PDA

View Full Version : The Fossil Record



bob b
January 22nd, 2006, 07:25 PM
I thought that the following was a reasonable assessment regarding the index fossil method of determining geological layers.


What Significance do Index Fossils Have?
December 27, 2005

Index fossils are used to define geological periods. These fossils can be defined as "commonly found, widely distributed fossils that are limited in time span." If one finds an index fossil in a given layer, then one has bounds on the age of the layer. Using index fossils, the geological periods are defined. These are intervals of time that are believed to have lasted for tens of millions of years, in most cases. The geological periods make up the "geological column" which lists the periods in sequence. The question arises whether the "geological column" is real or results from our attempt to make sense of the fossil distribution.
Because the geological periods always, or almost always, appear in the proper sequence in the fossil record, though some periods may be missing in places, it is argued that the geological column is real and represents the order in which various life forms existed in the past. However, this argument is circular. The geological periods are defined using index fossils, and the index fossils are chosen so that the resulting geological periods occur in order.

There is indeed an approximate order in which fossils appear in the fossil record, but I do not believe that it is as rigorous as the diagrams in textbook would indicate. The life forms that existed in the past were buried in an approximate order, but it can vary from place to place.

The significance of this for the creation-evolution controversy is that creationists sometimes attempt to construct flood models to produce a rigid sequence of fossils as displayed in textbook diagrams of the geological column. It is not necessary for the flood models to reproduce this sequence so exactly. Any flood model that puts the fossils in an approximate order would probably by chance create some fossils of limited distribution that could then be considered as index fossils and used to define a geological column with properties such as the current column possesses.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/indexfossils.html

`Love.
January 22nd, 2006, 07:53 PM
I'd add that they find trees and other objects intersecting between these layers that are seperated by a "million years".

GuySmiley
January 22nd, 2006, 08:05 PM
I'd add that they find trees and other objects intersecting between these layers that are seperated by a "million years".Your avatar makes me want to :vomit: .

fool
January 22nd, 2006, 10:39 PM
Hello Bob?
Has anyone ever used any other method to cross-check their conclusions regarding these layers that was not circular to the fossils themselves?
I'm thinking something like:
radiocarbon dating
rubidium-strontium
samarium-neodymium
potassium-argon
argon-argon
helium
uranium-uranium
uranium-thorium
uranium-lead
lead-lead
rhenium-osmium
optically stimulated luminescence dating
iodine-xenon
fission track dating
?

Johnny
January 22nd, 2006, 10:39 PM
I'd add that they find trees and other objects intersecting between these layers that are seperated by a "million years".Want to cite some sources that haven't been refuted?

bob b
January 23rd, 2006, 07:38 PM
Hello Bob?
Has anyone ever used any other method to cross-check their conclusions regarding these layers that was not circular to the fossils themselves?
I'm thinking something like:
radiocarbon dating
rubidium-strontium
samarium-neodymium
potassium-argon
argon-argon
helium
uranium-uranium
uranium-thorium
uranium-lead
lead-lead
rhenium-osmium
optically stimulated luminescence dating
iodine-xenon
fission track dating
?

Most of these methods are based on radiometrics, which as you know can not be used to directly date sedimentary layers (which being water lain - sedimentary, are basically mud).

Another factor is that it is rare to date the same rock sample (non-sedimentary) using more than two methods, and some of the most popular methods consistently give different answers, although not by that much (only a few dozen million years). Overall, it is my feeling that there is a basic underlying phenomenon which is affecting all radiometric methods and is the reason they all give such great ages.

It is also common to discard a date as "discordant" if it conflicts with index fossil derived evidence or would result in giving a layer a date inconsistent with "well established" dates of layers above and below. This is logical because it would be more likely that the date of such a layer would fall between the layers above and below it. Although it is reasonable to do this it does raise doubts in the minds of some skeptics whether the methods themselves are as foolproof as some would claim or whether there are other phenomena at work that are yet to be discovered.

I will search for a quotation I recently saw which gives an explanation why lava flows consistently show a pattern of young ages on top and older ages the farther down one goes when talking about flows which occurred at different periods of time. Of course it is well known that flows witnessed by humans frequently date as millions of years old, and this phenomenon is the key to understanding why one can be fooled into thinking that some lava formations look like they consist of a series of flows which occurred at intervals measuring millions of years.

bob b
January 23rd, 2006, 08:09 PM
The quotation I had in mind regarding lava flows is contained in a book I am currently reading. As soon as I scan in the quote I will post it.

In the meantime here is a reference to another potential piece of evidence that there may be other factors involved in radiometric dating that are causing millions of years to be concluded despite the fact that the real ages are in thousands of years. There are many other similar cases where layers assumed to be millions of years old contain organic material which show C14 dates, meaning that they theoretically should not be datable by C14 because all C14 would disappear in only 100,000 years at the outside.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/dating.asp

Unless all of these findings can somehow be explained away one would conclude that there may be unknown phenomena causing the millions of years methods to mistakenly show such great ages.

Incidently, it used to be common to do C14 tests on samples from ancient coal beds and find that there was still residual C-14, when of course there shouldn't be any if they are ancient. This is why it is rare these days for geologists to bother using C14 to date coal samples, because they know from experience they are likely to get "bogus" results (only creationists still date coal samples).

Lynn73
January 24th, 2006, 07:15 AM
I'd add that they find trees and other objects intersecting between these layers that are seperated by a "million years".

In my opinion, the so called fossil record proving things are gazillions of years old is a joke. They do not prove evolution. It does, however (in my opinion), give evidence of a worldwide flood. Evolutionists, though won't accept anything that upsets their theory.


http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=13


http://www.exchangedlife.com/skeptic/missing.htm


This verse describes evolutionists very well:

Ro 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Lynn73
January 24th, 2006, 07:20 AM
From the second link and I think this is the truth.


The second thing that becomes clear when observing evolution is the suppression of opposing views. You are free to think as long as you think within the realm of evolution. When a tooth is declared to be the missing link that ties apes to man, it makes headlines, science journals, lectures and text books. When it is disproven as belonging to a pig, it is swept under the rug. No headlines, no retraction statements, no lectures. It is quietly dropped. The masses are never informed of the error and therefore it continues to be presented as evidence. This deception is called education and those who believe it arrogantly condescend those who question the evidence. Countless school and college text books are teaching evolutionary 'facts' that even evolutionary scientists consider to be a mockery. The embarrassment of making such a pretence of discovery and shame of admitting defeat to rival point of views discourages evolutionist from admitting an error to the public. They would rather an error to be taught as science than risk the creation world view from gaining acceptance. Evidence that supports creation is ignored or disputed even if there is no basis for the dispute, while evidence supporting evolution is shouted from the rooftops and defended with vigor even though the evidence has no basis.

Mr Jack
January 24th, 2006, 07:26 AM
From the second link and I think this is the truth.

Tell me, how many scientific journals have you read? How many biological conferances have you attended? How many researchers have you talked to?

Mr Jack
January 24th, 2006, 07:33 AM
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/dating.asp

The limit to c14 radiodating is around 30,000 years. This is because beyond this age the signal has degraded to a level at which it cannot be detected above random noise inherent in the technique. Anyone familiar with the technique would know this and know that any date reading above 30,000 cannot be relied on, and should be read as "unknown" age, they would also realise that this does not show that the age is in fact this young but simply that there isn't enough c14 left in the sample to make a valid reading.

The author of this peice clearly does not understand this point.

One Eyed Jack
January 24th, 2006, 08:08 AM
I thought the limit was about 50,000 years. Cite (http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html).

Mr Jack
January 24th, 2006, 08:33 AM
I thought the limit was about 50,000 years. Cite (http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html).

That depends on the method used. The method used in the link has an upper limit of around 30,000 years, more modern methods (AMS) can reach further. Footnote 3 of the article linked specifies the method that was used as "done in the traditional way, not by the newer AMS method"


The "traditional method" of carbon dating is to concentrate the carbon in a sample, convert it to a gas, and then measure the residual radioactivity of the gas. Even though this is done in a specially shielded chamber, some small amount of background radiation will interfere with the counts. Due to this "noise," even a completely "dead" sample will yield a computed age around 20,000 to 30,000 years (give or take, depending on several factors). That is essentially the limit of the "traditional" assessment technique. For this reason, a result in the 30,000-year range by the "traditional" method is understood to mean "an indeterminately old age."

- from here (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/may01.html)

bob b
January 24th, 2006, 09:16 AM
Mr Jack has provided a reasonable explanation for the particular case I sited. I will shortly provide additional cases for consideration. Perhaps we will find some not so easily explained.

In the meantime here are some additional points about the Grand Canyon for everyone's consideration.
------------
Gaps: The gaps (in geologic ages) are much larger than Schmidt (a skeptic of short ages) admits; one gap is 10 million, another 60 million, and another 100 million. Above the Great Unconformity is a gap of over a billion years, with no soil between it and the overlying sedimentary layers. These gaps give no evidence of large passages of time between the one below and the one above, suggesting the gaps are fictional: no long ages did elapse. The ages claimed for the layers come not from the onsite observations, but from the a priori belief that they must be fitted into a pre-existing construct, a model constructed and later Darwinized in England: the Geologic Column.
Flat contacts: The contacts between many layers are knife-edge thin and straight for hundreds of square miles, with no evidence of erosion between.

