the Bible needs to be interpretted literally.

[Solly]

Today @ 07:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45196#post45196)
Socrates:
But this has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with history. THat's why I'll accept a reliable eye-witness account like Genesis over circumstantial evidence interpreted by fallible people who weren't there.

Even though I am a Special Creationist, I have to admit that on face value the above comment is rather funny. Eyewitnesses? To Creation? At the very least Moses was given understanding of the matter, possible relying on previous written and oral records. But eyewitness? People who were there? Really, that is asking rather too much for our agnostic posters to accept on face value. We understand by faith that God made that which is from that which was not. That is quite a categorical statement, and I have always had trouble with Creatin Science Evangelism that seems to appeal to the intellect to get people to accept that what is otherwise the foolishness of the cross is not really foolishness after all.

On the basis of the inspiration of Scripture, we have an account given to us of God's creation of the world which we believe to be trustworthy. However, it is not a text book, and since Scientific method did not arise until fairly recently, it is not an acceptably detailed account (ie, did the animals get up out of the soil, ala The Magician's Nephew, or pop out of thin air).

But I'm sorry, the idea of eyewitnesses to creation just makes me chuckle.

[Socrates]

Solly

Do you believe "All Scripture is God-breathed"? Do you believe that God was a witness to Creation? Need I say more? Or should I explain the role of axioms behind all propositional systems?

[Socrates]

Tycho spouts:
Gee, you're saying that you don't need to take every detail of the Bible literally?! Wow!Since when did any creationist say we did!! If you had bothered to listen, you would have known that I accept the grammatical-historical approach, which recognises history as history and poetry as poetry. And I've explained why Genesis is history. The major creationist organizations have always said so too. It's only dishonest misotheists and their churchian allies who set up this STRAW MAN! :dufus:

[Solly]

Today @ 11:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45252#post45252)
Socrates:

Solly

Do you believe &quot;All Scripture is God-breathed&quot;? Do you believe that God was a witness to Creation? Need I say more? Or should I explain the role of axioms behind all propositional systems?

NO, you need not do that. But you did not address anything I said.
yes God is an "eyewitness", but the account as written hardly counts as an eyewitness record. I don't think the law courts would be interested in my turning in my statement in poetry? There is a big difference between saying "X" is a witness, and "The REcord" is an eyewitness account of what exactly happened. The Bible is first an foremost a religious document (a truism I know), and the Genesis account is written with that in view, as well as having its canonical place, and structural place (ie, re the end of Revelation).
Since I do not accept the dispensationalist claim to treat scripture "literally" without caveat, I find the same applies to the Scientific Creationist approach. It is all so black and white, treating scripture as if it where a newspaper account, or a field trip report. The whole thing strikes me as too simplisitc by half, and, as pointed out, consistantly ignores what I have already pointed out: by faith we understand...

There is a gulf between saying, God is the eyewitness, and, the record as it stands is an "eyewitness" account, as opposed to a construct (which, btw does not undermine the nature, authority and inspiration of scripture.)

[Tycho]

Today @ 04:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45253#post45253)
Socrates:

Tycho spouts:
Gee, you're saying that you don't need to take every detail of the Bible literally?! Wow!Since when did any creationist say we did!! If you had bothered to listen, you would have known that I accept the grammatical-historical approach, which recognises history as history and poetry as poetry. And I've explained why Genesis is history.
Oh yes. It's history because the creationists really wish it were history. The poetry must be poetry because otherwise the creationists would look even more silly! It's all so clear and well-defined now.

The major creationist organizations have always said so too. It's only dishonest misotheists and their churchian allies who set up this STRAW MAN! :dufus:
Look out for the churchian allies! Instead of interpretting history as history like the creationists do, they interpret history as history--in a completely different manner that actually accepts science. Crazy.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 07:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45196#post45196)
Socrates:
Because God has informed us of times when He acted miraculously, He is not being misleading if misotheists ignore His Word and ASSUME that there has been no miraculous activity.
'Misotheists', ooh, what clever use of language. We're 'God haters' because we don't believe in God.

