Jack777's History of the Biosphere [Archive]

View Full Version : Jack777's History of the Biosphere

rogero

February 2nd 2005, 08:01 PM

Anyone who has read through Jack777's copious threads realizes that:

1) he is a strict Biblical literalist or inerrantist, a fortiori a Fundamentalist (as opposed to say Missouri Synod Lutherans, who are inerrantists but generally do not consider themselves Fundamentalists in the American sense.)

2) he is NOT a YEC. He has vocational background in geology, in particular paleo-palynology (the study of spores, pollen, and other microfossils). He has experience studying sedimentary basins and whatnot -- but the upshot is that he accepts that Earth is very old, in particular somewhere in the 1-1.5 billion year range -- which, while not in line with consensus science, is obscenely older than the most liberal YEC. Presumably, the he accepts an ancient Earth based on his geological background -- to wit, from observable data.

3) he admits that life on Earth (the biosphere) is in the neighborhood of a billion years old. Again, I presume this is based on his professional experience in palynology.

4) he is vehemently opposed to (biological) evolution, mainly (it appears) on ideological and theological grounds. He has made many pejorative statements against evolution and has made numerous allusions to its contribution to its harmful effects on the cultural philosophy of many evil people (Hitler, e.g,)

5) he is a self-stated "catastrophist."

Does anyone out there find any inconsistency in his points of view -- or more particularly is there some question that begs to be asked?

Well, the question that leaps to my mind, and which I've asked Jack numerous times, is: What is your view of the history of the biosphere? Has there been any significant change over the past billion years (your figure -- consensus science has it lots longer than that)?

That's all. I thought it was a very simple question. So far I have not seen an answer, although perhaps I missed it in the morass of the prodigality of the threads Jack has spawned.

If I have missed his answer, please link me to the post, and my apologies to all. If not, perhaps Jack can fill us in this brand new venue. In any case, perhaps this is good place to discuss the non-YEC Biblical Inerrantist position?

God's Peace,

Roger

P.S. I really am curious -- believe it or not, I'm not trying to be a nasty troll.

grmorton

February 2nd 2005, 11:26 PM

2) he is NOT a YEC. He has vocational background in geology, in particular paleo-palynology (the study of spores, pollen, and other microfossils). He has experience studying sedimentary basins and whatnot -- ...

Given Jack's utter lack of knowledge of geology and even microstratigraphy, I seriously doubt that the above is actually true. Usually one shows more competence in knowing what geologists think after having spent a few years actually doing geology.

Sorry, if this is a digression from the question Jack should answer, tell a moderator and they can remove it.

Jack, has there been any change in the biosphere? do you know what the biosphere is?

Constantine

February 3rd 2005, 01:08 AM

rogero

February 3rd 2005, 07:27 AM

although I realise your intentions are good....

Is trying to pin down an individual member a good use of time? Maybe instead a thread where people who disagree with the consensus view can tell what their views are and why. Instead of singling out Jack.

Oh well, just a thought. I understand your concern about time. Thank you. However, Jack's view appears to be unique, and I'd like to hear it. I've never heard of a person who is that "old Earth" and that Fundamentalist. I imagine there are others here who would also like to hear Jack's view on how a billion year old biosphere could occur without some biological evolution. A billion years is long time, and lots of stuff should happen in a biosphere over that period.

I feel that pursuing this thread would be a better use of time than reading through a few dozen more new threads on why evolution is bad theology and philosophy. And about singling out individuals -- tell that to Jack about his opinion of George Murphy in another thread -- talk about a bad use of time. :wink:

Jack777

February 3rd 2005, 11:40 AM

rogero

February 3rd 2005, 12:31 PM

What exactly do you want to know about the biosphere?

Green stuff was green and stuff not green was not green. Any details beyond that, ask specifically. You seem to think I have a problem with reality, I don't. I appreciate the fact I would be considered a Fundamentalist and the fact I know something about the rock record is unique to some.