Flat layers: The “generally accepted notions” expect us to believe that the Colorado Plateau rose and sank above and below sea level repeatedly, yet kept the layers flat and undisturbed, a preposterous notion.

Gravity: The Grand Canyon traverses the Kaibab Plateau, a mile higher in elevation than the river upstream. Clearly, rivers do not flow over mountains. Something caused the canyon to scour through this region after a catastrophic period of sheet erosion and rapid downcutting.
Source of material: secular geologists don’t know where all the sedimentary material came from. Some have speculated that it was transported somehow over long distances, from as far as Appalachia (09/15/2003). On the other hand, a flood could have scoured and pulverized great quantities of lime mud and sand, and deposited it rapidly underwater. The characteristic layers could represent material brought in from different directions as the currents changed. (This could also imply that the similarities to Appalachian sediments indicate that similar processes were occurring there also).

Fossils: One layer of the Redwall Limestone contains billions of fossil nautiloids, apparently buried in one day over a vast area covering 5,700 square miles (12/24/2002). Other fossils common in the canyon are broken and jumbled, indicating they were not buried in situ, but were transported for great distances by powerful currents and quickly buried in sediment.

No evolution: Squirrels on the north rim are subspecies of those on the south rim, with smooth gradations of varieties in between (CRS). They differ mainly in fur color. If these species were geographically isolated for at least five million years, why did they not evolve further apart? In that same length of time, evolutionists claim that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors.

No evolution II: Investigations of organisms inhabiting the forests of Shiva Temple, a forested butte isolated from the north rim, found no differences between species on the rim, even though they, too, should have been geographically isolated for millions of years. (CRS.)

Downstream: no large river-delta deposits can be found downstream that would be expected if the Colorado River carved the canyon over a long time.

Upstream: large basins that could have held enough water to carve the canyon by a dam breach can be discerned upstream. Also, portions of the canyon (Marble Canyon, inner gorge) are convincing secular geologists that it was carved quickly (see 07/22/2002) entry).

Tectonics: faults intersect the canyon all the way from top to bottom at multiple points, but not part way up. This indicates the layers were deposited rapidly, then faulted together as units.

Folding: The layers fold together as if they were still soft and unconsolidated at the time. Some folds, such as in Carbon Canyon, show more than 90° fold with no evidence of cracking or crumbling.

Volcanos: Volcanic dikes and cones poke up through all the layers from bottom to top, but not part way up, casting doubt that millions of years transpired during sedimentation.

Fluting: The inner gorge rocks are only fluted at river level, indicating the river has not been cutting downward through the igneous rocks for long.

Sheet erosion: Vast quantities of rock above the canyon were swept away by sheet erosion before the canyon itself was carved. Evidence for this can be seen at Cedar Mountain and other buttes which protrude above the canyon, displaying remnants of the thousands of vertical feet of sediments that had been swept away before the downcutting of the canyon began.

Sand Dunes, Not: The Coconino Sandstone, long claimed to be sand dunes turned to rock, are too fine-grained to be aeolian (wind-blown) sands, and cover too a vast an area (much of the Southwest: 100,000 square miles, with a volume 10,000 cubic miles) for this scenario to be plausible. The crossbedding could have been laid down as sand waves by deep ocean currents. The fossil trackways could have been made in shallow water and would have had to be buried suddenly to be preserved. All other layers in the canyon are indisputably water-deposited. To believe the Coconino was wind-deposited, the entire region would have had to be lifted above sea level without cracking or folding, yet the contact with the water-deposited Hermit Shale below it is flat and smooth. This indicates that deposition of the Coconino in the Grand Canyon began immediately after the Hermit formation, without 10 million years between them.

Monsoons: a type of 3-D crossbedding called hummocky cross-stratification, visible in numerous places in the canyon, gives evidence of gigantic cyclonic storms on scales larger than anything observed today.

Sapping: The Redwall shows evidence of sapping (rock fall occasioned by springs weakening the rock above). The large amphitheater-shaped alcoves characteristic of the Redwall suggest that the layers were still soft and unconsolidated and impregnated with water when they formed.

Dam Break Redux: Large lava dams that formed in the lower canyon are known to have backed up the Colorado River into a huge lake since the canyon formed, yet broke and catastrophically drained quickly, perhaps multiple times. Why not suggest the same mechanism for formation of the canyon itself? In recent years, this idea – first proposed by creationists – has become popular among secular geologists (05/31/2002). Why have they not given the creationists credit?

Lava Dates: Radioactive dates from the lowest lavas in the canyon (underneath all the sedimentary layers) show up “younger” than those on the top at Vulcan’s Throne, indicating that radioactive dating methods that yield millions of years cannot be trusted. Another falsification is that different radiometric methods applied within the same formation yield widely divergent dates. In addition, carbon-14 has been found in coal seams around the Grand Canyon. Since the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, none should remain if the coal were really millions of years old, as claimed.

(For more detail on these evidences, see Tom Vail’s book, ICR’s Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, and Walt Brown’s analysis.)

-----------

Interesting list. I wonder if all these factors have resonable long-age explanations. Of course there is an advantage in assuming long ages, becaue as we all know given enough time anything can happen!!! Can't it? ;)

One Eyed Jack
January 24th, 2006, 09:23 AM
Who is Chris Stasson?

bob b
January 24th, 2006, 09:29 AM
Who is Chris Stasson?

A talk.origins Age of the Earth Debate
The participants were Bob Bales and Chris Stassen, both high-profile talk.origins
participants at the time of the debate.

Mr Jack
January 24th, 2006, 09:34 AM
Who is Chris Stasson?
I have no idea. The source for the quote is given in my previous message. If you are unsatisfied with his answer, I have no doubt you can google up the same information else where.

One Eyed Jack
January 24th, 2006, 09:40 AM
I have no idea. The source for the quote is given in my previous message.

You can't seriously expect me to take a post someone made on a message board as an authoritative cite.


If you are unsatisfied with his answer, I have no doubt you can google up the same information else where.

I've tried, and I haven't been able to. Perhaps you could?

bob b
January 24th, 2006, 09:41 AM
I have no idea. The source for the quote is given in my previous message. If you are unsatisfied with his answer, I have no doubt you can google up the same information else where.

Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C14_dating

This article will probably be updated sometime in the future to include the uncertainty in the level of cosmic rays reaching the upper layers of the atmosphere, which in turn is affected by the strength of the shielding effect due to the magnetic field of the Earth (which is known to have declined 10% over the past 150 years).

Of course tree rings can be used in an attempt to compensate for such variables and in fact people have worked out calibration tables which of necessity must assume that mixing in the atmosphere evens out the c-14 concentration around the world over short timespans.

Nevertheless the method is probably useful to date organic material that is less than several thousand years old, even though it is probably not as accurate as thought even a few years ago.

One Eyed Jack
January 24th, 2006, 09:50 AM
I'm looking for something that specifically mentions 30,000 years as the maximum age using the GPC method of radiocarbon dating. I've never heard that before, and if it's true, I'd like to confirm it.

bob b
January 24th, 2006, 10:00 AM
I'm looking for something that specifically mentions 30,000 years as the maximum age using the GPC method of radiocarbon dating. I've never heard that before, and if it's true, I'd like to confirm it.


Measurement of 14C activity requires very sensitive techniques: gas proportional counters (GPC), liquid scintillation counters (LSC) or accelerator mass spectroscopy (AMS). The maximal age which can be measured by GPC is about 40,000 years, by LSC 50,000 years and by AMS more than 60,000 years. The amount of carbon measured by GPC and LSC techniques should be at least several grams, while by the AMS method miligram-sized samples can be measured.

The main international journal for research papers and data lists relevant to 14C problematic is RADIOCARBON. More information about radiocarbon dating can be found on Radiocarbon WEB info pages.

http://www.irb.hr/en/str/zef/z3labs/lna/C14/

Lynn73
January 24th, 2006, 10:06 AM
Tell me, how many scientific journals have you read? How many biological conferances have you attended? How many researchers have you talked to?

None and I don't need to. There are those who have already done those things who believe the biblical account of things. I'm just a lowly Christian who happens to believe the biblical account and thinks that the evidence supports it. Fossils are made by rapid burial and pressure. Since, I assume, fossils are found all over the world; a worldwide flood would meet the requirements. My trust is in what God says, not what certain scientists with an agenda to support a preconceived conlusion say. Evidence can be ignored that don't fit the evolutionist program and evidence can be misinterpeted. What can you expect from people who build up a so called "prehistoric" man from a single tooth which later turns out to be the tooth of a pig? Sorry I'm not scientific enough for you.

bob b
January 24th, 2006, 10:07 AM
I'd like to begin this article by describing one example of Carbon-14 dating, performed by one of the leading labs in the dating field. Their carefully done report is a classic illustration of the controversy that exists between most secular scientists and most Biblical creationary scientists.

The Hawkesbury Sandstone formation, near Sydney, Australia, is a massive and spectacular mass of hard rock, often used for construction of buildings in Sydney.(1) There are three principle layers of rock -- massive sandstone, sheet sandstone, and some thin mudstone. Although it is massive (7,700 square miles in area and up to 820 feet thick) it shows many of the features of deposition in fast-flowing waters. There are cross-beds, sloping at about 20o, some are up to 20 feet high, within the flat-lying strata. These were probably formed by huge sand-waves, swept by massive water flows. A number of lenses of mudstone contain many fossils, mostly of fish, sharks, and aquatic plants. Geologists have assigned it to the Middle Triassic 'age' (225 - 230 million years old), based on fossil content and the relative sequence of rock layers in the Sydney Basin. This "stratigraphic dating" is the technique most widely used by conventional geologists who believe in the long timescale of the Geologic Column.