In the delusional mind of Socrates, I also hate pixies and unicorns.

C'mon Socrates. Admit to being the truth-hater that you really are.

Paul

[kiwimac]

Today @ 02:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45298#post45298)
lordsnooty:


'Misotheists', ooh, what clever use of language. We're 'God haters' because we don't believe in God.

In the delusional mind of Socrates, I also hate pixies and unicorns.

C'mon Socrates. Admit to being the truth-hater that you really are.

Paul

Now, Now, LordSnooty,

You know as well as I do that Sophocles will admit to no such thing because he is certain in his own mind that he is right.

Please do not distract Sphlenoid by insisting that he contemplate other world-views (NOTE, Steroid, NO mention of Islam here either) Once his mind is set, its set! like concrete!

Kiwimac

[TheFiveSolas]

Tycho:

Your attempt at evading my challenge is quite revealing. My original challenge was for you (or any evolutionist) to provide a rational (and scientific) account for something you take for granted, namely the ability to make free choices as to how you think and act.

You wrote:

Once again, I am at a complete loss as to how you could possibly misrepresent evolutionary theory so badly.


This was your response to my assertion that evolutionary theory takes as one of its foundational axioms the idea (belief) that the variety of species (including their various functions) can be explained solely by means of physical processes/laws. If you deny this, as your post seems to imply, then you would need to defend the view that evolutionary theory does NOT preclude (rule out) non-physical (SUPERnatural) explanations.

You continued:

Furthermore, it's easy to see that atomic theory leaves little room for immaterial souls in the human body. Where does evolutionary theory proclaim this? Only in the fevered imaginations of the anti-science crowd.


First, I've never invoked "immaterial souls" as a means of defending the concept of free will/choice.

Second, I'm not "anti-science". Secular historian and philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn pointed out a few decades ago (in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) that when one group challenges the prevailing scientific paradigm they are quickly labeled as "anti-science" and are said to "not be doing science at all." This tactic is indeed CONVENIENT but is also fallacious.

Now, if you wish to defend human freedom by means of "atomic theory" by all means I'd love to hear it. In reality, this attempted diversion of yours is nothing more than a red herring. My original point still stands, purely physical laws cannot account for human freedom of will/choice.

I'll continue to wait for a scientific defense of human free will/choice.

[Socrates]

Tycho continues with his willing ignorance of what creationists believe (just like his willing rejection of God despite the evidence):
Oh yes. It's history because the creationists really wish it were history. The poetry must be poetry because otherwise the creationists would look even more silly! It's all so clear and well-defined now.It always has been, but Tycho doesn't want to be confused by the fact, and same with his churchian ally Katipomac. Genesis is history because it has all the syntactical markers of history. Psalms are poetry because they have all the grammatical markers of Hebrew poetry, e.g. parallelism. So it would be far more honest to say, "Genesis is written as history but I don't believe it" than "I believe Genesis but it's poetry".

For those who ARE interested to learn, see Should Genesis be taken literally? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1231.asp).

[Woman]

Socrates:
Genesis is history because it has all the syntactical markers of history. Psalms are poetry because they have all the grammatical markers of Hebrew poetry, e.g. parallelism. So it would be far more honest to say, "Genesis is written as history but I don't believe it" than "I believe Genesis but it's poetry".

For those who ARE interested to learn, see Should Genesis be taken literally?.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1231.asp


I read the cited article in Answers in Genesis. I quite agree that the style of writing in Genesis is not poetic. The writing is clearly in the historical style. The article makes the case and uses examples of various writing methods used in scripture. Professor James Barr, a Hebrew scholar from Oxford supports this, citing the various word structure and syntax seen in different kinds of Biblical writing. I also agree that i't more straight-forward, perhaps to say - "okay, it's written historically, but I don't believe it."