Basic questions, for example ---

Has the biosphere been in continuous existence over this period or have there been total extinctions and re-establishments? Has the biosphere been stable with respect to taxa over this entire period (or between total extinctions if that's what you believe occured)? Was there natural change among taxonomic groups? I.e., were all the taxa living a billion years ago living today, and if not -- why? How do you explain the observed change in the fossil record over time?

Seriously, what is it that you are curious about. I tried to tell you about time and you don't believe me, so now you want me to tell you other stuff you will not believe, for what?

Sorry, I thought it was obvious what I am curious about. What do you mean about the time stuff? What did you tell me that I don't believe? As I recall, all you said is that you didn't know how you came up with your 1-1.5 Ga Earth and that you "could care less." Is that your answer? Is this going to be your same answer for the biosphere?

I'm very curious about views on origins that integrate science and faith. Yours seems like a very different one, and since you have geology background, I thought you'd be willing to share your scientific views of the history of Earth. The science-faith interface involves science as well as faith. If you accept that Earth is very old and life existed for a long time, then you should have some reasoned conjecture about Earth history -- the rhythm of the rocks and life as it were. If not, and all you want to talk about is your faith and theology, then you should be on a philosophy/theology forum.

I do not mind being "singled out," makes me feel kind a special. Gotsta go now.

If you don't mind, then please try to give us an answer. :wink:

Jack777

February 3rd 2005, 01:55 PM

I have answered all of your questions, but you must not have read them. A month or so ago, I introduced what I thought about extinction and speciation and cited a publication that I found at the Library of Congress dated 1921 or 1922. Someone replied they knew all about that, so I thought fine, so I left things as far as I had gone. I think it is strange that research I did while in D.C. and Reston over several years was common knowledge without having to do the same work I did. I mentioned something about the Shiva Hypothesis which is derivative of the one I just mentioned and did not name it specifically and someone assumed I had never heard of it and I have had it available to people on one of my web pages for 2 or 3 years. I have talked about time a couple of times. I am beginning to think you are pulling my leg.

So, let's start over.

Very basically, the earth has been here a long time.

There have been mass extinctions and then speciation has started again. There is ample evidence that extinctions have been caused by Near Earth Objects that have hit the earth.

Has the biosphere been stable?

No.

Even when there have not been NEO's that have affected the earth systemically, the biosphere was not stable. Humans have a written record in the form of petroglyphs, art, symbols, written proto-language, written language, and by other means that covers a period that accounts for about 8,000 years that we are sure of. There is evidence that pushes that back several thousand years, but academia is not ready for that yet. In terms of Geologic time, this brief moment we know about from this record is small. During the past 12,000 years there have been about 12-13 NEO events of varying magnitude. The radiation alone has had detrimental mutagenic effects.

The last hit that was major caused the accumulated shelf material along the North American Plate to slump. Places above sea level were below the surface within seconds at a depth of 2,000 to 3,500 feet. Something like a nuclear winter envisioned by Sagan et alia ensued.

Regional events that only affected Asia Minor, parts of Africa, and Asia and then a region in China for instance affected humans for only about 150 to 400 years, depending on where they lived when it hit.

The solar system is heating up right now. The planets are heating up from the inside out. This is being seen in its effects worldwide.

The convection cells under the crust are likely being affected as well. The crustal gliding that is slow and makes the crust behave similar to a plastic (plastic deformation versus brittle failure) has a certain point where continental margins could move if triggered. Are we 1,000 years away, 1,000,000 away? I don't know. However, this kind of thing goes on all the time throughout geologic history.

Those are simple examples. If I am yet once again not clear in what I have stated or you want to criticize, have at it.

As far as uninviting me from posting here because you do not understand the subjects you call philosophy, go stick it. This is a cosmogony forum. Look up that word.

rogero

February 3rd 2005, 04:47 PM

I have answered all of your questions, but you must not have read them.