The Bundanoon quarry found a finger-size piece of wood impregnated within the hard sandstone. Some Australian creationist scientists obtained part of this wood, and sent it to Geochron Lab in Boston for careful 14C analysis. Contrary to usual practice, they didn't tell the lab where it had been found, or what 'age' they expected it to reveal. This was to prevent possible bias in the dating tests.

The lab applied normal procedures, treating it with hot dilute hydrochloric acid to remove all the carbonates, then with hot dilute caustic soda to remove any humic acids or other organic contaminents. A 13C/12C measurement showed high probability that modern contamination was not a factor. The sample wood was found to contain measureable 14C, and the final age was determined to be 33,720 +/- 430 years BP.

That "age" is obviously very much younger than most secular scientists could accept, and very much older than most creationists think it really should be. We'll use that "age" as an example in the main discussion about Carbon-14 dating, and the probable sources of the controversy. That comes in the last several pages of this article.

http://www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

One Eyed Jack
January 24th, 2006, 10:11 AM
http://www.irb.hr/en/str/zef/z3labs/lna/C14/

Thanks, bob. How do you find stuff like that so easily?

bob b
January 24th, 2006, 10:17 AM
Thanks, bob. How do you find stuff like that so easily?

Practice makes perfect. ;)

I checked back and found to my surprise that the two C-14 readings of wood embedded in ancient sandstone from different parts of the world were amazingly similar.

36,440 years BP ± 330 years and

33,720 +/- 430 years BP.

Coincidence?

Mr Jack
January 25th, 2006, 03:56 AM
None and I don't need to.
So, by your own admission you know nothing about the people involved, yet you think:


The second thing that becomes clear when observing evolution is the suppression of opposing views. You are free to think as long as you think within the realm of evolution. When a tooth is declared to be the missing link that ties apes to man, it makes headlines, science journals, lectures and text books. When it is disproven as belonging to a pig, it is swept under the rug. No headlines, no retraction statements, no lectures. It is quietly dropped. The masses are never informed of the error and therefore it continues to be presented as evidence. This deception is called education and those who believe it arrogantly condescend those who question the evidence. Countless school and college text books are teaching evolutionary 'facts' that even evolutionary scientists consider to be a mockery. The embarrassment of making such a pretence of discovery and shame of admitting defeat to rival point of views discourages evolutionist from admitting an error to the public. They would rather an error to be taught as science than risk the creation world view from gaining acceptance. Evidence that supports creation is ignored or disputed even if there is no basis for the dispute, while evidence supporting evolution is shouted from the rooftops and defended with vigor even though the evidence has no basis.
is truth.

Doesn't it embarass you to endorse such invective without having even a passing knowledge of the people you are demeaning?

Lynn73
January 25th, 2006, 07:20 AM
No, I'm not embarrased. I'm entitled to an opinion just like everyone else and I happen to believe evolution is a big fat lie. No personal demeaning of anyone is intended so you can can the accusations. No real, hard evidence exists for evolution. It's just a twisted, desperate attempt to deny a Creator because to admit to a Creator means that Creator has authority over you and evolutionist won't stand for that. If you see a watch sitting by itself, you know it had a watchmaker, it didn't make itself. If you see a car sitting by itself, you know it had a maker. If you see a computer sitting by itself, you know someone designed it. Same goes for a radio or TV or whatever. You may never see the person who made those things but you know he or she exists because those things don't make themselves. If you see a painting by itself in the woods with no sign of life anywhere, you still know that it had to have a painter. Yet evolutionist look at the world and the stars and galaxies and the intricate design of us and the animal and plant and insect world and say "oh it just happened all by itself." Puleez. I hear people say "well this was designed to do that or that part of the body was designed for this. Well, guess what, a design has a Designer. It takes a lot more faith to believe in the religion of evolution than it does to believe in a Creator. The design and order of things, oh they all just happened by accident, uh huh. Everything just somehow came together at just the exact right time for everything to work out together just right. Suuure. Pure delusion.



Romans 1
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; F6 for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so F7 that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Lynn73
January 25th, 2006, 07:22 AM
And my agreement with the paragraph I posted stands.

aharvey
January 25th, 2006, 07:49 AM
No, I'm not embarrased. I'm entitled to an opinion just like everyone else and I happen to believe evolution is a big fat lie. No personal demeaning of anyone is intended so you can can the accusations. No real, hard evidence exists for evolution. It's just a twisted, desperate attempt to deny a Creator because to admit to a Creator means that Creator has authority over you and evolutionist won't stand for that. If you see a watch sitting by itself, you know it had a watchmaker, it didn't make itself. If you see a car sitting by itself, you know it had a maker. If you see a computer sitting by itself, you know someone designed it. Same goes for a radio or TV or whatever. You may never see the person who made those things but you know he or she exists because those things don't make themselves. If you see a painting by itself in the woods with no sign of life anywhere, you still know that it had to have a painter. Yet evolutionist look at the world and the stars and galaxies and the intricate design of us and the animal and plant and insect world and say "oh it just happened all by itself." Puleez. I hear people say "well this was designed to do that or that part of the body was designed for this. Well, guess what, a design has a Designer. It takes a lot more faith to believe in the religion of evolution than it does to believe in a Creator. The design and order of things, oh they all just happened by accident, uh huh. Everything just somehow came together at just the exact right time for everything to work out together just right. Suuure. Pure delusion.
See, Lynn, the problem here is that you simultaneously admit that you don't actually read the scientific literature and deny that there is any evidence in favor of evolution. Just because you refuse to look at something doesn't mean it isn't there.

And I'm amazed that people who should know better rely on explicitly anti-evolution web sites for their understanding of evolution. What would you think of someone who gets their understanding of the Bible entirely from explicitly atheist, anti-Christian web sites? Pretty stoopid, huh?

And I am still baffled that Christians, who do have a strong, built-in reason for wanting everyone to believe the way that they do, accuse evolutionary scientists of wanting to get everyone to believe the way they do. This makes no sense for at least two big reasons: 1) by making it an accusation, you make it sound like scientists are bad for doing this, and yet it's something you yourself do quite happily, and 2) although it's easy to understand why Christians feel it necessary to convert others to their viewpoint, and why they consider their religious beliefs to be, well, religious beliefs, there's no reason I can think of why scientists would feel similarly about a scientific theory. Scientists strongly support it because it is strongly supported by the evidence. When the body of evidence no longer points that way, neither will scientific support. We are dedicated to a search for elusive truths, not to one particular dogmatic perspective. As, you must admit, you yourself are (no matter how justified you feel you are, the bottom line is that your faith compells you to adopt a strictly Biblical perspective). So please stop complaining about our doing something that 1) you yourself do and 2) we don't do, or at least do less than any other group of people.

I guarantee you that if I stumbled across some robust evidence that suggests that evolutionary theory is wrong, I'd be all over it. But every single piece of creationist "evidence" and "argumentation" that I've ever looked at succumbed in less than five minutes to scrutiny. And you should be aware that virtually all of this evidence attacks some cartoon version of evolution, it does not support the literal Genesis account. Why do you think that is?

Mr Jack
January 25th, 2006, 08:14 AM
No, I'm not embarrased. I'm entitled to an opinion just like everyone else and I happen to believe evolution is a big fat lie. No personal demeaning of anyone is intended so you can can the accusations.

No personal demeaning? You've just accused hundreds of thousands of people of lying, distorting the truth, intentionally desemenating that which they know to be false and actively seeking to do their jobs as badly as possible. Not only that but you've done it without - by your own admission - knowing the slighest bit about these people or how they go about their work.

You should be embarassed by that.

Shalom
January 25th, 2006, 08:22 AM
No personal demeaning? You've just accused hundreds of thousands of people of lying, distorting the truth, intentionally desemenating that which they know to be false and actively seeking to do their jobs as badly as possible.




Someday God will also do this, so I wouldnt feel to embarrassed Lynn73.

The bible is the only true account of the earth, and it doesnt take a scientist to figure it out.

Jukia
January 25th, 2006, 08:41 AM
The bible is the only true account of the earth, and it doesnt take a scientist to figure it out.

Really? How do you handle the mountains of evidence which indicate that the Genesis story may not be accurate word for word? Do you simply ignore the evidence? Do you think God put it there so that men would try to understand it yet make mistakes in understanding to the extent that they do not beleive in a literal interpretation of Genesis?

aharvey
January 25th, 2006, 08:43 AM
The bible is the only true account of the earth, and it doesnt take a scientist to figure it out.
Indeed, I'd go a step further and say that being a skeptical, critical thinker (i.e., a scientist) actually makes it harder to "figure it out"!

bob b
January 25th, 2006, 09:52 AM
Indeed, I'd go a step further and say that being a skeptical, critical thinker (i.e., a scientist) actually makes it harder to "figure it out"!

Right on! ;)

Lynn73
January 25th, 2006, 10:09 AM
Some are ignorant of the truth. Evolution is what they've been indoctrinated to death with from kindergarten on up. And some, yes, deliberately ignore evidence that may be contrary to their precious theory. Evolution is a theory, not proven fact yet it's taught as fact in our schools. Why shouldn't the creation "theory" or other theories be taught along with it? And evolution is a lie, I can't help it that they keep propogating it to avoid being responsible to God. They simply just don't want anyone telling them what to do so they have to stick with evolution.