It's unlikely that most scholars, like Dr. James Barr do either.

[Socrates]

Woman:

Yes, we know Barr doesn't believe it. That's the whole point!!, and AiG has made it many times! He is a hostile witness, i.e. he is strongly anti-biblical, yet he states very plainly what the Hebrew texts shows about the author's intended meaning. In context, this was in the context of refuting Tycho's ilk who try to claim that Genesis is really poetry.

However, Jesus DID believe it (Mt. 19:3-6, Mark 10:6-9, Luke 17:26-27), and there is not the slightest evidence that Jews of His day treated it as non-historical. I'd rather believe Jesus than Barr or you.

[Tycho]

Yesterday @ 08:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45850#post45850)
TheFiveSolas:
Tycho:

Your attempt at evading my challenge is quite revealing. My original challenge was for you (or any evolutionist) to provide a rational (and scientific) account for something you take for granted, namely the ability to make free choices as to how you think and act.
You created a strawman theory for the purposes of rejecting the actual theory. Your challenge has little to do with evolution or even science.

This was your response to my assertion that evolutionary theory takes as one of its foundational axioms the idea (belief) that the variety of species (including their various functions) can be explained solely by means of physical processes/laws.
Every scientific theory has to explain phenomena in a testable manner.

If you deny this, as your post seems to imply, then you would need to defend the view that evolutionary theory does NOT preclude (rule out) non-physical (SUPERnatural) explanations.
While science has no use for supernatural (i.e. non-testable) explanations, it can't rule them out because of the impossibility of testing the supernatural.

First, I've never invoked &quot;immaterial souls&quot; as a means of defending the concept of free will/choice.
However, you attacked evolution because you believed that evolutionary theory asserts "that man is solely a product/construct of the physical world," thus implying that you thought that it should include some immaterial parts.

Second, I'm not &quot;anti-science&quot;. Secular historian and philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn pointed out a few decades ago (in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) that when one group challenges the prevailing scientific paradigm they are quickly labeled as &quot;anti-science&quot; and are said to &quot;not be doing science at all.&quot; This tactic is indeed CONVENIENT but is also fallacious.
Except creationists in general attack evolution for perceived flaws that apply equally to every branch of science. They refuse to use the scientific method. They quote-mine and intentionally ignore inconvenient evidence. These aren't the actions of people who want to improve science--these are the actions of people who want to destroy theories for ideological reasons.

Now, if you wish to defend human freedom by means of &quot;atomic theory&quot; by all means I'd love to hear it. In reality, this attempted diversion of yours is nothing more than a red herring. My original point still stands, purely physical laws cannot account for human freedom of will/choice.
This "attempted diversion" merely shows that your objections to evolution better apply to atomic theory. Indeed, the objection applies to all science. If you'd care to argue this in a philosophic manner, then I suppose you could.

[Tycho]

Yesterday @ 09:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45857#post45857)
Socrates:

Tycho continues with his willing ignorance of what creationists believe (just like his willing rejection of God despite the evidence):
Oh yes. It's history because the creationists really wish it were history. The poetry must be poetry because otherwise the creationists would look even more silly! It's all so clear and well-defined now.
Too bad you're unable to even supply a theory of creationism. It's pretty difficult to have any sort of evidence with no theory for the evidence to apply to. My representation of creationists comes directly from people such as yourself, Socrates. It's pretty difficult to misrepresent the creationists in this case.

It always has been, but Tycho doesn't want to be confused by the fact, and same with his churchian ally Katipomac.
Sorry Socrates, but you don't get to declare facts by fiat.

Genesis is history because it has all the syntactical markers of history. Psalms are poetry because they have all the grammatical markers of Hebrew poetry, e.g. parallelism. So it would be far more honest to say, &quot;Genesis is written as history but I don't believe it&quot; than &quot;I believe Genesis but it's poetry&quot;.