I'm sorry if I missed your answers. I don't remember seeing any, but they could have been embedded in some of your copious posts.

A month or so ago, I introduced what I thought about extinction and speciation and cited a publication that I found at the Library of Congress dated 1921 or 1922. Someone replied they knew all about that, so I thought fine, so I left things as far as I had gone. I think it is strange that research I did while in D.C. and Reston over several years was common knowledge without having to do the same work I did. I mentioned something about the Shiva Hypothesis which is derivative of the one I just mentioned and did not name it specifically and someone assumed I had never heard of it and I have had it available to people on one of my web pages for 2 or 3 years. I have talked about time a couple of times. I am beginning to think you are pulling my leg.

Exactly what webpage are you referring to? Did you ever mention your webpage here before? Could you kindly provide us with a hyperlink?

Interesting that you refer to speciation...

So, let's start over.

Thanks, this is what I was asking for!

Very basically, the earth has been here a long time.

There have been mass extinctions and then speciation has started again. There is ample evidence that extinctions have been caused by Near Earth Objects that have hit the earth.

Speciation? Isn't that biological evolution? In fact mass extinction followed by proliferation into vacated and new niches is exactly what biological evolution is all about.

Point of information -- mass extinction is not that same as total extinction, right?

Has the biosphere been stable?

No.

Ok, that's a confirmation of your previous paragraph.

Even when there have not been NEO's that have affected the earth systemically, the biosphere was not stable. Humans have a written record in the form of petroglyphs, art, symbols, written proto-language, written language, and by other means that covers a period that accounts for about 8,000 years that we are sure of. There is evidence that pushes that back several thousand years, but academia is not ready for that yet. In terms of Geologic time, this brief moment we know about from this record is small. During the past 12,000 years there have been about 12-13 NEO events of varying magnitude. The radiation alone has had detrimental mutagenic effects.

The last hit that was major caused the accumulated shelf material along the North American Plate to slump. Places above sea level were below the surface within seconds at a depth of 2,000 to 3,500 feet. Something like a nuclear winter envisioned by Sagan et alia ensued.

Regional events that only affected Asia Minor, parts of Africa, and Asia and then a region in China for instance affected humans for only about 150 to 400 years, depending on where they lived when it hit.

Interesting ideas. So these catastrophes have occured in recorded human history? Why don't you think academia is ready to know that human history can be pushed back several thousand years? Frankly, you've lost me here, but maybe I'm just one of those academics who isn't ready. Sorry, but this sounds a bit quackish to me.

The solar system is heating up right now. The planets are heating up from the inside out. This is being seen in its effects worldwide.

How do you know this? Do you have references? Is this your own hypothesis from research and/or calculations?

The convection cells under the crust are likely being affected as well. The crustal gliding that is slow and makes the crust behave similar to a plastic (plastic deformation versus brittle failure) has a certain point where continental margins could move if triggered. Are we 1,000 years away, 1,000,000 away? I don't know. However, this kind of thing goes on all the time throughout geologic history.

Those are simple examples. If I am yet once again not clear in what I have stated or you want to criticize, have at it.

Interesting conjectures. Do you discuss these more throughly on your website(s)?

As far as uninviting me from posting here because you do not understand the subjects you call philosophy, go stick it. This is a cosmogony forum. Look up that word.
Well, in spite of the concentration on the impending catastrophe, you have explained enough of your view of the history of the biosphere to give me a general idea where you're coming from.

It seems that you accept the basic process of what we call biological evolution. What is really puzzling me now is why you opposed evolution so vehemently on philosophical/theological grounds when you seem to accept it on scientific grounds?

Thanks for the clarification of the science, but now I'm more confused than ever on the philosophy. Perhaps your website will be helpful.

R

rogero

February 3rd 2005, 05:22 PM

Jack, I see you made a reference to your webpage in another thread. I was informed of this by PM -- thanks S! :smile:

http://www.eyeofgodbluestar.com/

I shall have to take a look at it one of these days...