Jukia
January 25th, 2006, 10:12 AM
Some are ignorant of the truth. Evolution is what they've been indoctrinated to death with from kindergarten on up. And some, yes, deliberately ignore evidence that may be contrary to their precious theory. Evolution is a theory, not proven fact yet it's taught as fact in our schools. Why shouldn't the creation "theory" or other theories be taught along with it? And evolution is a lie, I can't help it that they keep propogating it to avoid being responsible to God. They simply just don't want anyone telling them what to do so they have to stick with evolution.

Why do I get the impression that your knowledge of science and the way scientists work is, well, non-existent?

Shalom
January 25th, 2006, 10:14 AM
Really? How do you handle the mountains of evidence which indicate that the Genesis story may not be accurate word for word? Do you simply ignore the evidence? Do you think God put it there so that men would try to understand it yet make mistakes in understanding to the extent that they do not beleive in a literal interpretation of Genesis?


At least I'm not ignoring the bible.

Jukia
January 25th, 2006, 10:17 AM
At least I'm not ignoring the bible.

Not quite an answer to the questions but then what did I expect.

So, one should ignore the evidence but not the Bible. Okey dokey.

koban
January 25th, 2006, 10:18 AM
At least I'm not ignoring the bible.


Really?

How does the bible instruct you to use a computer keyboard?

Shalom
January 25th, 2006, 10:26 AM
Not quite an answer to the questions but then what did I expect.

So, one should ignore the evidence but not the Bible. Okey dokey.

Show me evidence that evolution is a fact and not a theory. God makes it real easy. The earth was created in 6 days. He created it and everything in it and on it including man. Its hard to comprehend if your are thinking like someone who came from a monkey, but when you clear away all the lies you have been told by the "scientists" then it will become more clear to you.

aharvey
January 25th, 2006, 10:33 AM
Some are ignorant of the truth. Evolution is what they've been indoctrinated to death with from kindergarten on up. And some, yes, deliberately ignore evidence that may be contrary to their precious theory. Evolution is a theory, not proven fact yet it's taught as fact in our schools. Why shouldn't the creation "theory" or other theories be taught along with it? And evolution is a lie, I can't help it that they keep propogating it to avoid being responsible to God. They simply just don't want anyone telling them what to do so they have to stick with evolution.
This tells me that you, too, have no idea why scientists would want to "believe" evolution in the same way that you "believe" the Bible. But for some reason you feel compelled to dream up a fanciful, even nonsensical "reason" rather than even consider the obvious alternative -- that perhaps, just perhaps, we don't treat evolution with any kind of religious fervor, that we don't have any other ulterior motive, that we really do consider it the best available explanation of the evidence. Why is that so hard for you to even consider?

Jukia
January 25th, 2006, 10:37 AM
Show me evidence that evolution is a fact and not a theory. God makes it real easy. The earth was created in 6 days. He created it and everything in it and on it including man. Its hard to comprehend if your are thinking like someone who came from a monkey, but when you clear away all the lies you have been told by the "scientists" then it will become more clear to you.

You need to learn some science. You need to learn how science works.
Then perhaps you will not fall into the camp of those who beleive there is a great atheistic science conspiracy.

But I suspect asking you to learn some science first is wasted effort.

aharvey
January 25th, 2006, 10:39 AM
Show me evidence that evolution is a fact and not a theory. God makes it real easy. The earth was created in 6 days. He created it and everything in it and on it including man. Its hard to comprehend if your are thinking like someone who came from a monkey, but when you clear away all the lies you have been told by the "scientists" then it will become more clear to you.
Shalom,

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Of course, what you call a "theory" is not what scientists mean by "theory"! Just do a google search using the phrase "just a theory" and you'll see what I mean, if you don't already know.

It is a fact that the genetic makeup of populations change over time, which is the basic definition of evolution. It is also a fact that the longer the time interval, the greater the potential changes can occur.

Evolutionary theory proposes mechanisms by which this occurs (primarily natural selection), and, in the absence of any obvious limitation on the process, proposes that all life shares a common ancestor. And makes testable predictions about life that have been very well supported.

In contrast, your literal Genesis account is, to date, rather slim on the ability to explain or predict anything about the diversity and distribution of life on earth.

Sorry about that.

Shalom
January 25th, 2006, 11:01 AM
Really?

How does the bible instruct you to use a computer keyboard?



Duh!!! The keyboard part is all right there in Luke chapter 2 Koban.

:chuckle:

Shalom
January 25th, 2006, 11:19 AM
Shalom,

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Of course, what you call a "theory" is not what scientists mean by "theory"! Just do a google search using the phrase "just a theory" and you'll see what I mean, if you don't already know.

It is a fact that the genetic makeup of populations change over time, which is the basic definition of evolution. It is also a fact that the longer the time interval, the greater the potential changes can occur.

Evolutionary theory proposes mechanisms by which this occurs (primarily natural selection), and, in the absence of any obvious limitation on the process, proposes that all life shares a common ancestor. And makes testable predictions about life that have been very well supported.


I'm discussing macro evolution here. Like monkeys becoming man....fish who grow legs.....ya know all the other fairy tales.


In contrast, your literal Genesis account is, to date, rather slim on the ability to explain or predict anything about the diversity and distribution of life on earth.

Sorry about that.

It explains it for me.

Jukia
January 25th, 2006, 11:22 AM
I'm discussing macro evolution here. Like monkeys becoming man....fish who grow legs.....ya know all the other fairy tales.



It explains it for me.

You just indicated that you have no understanding of evolutionary theory, macro, micro, mini or whatever.

Shalom
January 25th, 2006, 11:39 AM
You just indicated that you have no understanding of evolutionary theory, macro, micro, mini or whatever.


I feel for ya Jukia. Its really hard to back up the macro evolutionary fairy tale. And when people dont agree with me, I just tell them that they dont understand. :rolleyes:

Lynn73
January 25th, 2006, 11:55 AM
This tells me that you, too, have no idea why scientists would want to "believe" evolution in the same way that you "believe" the Bible. But for some reason you feel compelled to dream up a fanciful, even nonsensical "reason" rather than even consider the obvious alternative -- that perhaps, just perhaps, we don't treat evolution with any kind of religious fervor, that we don't have any other ulterior motive, that we really do consider it the best available explanation of the evidence. Why is that so hard for you to even consider?

Here are some reasons why some desperately want to believe in evolution and it sounds like ulterior motives to me. Not every scientist, and it appears even some evolutionists, don't really believe evolution is the best explanation of the evidence. They just plain don't want there to be a God

"Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable."
(Sir Arthur Keith)


“Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
(Professor D.M.S. Watson, leading biologist and science writer of his day)


"For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."
(Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means)


Now this says it all, the man simply does not want to beleive in God.


“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible”
(Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)



“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."
(Nagel T., "The Last Word," Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1997, p.130).



“If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. . . There is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving.”
(Richard Leakey, PBS Interview)



“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.”
(Ronald R. West, “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216)


from: http://www.souldevice.org/christian_evolution.html

death2impiety
January 25th, 2006, 12:06 PM
In my opinion, the so called fossil record proving things are gazillions of years old is a joke. They do not prove evolution. It does, however (in my opinion), give evidence of a worldwide flood. Evolutionists, though won't accept anything that upsets their theory.


http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=13


http://www.exchangedlife.com/skeptic/missing.htm


This verse describes evolutionists very well:

Ro 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Great stuff, except for the word "opinion".

Either, "..the so called fossil record proving things are gazillions of years old is a joke." ..or it isn't. It doesn't matter if it's your opinion, it matters if it's truth.

.."the so called fossil record proving things are gazillions of years old is a joke". This is very true. Stand your ground. :thumb:

God bless!

aharvey
January 25th, 2006, 01:08 PM
I'm discussing macro evolution here. Like monkeys becoming man....fish who grow legs.....ya know all the other fairy tales.
Re-read my post. Evolutionary theory does not distinguish between micro and macro evolution, it is the same process, different time scales. It makes no sense to say you believe the process works fine to produce small differences over short time intervals but doesn't work to produce large differences over long intervals without some justification (it would also be helpful to indicate at roughly what point the process stops working).


It explains it for me.
No, it describes it, it doesn't explain it. Big difference.

aharvey
January 25th, 2006, 01:09 PM
Here are some reasons why some desperately want to believe in evolution and it sounds like ulterior motives to me. Not every scientist, and it appears even some evolutionists, don't really believe evolution is the best explanation of the evidence. They just plain don't want there to be a God

"Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable."
(Sir Arthur Keith)

“Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
(Professor D.M.S. Watson, leading biologist and science writer of his day)
Funny, these quotes are saying not "I don't want there to be a God!" but rather "Special creation has no scientific support whatsoever." And let's keep straight the distinction between the science of evolution and what some here call the evolutionary worldview. Worldviews are not scientific by definition and therefore I have no interest in trying to defend their scientific basis!

More specifically, if someone decides that the Biblical story of creation is not consistent with the scientific evidence, and from there decides there is no God, that conclusion is a personal decision, not a scientific conclusion, and it doesn't falsify or otherwise invalidate the science that caused the person to start thinking such things.