For those who ARE interested to learn, see Should Genesis be taken literally? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1231.asp).
Are you capable of making your own argument, or will you simply spam the board with AiG links?

[Woman]

Socrates:
Genesis is history because it has all the syntactical markers of history. Psalms are poetry because they have all the grammatical markers of Hebrew poetry, e.g. parallelism. So it would be far more honest to say, "Genesis is written as history but I don't believe it" than "I believe Genesis but it's poetry".

Well, you ready Soc?

I think I have to agree with you that the authors of Genesis meant it as history, indeed believed it was history. Biblical scholars agree that the scriptual style of Genesis is historic.

Phooey, I woulda agreed with that long ago.



:teeth:

[Socrates]

:eek: [Socrates falls off his chair in shock!] :joy:

[Dr.GH]

try to post the link to the Jack Horner email again? The link I looked at was to the Bible and Science page on Ken Hams "Revised Answers Book." I have also not been able to find the quoted email by any of my search engins. I would like to avoid bothering Horner about it.

Thanks

[tgamble]

Today @ 12:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Dr.GH:

try to post the link to the Jack Horner email again? Thanks

It's on the first page of this thread.

[QED]

03-27-2003 @ 08:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Woman:

Socrates:


Well, you ready Soc?

I think I have to agree with you that the authors of Genesis meant it as history, indeed believed it was history. Biblical scholars agree that the scriptual style of Genesis is historic.

Phooey, I woulda agreed with that long ago.

:teeth:

This would be bad news for inerrantists. Fortunately for them, the doctrine of Genesis historicity is a derived interpretation, and is not derived sola scriptura. Many inerrantists, and their cousins who believe in Biblical authority (over inerrancy) hold have been able to show good reasons (Biblical and extra-Biblical) to interpet Genesis as poetry or metaphor.

The YEC inerrantist group objects to the much of the evidence for a poetic or metaphorical interpretation of Genesis on the basis that it comes from science, but they apply exactly the same hermeneutic in understanding other passages of the Bible, so their objection apparently lacks enough merit for them to employ it consistently.

[AdvocatDiaboli]

03-26-2003 @ 03:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socrates:
Here's the difference -- the Bible is an eye-witness account, and the Flood was affirmed by Jesus Christ who proved His divine claims by rising from the dead.

Someone must have said this to you before, but here goes.
1) According to numerous eye-witness accounts: Elvis Presley is still alive, space aliens area among us, Loch Ness monster is real, there is a Bigfoot in the woods, Uri Geller can bend spoons with the power of his mind, etc.
2) Sometimes people tell lies to gain power, authority and influence.

[Vorkosigan]

Second, I'm not "anti-science". Secular historian and philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn pointed out a few decades ago (in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) that when one group challenges the prevailing scientific paradigm they are quickly labeled as "anti-science" and are said to "not be doing science at all." This tactic is indeed CONVENIENT but is also fallacious.

Really? What page is that? My copy doesn't appear to have it. Are you sure you have the right book?

Now, if you wish to defend human freedom by means of "atomic theory" by all means I'd love to hear it. In reality, this attempted diversion of yours is nothing more than a red herring. My original point still stands, purely physical laws cannot account for human freedom of will/choice.

First, demonstrate that humans have freedom of will. Large numbers of cognitive scientists and psychologists might disagree with you.

I'll continue to wait for a scientific defense of human free will/choice.

I suggest you obtain a copy of The Adapted Mind and read it. Discussions of agency (not freedom of choice/will) in human behavior are quite common in many scientific fields. For evolutionary psychology see something like The Biology and Psychology of Moral Agency by William Andrew Rottschaefer,
or Wright and Walther's The Moral Animal. I think it is highly amusing to see you vomit forth challenges at a field you have not yet bothered to familiarize yourself with in even the most cursory way. Have you read any of the basic texts in fields like sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, or human behavioral ecology? The "challenge" you present was asked and answered. It is up to you to deal with the arguments as presented.

Vorkosigan