Jack777

February 4th 2005, 11:44 AM

The web site is just a couple of pages and does not explain much of anything. Look at the references. They represent sources for many pages I have made and have not uploaded yet.

What I mean to say about pushing the date back, and I knew it would sound quackish, is that there are "official" positions held on these things. As a scientist you must know that Wegner was thought of as a nut and it was heresy to suggest there was anything like continental drift in a Geology classroom years ago. That is not some conspiracy theory, it is how we are cautious about what I call "arm waving." Finally, there was some computer modeling and other things that made it palpable for people to believe there is continental drift. Same thing with catastrophism. Alvarez et alia in 1980 had the goods on the KT boundary and got by with publishing facts that recognize there have been NEO collisions in earth history. In 2002 oil people discovered the Silver Pit asteroid, the other main chunk of the NEO that wiped out most of life on the planet. It split. They found evidence in the North Sea as offshore drilling was being logged.

Mass extinction is not the same as total extinction of all life. We have come close though.

The minor NEO collisions chnged things. There is a painting from the 1100's that indicate (and correlates with data) people suffered radiation effects on a local basis in central Europe. They kill a lot of people, one time almost everyone.

The Bible is rife with information that says it happened before and will happen again. That is part of the danger of figuring the Bible is a lot of hooey as some TE people do. I know that is not reflective of Faith, just purposeful blindness.

Speciation is not the whole story of evolution and I mean it in a specific way, a scientific way devoid of speculation. I prefer facts. Proliferation of species after almost all of life is wiped out takes place rapidly (in terms of time, just a few million years).

Solar system- planetary heating up is well-known to some people. A guy (astrophysicist) in Rochester announced proof from research in 2002 and it can be confrmed by going to my references and following links. The news link from a science journal online may not work anymore but I think I have enough links to find it. Oddly his announcement was coincident with the Silver Pit find. Yes, geophysicists were involved in finding it. There is a guy that records info from 1843 on that correlates in Helsinki. Has to do with solar flares, wolfgangian cycles, solar radiation, geomagnetic radiation and the like.

I will try to answer the rest later, gotsta go.

Jack777

February 4th 2005, 04:38 PM

rogero,

Here is an example of what I mean in relation to things changing slowly I put together with you in mind that takes a bit of the quackishness out of what I am saying here. I can think of other examples but this relates to the Bible and science, two different views that clash unnecessarily at times.

The following excerpt from Contra Mundum on archaeological dating methods is illustrative of the problem with many in academia who are eager to discredit the validity of the Bible. This includes those within the academic community of the seminaries. It turns out that the dates derived from the Bible for events are accurate and the dates from the Egyptian records are flawed. The author of the book, Centuries of Darkness proposes why. He also provides ample evidence based on non-biased research. While I am sure many are familiar with this, I am posting a few snippets for those that are not. The book is out of print now, but might be obtained used. The reasons for the inaccuracy is the ignorance that there were catastrophic events which changed everything. This area of the world suffered a hit by a near earth object which triggered the dark ages of 4,000 years ago.

Many schools of learning automatically discount the witness of the Bible because it is the Bible. This is due in part because the Bible categorically states God created the universe. It is the only document that does so and sticks to the story. While cosmogony, cosmology, and theogony hinge upon ancient records for some, it is tragic that educators in seminaries and universities prefer a record, any record over that of the Bible. This was and is a favorite sport, this pursuit to discredit the Bible. Many in seminaries hate a fideistic and literary approach to the study of the Bible and it shows in the people they field that teach congregations that the Bible cannot be trusted, either openly or subtly. Being faithful is a bad thing to some people. Odd that seminaries whisper and sometimes shout the words of the Serpent, "hath God said?" People get told that the Bible is a lie or it is minimized and put in contrast as ignorant compared to other literature, so sane people conclude that Christianity is a snow job. People who devoutly believe the Bible as true, get tolerated and petted on the head as fools who do not know as much as their betters.