"For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."
(Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means)
Um, this has nothing to do with evolution (you know, descent with modification, shared common ancestry, and all that!).

Now this says it all, the man simply does not want to beleive in God.


“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible”
(Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)
Just out of idle curiosity: if you were to learn that this quote was a complete fabrication that exists only on anti-evolution creationist web sites, what would your reaction be? I'm not yet saying it is, but so far I have been unable to verify the existence of either this quote or even the book it is supposedly from.

`Love.
January 25th, 2006, 01:41 PM
Your avatar makes me want to :vomit: .

I'd find a trash can quick then. :o

(Lucky for you, I was changing it anyways. :rolleyes: )

Lynn73
January 25th, 2006, 03:02 PM
Great stuff, except for the word "opinion".

Either, "..the so called fossil record proving things are gazillions of years old is a joke." ..or it isn't. It doesn't matter if it's your opinion, it matters if it's truth.

.."the so called fossil record proving things are gazillions of years old is a joke". This is very true. Stand your ground. :thumb:

God bless!

Thanks! I'm more used to saying "in my opinion" from being on Christian Forums in order to try and keep people from getting all uptight and accusing me of thinking I'm right about everything.

Lynn73
January 25th, 2006, 03:11 PM
Just out of idle curiosity: if you were to learn that this quote was a complete fabrication that exists only on anti-evolution creationist web sites, what would your reaction be? I'm not yet saying it is, but so far I have been unable to verify the existence of either this quote or even the book it is supposedly from.


Even if that particular quote was a fabrication, and as you say you're not saying it is, that wouldn't mean all the quotes are fabrications. Why would a website post quotes and sources that they know can be checked out and proven wrong? Just because you''ve been unable to verify it so far doesn't invalidate it. And, yes a few of them are saying they don't want there to be a God. Someone saying they want atheism to be true is saying they don't want there to be a God. "I hope there is no God" is saying they don't want there to be a God. Maybe you missed that. And if the quotes are real, it doesn't matter if they're on anti-evolution sites or not.

Lynn73
January 25th, 2006, 03:21 PM
Here is the quote again with references. There may be slight differences but it's saying the exact same thing.

"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize in Science, in Lindsay, Dennis, "The Dinosaur Dilemma," Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November 1982, pp. 4-5, 14.

http://www.biggerpicture.org/quotes_by_evolu.htm

As I said, if the man really said this, it doesn't matter what site quotes it.

aharvey
January 25th, 2006, 04:43 PM
Even if that particular quote was a fabrication, and as you say you're not saying it is, that wouldn't mean all the quotes are fabrications.
Please answer the question. Or are you saying that it doesn't matter as long as they all aren't fabrications? Would it matter if they were taken out of context? Would it matter if they are quotes from non-biologists? Or is the important thing that they seem to fit your preconceptions about what we must really be thinking?

Why would a website post quotes and sources that they know can be checked out and proven wrong?
You've got to be kidding. Does this mean you assume everything you read on web sites is true?

Just because you''ve been unable to verify it so far doesn't invalidate it.
Well, duh. That's why I said so. Unlike your favored sources, I am up front about the limits of my claims. So here's an update on my investigations (and I should mention that tracking down obscure references is part of what I'm professionally trained to do). Here's the citation given by all those creationist web sites:

George Wald, "Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life" (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), page 187.

After being unable to find any indication that George Wald ever published such a book, I turned to the Library of Congress (I'm sure you've heard of that!). This is the closest I could come up with (http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v3=1&ti=1,1&SEQ=20060125141653&Search%5FArg=Frontiers%20of%20Modern%20Biology&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=15578&SID=4). Wrong year, rather misleading title: "Frontiers of modern biology; twenty lectures originally broadcast over the Voice of America. Coordinated by Gairdner B. Moment." Perhaps George Wald's is one of the twenty lectures, and perhaps his is titled "Theories of Origin of Life." But I have to say the scholarship has been pretty sloppy so far! What's more, I've read some of Wald's writings on the subject and this "quote" seems quite a distorted version of what he's written elsewhere.

And, yes a few of them are saying they don't want there to be a God. Someone saying they want atheism to be true is saying they don't want there to be a God. "I hope there is no God" is saying they don't want there to be a God. Maybe you missed that.
Do you know anything about the people and books you are quoting? For example, Thomas Nagel and "The Last Word," to whom you are referring here? You might want to dig a little deeper before using Nagel and the quote you mined as an example of someone who clings to evolution because he hopes there is no God!

And if the quotes are real, it doesn't matter if they're on anti-evolution sites or not.
But the question of the moment is whether it matters to you if they're real or not as long as they're on anti-evolution sites.

ThankYouJesus
January 25th, 2006, 04:57 PM
Here is the quote again with references. There may be slight differences but it's saying the exact same thing.

"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize in Science, in Lindsay, Dennis, "The Dinosaur Dilemma," Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November 1982, pp. 4-5, 14.

http://www.biggerpicture.org/quotes_by_evolu.htm

As I said, if the man really said this, it doesn't matter what site quotes it.

:up: just read your posts.. good answers

Lynn73
January 25th, 2006, 04:58 PM
Yes it matters if they're real and can you prove they all aren't real? But we aren't going to get anywhere. You won't accept as valid anything coming from a anti-evolution site and I definitely would be suspicious of anything coming from an anti-creation site. As usual, these kind of things just go around in circles. We obviously aren't going to change each others' minds. Personally, I do happen to believe that many evolutionist do not want there to be a God (just as a few of them have stated) because they don't want anyone telling them how to live and if they acknowledge the Creator they know He has the right to do so. The evidence does not support evolution and even Charles Darwin wondered if he was believing in fantasy. Don't worry, I won't quote him, since you wouldn't accept it anyway. You have your head in the sand if you don't think that at least some evolutionist don't have a biased agenda because of desperation to prove God doesn't exist. They've proved nothing. But believe as you like.

Lynn73
January 25th, 2006, 05:03 PM
:up: just read your posts.. good answers

Well, thanks! I'm not really what you'd call a skilled debator or anything but I believe the Bible and I think it's so sad that so many are deceived by the lie of evolution when the evidence doesn't really support it. Not to mention all the other lies the devil propogates. :WA:

ThankYouJesus
January 25th, 2006, 05:07 PM
Well, thanks! I'm not really what you'd call a skilled debator or anything but I believe the Bible and I think it's so sad that so many are deceived by the lie of evolution when the evidence doesn't really support it. Not to mention all the other lies the devil propogates. :WA:

yup.. with ya 100% :cheers:

Lynn73
January 25th, 2006, 05:16 PM
yup.. with ya 100% :cheers:


:thumb:

bob b
January 25th, 2006, 10:24 PM
It is pretty obvious (harvey hates it when I use that word) in this thread that harvey and others are continuing their tactic of "shooting the messenger" because the fossil record really doesn't "fit" the evolutionary story very well.

It really is immaterial if "most" of the evidence can be placed into their general framework, because in Science the exceptions are what sinks theories.

Notice that when the going gets tough they try to switch the topic to the Bible, as though if they discredit scripture that this will protect their concept.

Notice also they insist illogically that we must lump microevolution (small change) with macroevolution (major transformation from one type to another). This is done not because it is scientifically justified but only because that is the way they present it to their gullible students, most of whom eventually swallow such a lie and perhaps go on to become the next generation of committed evolutionists. Then they have the gall to demand that skeptics prove that small changes will not add up to macroevolution given sufficient time like millions of years. No matter that the fossil record shows no such thing, in fact it shows the exact opposite, as more and more people are beginning to realize now that we have the internet and no longer have to get all of our information about such things in books written by evolutionists.

Mr Jack
January 26th, 2006, 03:57 AM
Lynn73,

What then is your response to the many, many Christians (and other theists) who believe in Evolution?

Jukia
January 26th, 2006, 06:57 AM
It is pretty obvious (harvey hates it when I use that word) in this thread that harvey and others are continuing their tactic of "shooting the messenger" because the fossil record really doesn't "fit" the evolutionary story very well.

.

No, what is obvious is that neither you nor Lynn have any real grasp of biology or evolutionary thinking.

Lynn73
January 26th, 2006, 07:10 AM
Lynn73,

What then is your response to the many, many Christians (and other theists) who believe in Evolution?

I assume you mean that these are people who believe in God and Christ for no one can be a Christian without knowing and accepting Christ. They just believe that God did everything through evolution, correct? Obviously, I don't agree with them.

Mr Jack
January 26th, 2006, 07:13 AM
I assume you mean that these are people who believe in God and Christ for no one can be a Christian without knowing and accepting Christ. They just believe that God did everything through evolution, correct? Obviously, I don't agree with them.

You've stated that you believe that "Evolutionists" are deliberately misleading people, and that they only accept evolution because they wish to avoid accepting the existence of a creator. How then do you explain those accept both evolution and a creator?

Lynn73
January 26th, 2006, 07:40 AM
I believed I used the term, "some" evolutionists. I don't believe I said that all evolutionists think like that because I know they don't. I already knew that some Christians believe God used evolution and I know that some evoltionists are just plain deceived even though they sincerely believe in evolution. And there are those who have stated they don't want their to be a God and yes, SOME (not all) like evolution because it allows them to live any way they want without being answerable to God. I don't have time now (time to work) to check my past posts but see if I said all evolutionists like evolution becaues they don't want there to be a God. I believe I used the word some, not all. Or the word many. I'm pretty sure I didn't use the word all.

Lynn73
January 26th, 2006, 07:41 AM
I also have no idea why Christians would believe in evolution instead of what the Bible says plus I just don't believe the evidence truly supports evolution.

Jukia
January 26th, 2006, 07:49 AM
Lynn: I think what is really interesting is that you ascribe to "some" evolutionists a belief in a scientific theory because it allows them to live however they want and not be answerable to God. I fail to see the connection. Seems to me that if you want to live a profligate lifestyle you do not need evolution to justify that. There were many people living party lifestyles or lifestyles that put themselves first long before Charles Darwin.
People "believe" in evolution because the evidence is overwhelming. Take some time to investigate, don't take as gospel what you see on the AiG web site, or for that matter, what you see on any pro-evolution web site.
Look for example at the thread dealing with manganese nodules, I think it is on the Bob Enyart Live portion of TOL. Pastor Enyart made some claims based on a video. A number of the young earthers jumped on that band wagon. Investigation showed that the information the Pastor Enyart used to make some specific claims, once clarified, did not support his claims.
Every young earth claim that I have ever bothered to delve into has not held water. Look at the evidence, learn some science.

aharvey
January 26th, 2006, 08:02 AM
It is pretty obvious (harvey hates it when I use that word) in this thread that harvey and others are continuing their tactic of "shooting the messenger" because the fossil record really doesn't "fit" the evolutionary story very well.
Not that you have ever felt compelled to back up your ad hominem attacks, but I would appreciate it if you could show me where I have engaged in shooting the messenger here? And where you or anyone else here has done anything but agree that evolutionary theory does in fact explain what we see in the fossil record whereas the Genesis account does not (your excuse, as I recall, was that it was impossible for us to make predictions about what might result from such extreme, unique events).

It really is immaterial if "most" of the evidence can be placed into their general framework, because in Science the exceptions are what sinks theories.
1) That's flat out false, and 2) your alternative "theory" is virtually nothing but exceptions!

Notice that when the going gets tough they try to switch the topic to the Bible, as though if they discredit scripture that this will protect their concept.
Hmm, where exactly had the going gotten tough? This is all entry-level stuff here. To me, anyways. Oh, perhaps you mean it's gotten tough for the creationist side... And as I recall, it was Turbo who in the most recent round was the one invoking the Bible in these discussions. How can we switch the topic to the one that you guys brought up? So tell me, bob, what does it mean to you when creationists switch the topic to the Bible when they sense the going getting tough?

Notice also they insist illogically that we must lump microevolution (small change) with macroevolution (major transformation from one type to another). This is done not because it is scientifically justified but only because that is the way they present it to their gullible students, most of whom eventually swallow such a lie and perhaps go on to become the next generation of committed evolutionists.
Bob, I've repeatedly explained evolutionary theory to you, including the logical basis for the argument that "microevolution" and "macroevolution" refer to the same theory on different scales. You have never ever ever even attempted to demonstrate the illogical elements of this explanation, but you quite happily call me a liar for making the case?

Then they have the gall to demand that skeptics prove that small changes will not add up to macroevolution given sufficient time like millions of years.
Once again, please explain when and why this process will stop working! All I've said, over and over and over again, is that there is nothing in the evolutionary model (which you yourself agree is correct and logical) that specifies that the process will stop working after a certain amount of change or time. For crying out loud, bob, you are the person claiming that there is in fact some limit to the process; why on earth do you not feel any responsibility to back up your claim? How on earth can you pretend that it's up to me to rule out a limiting factor when I don't have any idea what that limiting factor might be?

No matter that the fossil record shows no such thing, in fact it shows the exact opposite, as more and more people are beginning to realize now that we have the internet and no longer have to get all of our information about such things in books written by evolutionists.
Anyone who believes what they read on the internet over what professionals in the field publish... I'll simply note that when bob blathers on in such generalities, "the fossil record shows no support for evolutionary theory," he shows no hesitation in his assertions, but when pressed for details on specific patterns, he either ignores you, changes the subject, claims there isn't enough fossil evidence yet but is sure the supporting data will be found someday, or agrees that the existing data is in fact consistent with evolutionary theory.

aharvey
January 26th, 2006, 08:34 AM
I also have no idea why Christians would believe in evolution instead of what the Bible says plus I just don't believe the evidence truly supports evolution.
But it's a belief borne of self-professed ignorance. Just so we're clear on that.

bob b
January 27th, 2006, 10:36 AM
You've stated that you believe that "Evolutionists" are deliberately misleading people, and that they only accept evolution because they wish to avoid accepting the existence of a creator. How then do you explain those accept both evolution and a creator?

There are many whose faith is so weak and who are so awed by the accomplishments of science (e.g. going to the Moon) that they feel that they must find a way to reconcile what scientists are currently saying and what the Bible clearly says.

The method that these people have selected for the "reconciliation" is to believe that the Bible does not really mean what it apparently does, but instead must have only been speaking symbolically.

In other words, they have more faith in what scientists say about Origins than what the Bible says about Origins.

About Harvey: he never seems to tire of putting words in my mouth that I never said. (he will now probably attempt to divert attention from the subject of this thread by starting a long and boring tirade which also asks me to "prove" that he puts words in my mouth, just as he wants us creationists to "prove" that small changes will not add up to really big ones (bacteria to humans) given billions of years, because we all know that given enough time anything can happen).

In a way this is humorous, because the ideas in such speculative areas of science as Origins are constantly changing whereas the Bible obviously never changes (except perhaps for a few typos).

To make it even more preposterous, you will hear people on this forum claim that the fact that science ideas continually change is a big plus, whereas an unchanging Bible is a real drawback. ;)

Jukia
January 27th, 2006, 11:23 AM
In other words, they have more faith in what scientists say about Origins than what the Bible says about Origins.



And then there are those who put their faith in what scientists say about Origins rather than the Bible, but put their faith in God based on the Bible rather than what scientists say.

aharvey
January 27th, 2006, 11:54 AM
blah blah blah...

About Harvey: he never seems to tire of putting words in my mouth that I never said. (he will now probably attempt to divert attention from the subject of this thread by starting a long and boring tirade which also asks me to "prove" that he puts words in my mouth, just as he wants us creationists to "prove" that small changes will not add up to really big ones (bacteria to humans) given billions of years, because we all know that given enough time anything can happen).

I'll save you the trouble of "proving" that I put words in your mouth and simply back each of my most recent statements with your own words. If this is not what you were referring to, then you'll need to be more specific.

My recent post to which I think bob is taking issue:

"Anyone who believes what they read on the internet over what professionals in the field publish... I'll simply note that when bob blathers on in such generalities, "the fossil record shows no support for evolutionary theory," he shows no hesitation in his assertions, but when pressed for details on specific patterns, he either ignores you,..."

One of many, many , many examples:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=998932&postcount=144

"Quote:
Originally Posted by aharvey

Okay, here's a nice example of one of your evolutionary cartoons. "Living fossils" are an extreme minority, as you well know. And the parts they leave behind are not identical to those of modern forms, as you well know. And the parts they leave behind are not exhaustive, meaning that they do not prove that no evolution took place. I notice you studiously avoided answering the question about the skeletons of the two warblers, so I'm guessing this is something you also already know."

As you can tell, not the first time I've reminded bob about the warblers. Still failed to elicit a response from him.

"...changes the subject,..."

Me: the Biblical “description” of a “behemoth” does not sound much at all like a dinosaur, and is far too lyrical and fanciful to hang one’s hat on as a literal description of any particular creature. My specific closing statement: “Look at this passage, people! It is very lyrical, fanciful, poetic; what do you think it is really trying to say? So much of it is clearly metaphorical/alleghorical, why would you think it must nonetheless be referring, and accurately, to an existing creature?”

Bob’s responses:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1001259&postcount=189

"There you go again: nitpicking an English translation in order to continue your practice of degnigrating scripture." [note, this is not followed with something relevant like “the Hebrew translation actually provides a much better description of a dinosaur…”]

And…

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1002050&postcount=208

"Why do you continually use English translations of the Hebrew?" [note, this is not followed with something relevant like “the Hebrew translation actually provides a much better description of a dinosaur…”]

"Do you think that the ancient writers paid any attention to the way we name and classify lifeforms today?" [this has nothing to do with the statements to which he claims to be responding]

"Do you think that the King James translators were familiar with dinosaurs?" [note, this is not followed with something relevant like “the Hebrew translation actually provides a much better description of a dinosaur…”]

"And the modern translators are too intimidated by scientists to ever dare suggest that the most logical animal to fit the description given in Job is a dinosaur, because "everyone knows" they became extinct millions of years ago." [a double whammy: this has nothing to do with the statements to which he claims to be responding, and still is not followed with something relevant like “the Hebrew translation actually provides a much better description of a dinosaur…”]

All I said is that the descriptions don't read like dinosaur descriptions, and while bob obviously is challenging me, he does so by trying everything except show that in fact they do read like dinosaur descriptions.

"...claims there isn't enough fossil evidence yet but is sure the supporting data will be found someday,..."