Why does this matter? For one thing, not everyone who loves the Lord is a scientist. People who think the earth is only 6,000 years old are unkind to people who think the earth is old or who are evolutionists. I have listened to and read plenty of intemperate speech that is shameful by people who are Young Earth Creationists. I have had the experience of having to hear that my Faith is not valid because I know what Geology tells me. I do not believe the Great Flood or the Flood of Noah deposited sediments to account for the rock record. I stated this in one of my first posts, yet some who hold to evolution in a pure way think I am a Young Earth Creationist. I am not. I have repeated that several times and frankly grew tired of having to repeat myself. Someone mockingly made a comment about someone thinking they are more spiritual than others based on their stand for their beliefs. I wondered if it was me.

In getting at cosmogony and all the rest, I think there is a lot missed by taking an adversarial stance where things debilitate into name calling and people argue based on assumptions. I know what it is like as a scientist to thought of as godless because I can look at a thin section and fit it in with a chronology based on the rock record. Cosmogony depends on taking the Bible seriously if one is a Christian or a Jew especially. This is one reason I do not like Theistic Evolution. It assumes a lot about the Bible that is not true, it prejudices people against what can be known. It does not matter if someone is not a believer, since it is not a science book. I have said this before in a different way too. If you think you are descended from a monkey, I am fine with that. I do not think it is true, but if that floats your boat, I know the Holy Spirit has not gotten through to you and there is nothing I can do, until you listen to Him. Still, a rational pagan or atheist who may not hold to a high opinion of the Bible could learn something by taking the Bible seriously. Taking a dire position of something similar to pegging others as surely going to Hell if they do not take a Young Earth Creationist stance is harmful and I think wrong. It seems there are plenty of Pharisees on all sides of the issue. Someone wrote that the most contentious section on the TheologyWeb is here.

I am not an iconoclast for the sake of iconoclasm. However, the status quo causes putrescence. Taking a stand against the Bible and pretending to believe it for the sake of what others think is known as hypocrisy.

"The chronological problem is significant in Biblical studies due to a very bad fit between the events of the Exodus and Conquest, as well as the material conditions of the reign of Solomon, and the archæological record when it is organized according to the standard chronology. Some Evangelical scholars adhere to the Bible's chronology while admitting that they cannot account for the archæological difficulties, especially the lack of large scale destruction at the time of the Conquest. More frequently, the Exodus has been dated later to conform to the chronological dicta of the priests of Egypt in preference to the teaching of the Bible. Even the nature of the Conquest under Joshua had to be recast as a gradual infiltration by scattered tribes, greatly exaggerated and compressed in the Biblical account. One cannot, it is said, deny the plain facts. Such teachings have been used by the liberals in the Christian Reformed Church, for example, to undermine the faith of the members, and soften them for neo-orthodox, feminist, and increasingly more open liberal and New Age teaching. The pattern is similar in other denominations.

While the authors frankly reject Biblical authority - taking swipes at that "devout breed of archæologist happy to dig with a trowel in one hand and a Bible in the other" - they also emphasize that the Bible is frequently subjected to unreasonable and hostile criticism from 'those whose skepticism can be as blind as faith itself'. They add: 'The dates the Old Testament gives, even those for historical periods which are potentially useful to archæology, have been altered, mangled or rejected in an arbitrary fashion. It seems that the Bible has suffered from this kind of hypercritical treatment simply because it is the Bible. A similar approach would never have been taken with the sacred literature of other ancient Near Eastern societies.' (p. 162)"

Mediterranean dating and the chronology of Kemet

By Bill Schell, Murray State University 16 April, 1995

Naomi, Perhaps I can make you smile again by moving the discussion of dates and dating sideways.

For many years, evidence has been accumulating that the conventional chronology of the ancient Mediterranean world, based on the king list chronology of Egypt, is gravely flawed. Despite the fact that the Egyptian kings were fixed in their centuries long before hieroglyphics were read, little more than fine-tuning of the system has been tolerated by the scholarly community which has invested vast amounts of time and energy in the status quo.

After teaching enough world civ, chronological paradoxes begin to present themselves. For example, why should the Myceneans learn to write their Greek language in using the Minoan Linear script (c. 1450 BCE by the standard chronology), lapse into total illiteracy for 600 years, and then become literate again using the Phoenician writing system? Even during the European Dark Ages (a comparable period of collapse) writing was not completely lost. Or how do we explain Greek letters cut into the reverse side of fired-clay tiles which decorate the palace of Ramesses III (conventionally dated to 1186 BCE) located at the Tell el-Yahudiya site northeast of Cairo. Or the Greek letters inscribed on the sarcophagus of Ahirm of Biblos, conventionally dated to c. 1000 BCE, although its artistic style would seem to place it in the 12th century. Then there are the troubling "after-glows" of the Hittites and other peoples that burst forth centuries after the supposed close of the main civilization, and scarabs and other artifacts found so far out of expected stratigraphy that scholars can only label them as heirlooms (unconvincingly). And, of course, there is the ultimate world civ mystery: why is there no record of Hebrew-Egyptian relations from the Eygptian side? Are we really to believe (and expect our students to believe) that four centuries really separate the composition of Psalm 104 of King David and the strikingly similar Hymn of the Sun Disk by Akhetaten?

The recent book by Peter James Centuries of Darkness suggests that the conventional chronology of Egypt from the Middle Kingdom is 4 centuries too long. The resistance to this hypothesis by the establishment, however, is strong. Bruce Trigger's review of James in AHR 99 (1994) admits that "problems beset Late Bronze and Early Iron Age chronologies throughout the Mediterranean region" but he is unwilling to admit any solution that would systematically reform the current chronologies "however weak the astronomical calculations" (the discredited Sothic dating) which prop up the current scheme which is little more than the priest Manetho's ancient king list.

We should "come clean" with our world civ students and admit that we have no real idea about the relationships that existed between the civilizations of the ancient world - that its all speculation, myth draped in the shabby mantel of speculation and called TRUTH.

Bill Schell, Murray State University

a few links and refs

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/32/003.html (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/32/003.html)

http://www.visi.com/~contra_m//cm/reviews/cm07_rev_chronology.html (http://www.visi.com/~contra_m//cm/reviews/cm07_rev_chronology.html)

http://www.centuries.co.uk/news.htm (http://www.centuries.co.uk/news.htm)

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook03.html (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook03.html)

rogero

February 4th 2005, 06:46 PM

The web site is just a couple of pages and does not explain much of anything. Look at the references. They represent sources for many pages I have made and have not uploaded yet.

Thanks. The problem is that I don't have time at the moment to look up and read all these references. It's apparent that you've done a tremendous amount of literature research, and that is commendable.

What I mean to say about pushing the date back, and I knew it would sound quackish, is that there are "official" positions held on these things. As a scientist you must know that Wegner was thought of as a nut and it was heresy to suggest there was anything like continental drift in a Geology classroom years ago. That is not some conspiracy theory, it is how we are cautious about what I call "arm waving." Finally, there was some computer modeling and other things that made it palpable for people to believe there is continental drift. Same thing with catastrophism. Alvarez et alia in 1980 had the goods on the KT boundary and got by with publishing facts that recognize there have been NEO collisions in earth history. In 2002 oil people discovered the Silver Pit asteroid, the other main chunk of the NEO that wiped out most of life on the planet. It split. They found evidence in the North Sea as offshore drilling was being logged.

A couple of comments: 1) I'm a teacher, not a scientist -- although I have a fairly good idea how scientists work.

2) I understand the Wegener analogy, since I give a lecture to general ed. students on the history of Plate Tectonics. It is amazing that PT became consensus around 1968. However, many geologists suspected continental drift was valid, but the final confirmation waited until there was an explosion of geophysical data in the 1950s and early 1960s (to wit the IGY in 1957-1958).