My favorite example of this, given that elsewhere you scoff when evolutionists invoke an incomplete fossil record:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=887049&postcount=50

Quote [from me]:
"Over the months I've asked for creationist explanations for a few data sets with which I am familiar, and have yet to hear an explanation that is more than a wild guess that is, of course, consistent with Genesis (as opposed to an explanation that is derived directly from the creationist model). For example, Why does the global distribution of marsupial fossils, supposedly deposited during the Flood, match up so well with the global distribution of modern marsupials, which supposedly recolonized a supposedly very different looking planet after the Flood (which, remember, did a lot more than simply cover the existing topography with water!) from a single point of departure? And the pattern is far richer than simply "marsupials present/absent." But so far I've heard nothing resembling a creationist perspective that could explain even the coarsest global presence/absence patterns."

bob's reply: "Global distributions of fossils are not known all that well due to the fact that some areas are more accessible to investigation than others (due to many factors such as topography and political stability, etc). It is surprising for instance how many fossils are found in regions of the globe where their presumed ancestors would not have frequented. Evolutionists typically "force-fit" correlations by assuming different past climates and even different configurations of continents. With no control on such assumptions one can correlate anything with anything given sufficient resources."

"...or agrees that the existing data is in fact consistent with evolutionary theory."

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=998932&postcount=144
Me:"Evolutionary theory suggests that the greater the time since two organisms shared a common ancestor, the greater the potential for change. Therefore, the proportion of fossils that would be considered "extremely similar" to modern forms should decrease in increasingly older geologic strata (it does not say if, or when, this proportion should equal zero!). As much as you might want to harp on "living fossils," even you must agree that this prediction is upheld."

Bob b: "I would agree except to note that this was not a "prediction" but an after the fact conclusion which was arrived at by observing the fossil record. However, the way the evolutionary hypothesis is formulate there should be no valid exceptions, not just that the majority of findings describe a general pattern."

In other words “Yes, but…” (and I did address those flabby “buts,” though that’s besides my point here).Then, when I point blank challenged him to show how Creationism could explain this same pattern, bob replies:

“Defy away, but if you think it is feasible to predict in detail the effects of even a minor "blip" like a hurricane without looking at past evidences of ones that happened, then be my guest. Then try to do a prediction for a one-of-a-kind event of global scale.”

I inadvertently left that one off my list: he rationalizes why creationism can’t explain the pattern.

Frankly, for someone who assigns deeply personal and always unflattering motivations to people on practically a daily basis on this forum to complain that someone puts words in his mouth seems deeply hypocritical, to say the least (can we say "motes and beams"?). But hopefully I've made it clear that I have not charged bob with doing anything that he hasn't actually done.

I'm sorry if bob considers this a "long and boring tirade;" he doesn't seem to understand the value of actually providing evidence for one's claims, and in fact the last time I extensively documented my challenge to the personal feelings/motivations bob ascribed to someone, he simply dismissed it as so much "verbiage." And yes, I can supply a link to that too!

Lynn73
January 27th, 2006, 12:01 PM
But it's a belief borne of self-professed ignorance. Just so we're clear on that.

Whatever floats your boat. Did I say I was ignorant, I can't remember.

bob b
January 27th, 2006, 12:09 PM
The latest from creationsafaris, by way of the "hypocrite".


Evolutionary Theory: Verified or Vilified? 01/26/2006
Jeffrey Schwartz has reason to be happy that his particular theory of evolution received some support recently, according to a press release from University of Pittsburgh. But look at the pedestal he is standing on: the ruins of classical Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. In supporting his own theory, he kicked out the props from under standard evolutionary theory (emphasis added in all quotes):

Fossils: The missing links Darwin expected to find “have not been found because they don’t exist,” he claims. The gradualistic theory “glosses over gaps in the fossil record,” he accuses.
Gradualism: Gradual change does not occur: “evolution is not necessarily gradual but often sudden, dramatic expressions of change.”
Resistance to change: “Why don’t cells subtly and constantly change in small ways over time, as Darwin suggests? Cell biologists know the answer: Cells don’t like to change and don’t do so easily.”
Quality Control: “Cells in their ordinary states have suites of molecules—various kinds of proteins—whose jobs are to eliminate error that might get introduced and derail the functioning of their cell. For instance, some proteins work to keep the cell membrane intact. Other proteins act as chaperones, bringing molecules to their proper locations in the cell, and so on. In short, with that kind of protection from change, it is very difficult for mutations, of whatever kind, to gain a foothold.”
Improbability: Mutations “may be significant and beneficial (like teeth or limbs) or, more likely, kill the organism.”
Disequilibrium: “This revelation has enormous implications for the notion that organisms routinely change to adapt to the environment. Actually, Schwartz argues, it is the environment that knocks them off their equilibrium and as likely ultimately kills them as changes them. And so they are being rocked by the environment, not adapting to it.”
With statements like this, that seem to echo those of creationists, what is Schwartz proposing in the place of standard neo-Darwinism? It’s called the “Sudden Origins Theory.” That sounds like creationism, too. It’s not. It is repackaged evolutionary theory, just as unguided and naturalistic as the old, but now it puts more emphasis on the environment as the instigator of adaptive change. Aided by colleague Ian Tattersall, Schwarz wrote a book on this six years ago, Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species (John Wiley & Sons, 2000), that the press release summarizes:
The mechanism, the authors explain, is this: Environmental upheaval causes genes to mutate, and those altered genes remain in a recessive state, spreading silently through the population until offspring appear with two copies of the new mutation and change suddenly, seemingly appearing out of thin air.
Because cells resist change and correct their errors, defeating gradualism, Schwarz and Tattersall looked for other ways to make mutations stick. The environment became the stressor to knock organisms out of kilter and plant the germs of creative change into their genes, in a recessive state. There, the ones that don’t kill the organism await the next opportunity to bloom. These recessive mutations amount to a sort of toolkit for evolution to tinker with, not knowing what they are good for until a need arises in the environment.
Why is this six-year-old proposal getting press now? Schwarz just co-authored a paper with Bruno Maresca, appearing in the Jan. 30 New Anatomist Journal, that they claim supports the new theory, based on some “emerging understanding of cell structure” that was left unspecified in the press release.
One implication of Schwarz’s theory is that today’s organisms are loaded with mutations from previous environmental stresses. It is too late, therefore, to try to make a quick fix to the environment. “The Sudden Origins theory, buttressed by modern cell biology,” he said, “underscores the need to preserve the environment—not only to enhance life today, but to protect life generations from now.”
So he ends with a flourish, giving a little politically correct environmentalist spin to help legitimize his rhetoric and distract attention from his crazy idea. This is rich. Schwartz and Tattersall have just corroborated all the criticisms creationists bring against neo-Darwinism: mutations are generally harmful, cells are intricately designed to resist change, and the fossil record, riddled with real gaps, debunks gradualism. Thank you, Dr. Schwarz, for helping shovel standard evolutionary theory into the dustbin of history.
But is his replacement any better? All he has done is transfer the creative power of evolution from one undirected, natural cause (gradual natural selection) to another undirected, natural cause (the environment and sudden natural selection). Has he shown that the pool of recessive mutated genes has any more creative power to generate wings and eyes than the old gradualism? Has he explained how fully-formed, functioning complex organs, like teeth or limbs, could burst on the scene, as if from nowhere? This is not science, this is magic. The new evolutionists have become illusionists, producing rabbits out of thin air.

Jukia
January 27th, 2006, 12:12 PM
Whatever floats your boat. Did I say I was ignorant, I can't remember.
See your posts #22 and #27.

aharvey
January 27th, 2006, 12:23 PM
Whatever floats your boat. Did I say I was ignorant, I can't remember.
See Jukia's post. In addition, you didn't answer this question I'd asked you earlier: What would you think of someone who gets their understanding of the Bible entirely from explicitly atheist, anti-Christian web sites?. Would you, Lynn, expect such a person to be well-informed or ignorant about Christianity?

aharvey
January 27th, 2006, 12:24 PM
The latest from creationsafaris, by way of the "hypocrite".
Grammatically speaking, there's no need for the quotation marks, bob.

Jukia
January 27th, 2006, 12:33 PM
The latest from creationsafaris, by way of the "hypocrite".

See the last paragraph of bob b's cite. The new evolutionists are doing magic, not science. Interesting concept. But do any of these creationists have the nerve to deal directly with Dr. Schwartz? My guess is not.
Why not track him down and see if he really agrees with the creationsafaris take on his work? Maybe because he will laugh?
Well, I really do not expect them to do that do I. None of the "beer can manganese" people contacted Dr. Hein or Yates did they. Nope. Left it to the evil evolutionist to track down Hein to get his input to the specific claims made by the good Pastor Enyart.

bob b
January 27th, 2006, 01:02 PM
Grammatically speaking, there's no need for the quotation marks, bob.

Nice "nitpick". Makes my point. ;)

bob b
January 27th, 2006, 01:12 PM
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

Lest anyone think this stopped Gould from believing in evolution, think again. Evolutionists remain faithful til the end.

I wonder though if he still does. ;)

koban
January 27th, 2006, 01:22 PM
Nice "nitpick". Makes my point. ;)


You skip Harv's post #70 and respond to this one?