3) Modern geology accepts catastrophic events when the data call for them. The old Hutton-Lyell style uniformitarianism has been abandoned for a long time (although many YEC apologists would disagree with this -- Dave Tyler, e.g.)

Mass extinction is not the same as total extinction of all life. We have come close though.

Thank you. That's what I thought you meant, but I just wanted to be certain.

The minor NEO collisions chnged things. There is a painting from the 1100's that indicate (and correlates with data) people suffered radiation effects on a local basis in central Europe. They kill a lot of people, one time almost everyone.

The Bible is rife with information that says it happened before and will happen again. That is part of the danger of figuring the Bible is a lot of hooey as some TE people do. I know that is not reflective of Faith, just purposeful blindness.

Interesting comments, but I take issue that "the Bible is a lot of hooey as some TE people do." I'm glad you inserted the word "some".

Speciation is not the whole story of evolution and I mean it in a specific way, a scientific way devoid of speculation. I prefer facts. Proliferation of species after almost all of life is wiped out takes place rapidly (in terms of time, just a few million years).

Yes, I agree that speciation is not the whole story of biological evolution, but is probably its major point. I prefer facts as well. The facts, as you point out, indicate that the biosphere has a very long history with change in species over time. Your last sentence is a very good synopsis of punctuated equilibrium.

I want to concentrate on this issue, since it is one which has occured over most of Earth's history. What you are describing is essentially biological evolution, modulo any philosophical derivates. I presume you believe that this type of change is the history of Earth and biosphere is part of the manner in which God creates. It is a partial description of how creation happens (it describes the unity and diversity of the current biosphere as well as the genetic evidence and the fossil record.) It does not explain ultimate origins, the matter, energy, space-time, and laws of nature -- that is part of a bigger picture of creatio ex nihilo, which all Christians (and I think all theists) believe.

In view of this, I wonder why you are so vehemently opposed to the notion of evolution? It appears you are referring to the materialist scientist philosophy that also accepts biological evolution. We must make a clear distinction between the science of biological evolution and the philosophy of materialism or ontological naturalism.

Perhaps we should use another word for biological evolution, since the "e-word" apparently causes much fear and irritation among many Christians, etc.? If we used "change in species over time as a result of mass extinction and ecological niche demise with subsequent opportunistic speciation to fill new and vacated niches" instead of "evolution", would that be better? (OK, I agree that we could use a more parsimonious term like maybe "change over time.") :wink:

Solar system- planetary heating up is well-known to some people. A guy (astrophysicist) in Rochester announced proof from research in 2002 and it can be confrmed by going to my references and following links. The news link from a science journal online may not work anymore but I think I have enough links to find it. Oddly his announcement was coincident with the Silver Pit find. Yes, geophysicists were involved in finding it. There is a guy that records info from 1843 on that correlates in Helsinki. Has to do with solar flares, wolfgangian cycles, solar radiation, geomagnetic radiation and the like.

I will try to answer the rest later, gotsta go. Ok, Jack -- thanks, this sounds interesting. But for now I'm more interested in your views on the clear disjunct between the science of biological evolution and the philosophy of ontological naturalism.

R

Constantine

February 5th 2005, 07:28 PM

I feel that pursuing this thread would be a better use of time than reading through a few dozen more new threads on why evolution is bad theology and philosophy. And about singling out individuals -- tell that to Jack about his opinion of George Murphy in another thread -- talk about a bad use of time.

I can't disagree with you about that.

Jack:

Glenn Morton has been in the geology business (mostly in the oil industry I think) for a while and published many a paper. It is silly of you to attack him, but I think he is more than capable of defending himself.

But you didn't answer the charge, instead you just levelled a counter attack.

Jack777

February 7th 2005, 12:07 PM

Well, I guess he has the geology gospel and cannot be wrong then. Sheesh. I was not attacking him. I was pointing out what he is doing.