Who's doing the nitpicking? :hammer:

bob b
January 27th, 2006, 01:22 PM
University of Pittsburgh Professor of Anthropology Jeffrey H. Schwartz has consistently swum against the neo-Darwinian mainstream, and this new 30Jan2006 paper in the New Anatomist with University of Salerno Professor of Biochemistry Bruno Maresca is no exception. The starting point of their argument is clear: Neo-Darwinism has failed and does not fit the evidence. For instance, in the section titled “Molecular and Morphological Contradiction” (pp. 39-40), Maresca and Schwartz write:


Rest of article at: http://www.idthefuture.com/

aharvey
January 27th, 2006, 03:04 PM
Nice "nitpick". Makes my point. ;)
Obviously you didn't get mine! ;)

Lynn73
January 27th, 2006, 04:56 PM
See Jukia's post. In addition, you didn't answer this question I'd asked you earlier: What would you think of someone who gets their understanding of the Bible entirely from explicitly atheist, anti-Christian web sites?. Would you, Lynn, expect such a person to be well-informed or ignorant about Christianity?


I wouldn't expect all atheists to necessarily be ignorant about Christianity, I 'd expect them to be hostile toward it. And, yes, I understand that not all atheist are. If some doesn't understand Christianity, no the best place to find out about it wouldn't be an atheist, anti-Christian site. I know what evolution is, the belief that we evolved from slime or whatever. If I went to a pro-evolution site, do you think it would change my mind about believing in God because it wouldn't. And, yes, I'm aware some Christians believe in evolution. This one doesn't. Do you think that every pro creation by God site are ignorant of what evolution teaches?

bob b
January 28th, 2006, 10:59 AM
Koban complained that I never replied to "Harv's" post#70 so it is Saturday and I have nothing better to do so here goes (Koban should understand that I am understandably slower than you youngsters in typing plus I get so many people arguing with me plus I don't spend ALL my time here, with the result that I tend to be more selective than many in my replies).


Not that you have ever felt compelled to back up your ad hominem attacks,

I never consciously engage in ad hominen attacks. On the contrary I tend to be respectful toward individuals, regardless of their beliefs. However, I am not respectful toward the theory sometimes called NeoDarwinism nor the group who adhere to this grevious scientific error. "Group think" disgusts me.


but I would appreciate it if you could show me where I have engaged in shooting the messenger here? And where you or anyone else here has done anything but agree that evolutionary theory does in fact explain what we see in the fossil record whereas the Genesis account does not (your excuse, as I recall, was that it was impossible for us to make predictions about what might result from such extreme, unique events).

I feel it unproductive to spend time and effort proving that you personally bear full responsibility for telling people that they are ignorant in not believing in evolution. But it is obvious to anyone with eyes to see that evolutionists typically do this frequently instead of keeping the discussion strictly on the evidences.


1) That's flat out false, and 2) your alternative "theory" is virtually nothing but exceptions!

Without taking the time to review exactly what was being referred to here (I presume it was the fossil record though), I will only say that declaring the opponents argument is false is no better than me saying that my opinion is true.

My "alternative theory" I presume is referring to my general belief that the Genesis account is true as written, with no "symbolic" interpretation necessary. I not not agree with the many who try to make it agree with so-called "scientific" theories of Origins for the simple reason that I believe those theories are incorrect, on scientific grounds.

If one wants to call belief in a 6-day creation of multiple complex types at the beginning of life (some thousands rather than millions or billions ago), followed by a global flood several thousand years later that lasted over a year, a "theory" be my guest, but it might be better to call it a revelation orchestrated by God so that humans would have a solid set of starting conditions for our further speculations about the physical world and how it got to be the way it is today.

I favor the straightforward understanding of this revelation because I believe it makes far more sense in explaining how lifeforms have diversified over time than does the idea of all lifeforms today being the result of a bacterial-type starting lifeform that took billions of years to diversity through random accidents altering the DNA.

... snip


Bob, I've repeatedly explained evolutionary theory to you, including the logical basis for the argument that "microevolution" and "macroevolution" refer to the same theory on different scales. You have never ever ever even attempted to demonstrate the illogical elements of this explanation, but you quite happily call me a liar for making the case?

I do not recall calling you a liar, because I always have been of the opinion that you actually believe what you are saying. However, I do not see any logical basis for believing the extrapolation is scientifically valid and I have not seen any support for it other than "why not?" or perhaps attempts to involve subjective judgments regarding the fossil record or perhaps other types of indirect assessments.


Once again, please explain when and why this process will stop working!.

In order for the process to work it must increase the specified complexity of the genomes involved over time. There is no solid evidence that this is possible using a random search strategy which NeoDarwinism advocates. In fact this was the primary reason I rejected NeoDarwinism 22 years ago. There have been attempts to overcome this difficulty many times over the past 22 years, but all such attempts and examples I have seen have in the end proven to be scientifically inadequate.


All I've said, over and over and over again, is that [b]there is nothing in the evolutionary model (which you yourself agree is correct and logical)

Your comment in quotes is not an accurate statement of my belief. It may be close, but no cigar. Specifically, the logic may have a superficial appeal (I bought into it for many years), but on closer examination the end result is clearly wrong. To be perfectly clear, I do not believe that the evolutionary model is correct.


that specifies that the process will stop working after a certain amount of change or time. For crying out loud, bob, you are the person claiming that there is in fact some limit to the process; why on earth do you not feel any responsibility to back up your claim? How on earth can you pretend that it's up to me to rule out a limiting factor when I don't have any idea what that limiting factor might be?

There are limiting factors in all physical phenomena.Your position seems to be that it is scientifically proven that small changes will accumulate to large changes given sufficient time. I do not accept that all you need to do to support this is to note that I can't prove it to be wrong.


Anyone who believes what they read on the internet over what professionals in the field publish...

Almost everybody and everything appears on the internet, including writings by professionals and many journal articles. On a personal note I read hundreds of books about evolution, written by professionals, and have many of the same books in my personal library.


I'll simply note that when bob blathers on in such generalities, "the fossil record shows no support for evolutionary theory," he shows no hesitation in his assertions, but when pressed for details on specific patterns, he either ignores you, changes the subject, claims there isn't enough fossil evidence yet but is sure the supporting data will be found someday, or agrees that the existing data is in fact consistent with evolutionary theory.

Some aspects of evolutionary theory are better supported than others, but this tends to change over time as research and evidence accumulates. The one thing that originally convinced me 22 years ago that NeoDarwinism was wrong was the concept that random mutations was the principal mechanism driving a transformation from a hypothetical protocell to all lifeforms found today and in the fossil record.

I have never wavered in my belief that the "random mutation" idea was wrong, in fact it is stronger today than ever and continues to grow as new research and findings continue to come out in a literal flood of information.

NeoDarwinism is for all intents and purposes dead, despite the feverish efforts of its shrinking roster of proponents to revive the corpse.

aharvey
January 28th, 2006, 11:03 AM
I wouldn't expect all atheists to necessarily be ignorant about Christianity, I 'd expect them to be hostile toward it. And, yes, I understand that not all atheist are. If some doesn't understand Christianity, no the best place to find out about it wouldn't be an atheist, anti-Christian site.
Thank you. Is it so hard to accept that the same is true about, well, pretty much everything, including evolution?

I know what evolution is, the belief that we evolved from slime or whatever.
Just so's ya know, the second half of this sentence disproves the first half.

If I went to a pro-evolution site, do you think it would change my mind about believing in God because it wouldn't.
"Pro-evolution" site? I don't doubt that these exist, but how about just going to sources about science? You've kinda skipped over it when I've mentioned this, but evolution is not a religion, a political party, or a team. You might as well refer to "pro-gravity" sites. "Pro-evolution" sites would exist simply to respond to attacks by anti-evolutionists, and you'd be better off just going to sources that just discuss the science itself.

So to answer your question, no, I don't think a visit to a "pro-evolution" site would change your mind, but I can't predict how you would react to exposure to the science itself.

And, yes, I'm aware some Christians believe in evolution. This one doesn't. Do you think that every pro creation by God site are ignorant of what evolution teaches?
I haven't seen one yet that demonstrates otherwise. If they know what evolutionary theory is about (note that evolution doesn't actually teach anything!), they are withholding that information from their site.

aharvey
January 28th, 2006, 02:59 PM
I never consciously engage in ad hominen attacks.
Then you must do much of your typing whilst unconscious. Or maybe you have a unique concept of ad hominem Maybe you don’t consider accusing someone of typically “shooting the messenger” to be an ad hominem attack, but whatever you consider it, my point was that you aren’t likely to back it up.

On the contrary I tend to be respectful toward individuals, regardless of their beliefs. However, I am not respectful toward the theory sometimes called NeoDarwinism nor the group who adhere to this grevious scientific error.
I am not so sure that you would accept someone coming to you and saying, “I respect you as an individual, but that group called Christians to which you belong are sure a bunch of idiots!”

"Group think" disgusts me.
Frankly, I find that statement hilarious coming from a fundamentalist Christian.

I feel it unproductive to spend time and effort proving that you personally bear full responsibility for telling people that they are ignorant in not believing in evolution.
So you do find it productive to spend time and effort making accusations, but you don’t find it productive to spend time and effort backing them up?

But it is obvious to anyone with eyes to see that evolutionists typically do this frequently instead of keeping the discussion strictly on the evidences.
Then your eyes need checking, bob, because I have spent a great deal of time trying to discuss the evidence and you and pretty much everyone else on the Biblical literalist side of the fence do everything in your power to avoid discussing the evidence.

Without taking the time to review exactly what was being referred to here (I presume it was the fossil record though),
How much time would it have taken to read the one-sentence quote, from you, placed right there in my post? Since it didn't involve the fossil record, it almost seems like you're trying to avoid the actual issue.

I will only say that declaring the opponents argument is false is no better than me saying that my opinion is true.
That’s usually true. In this case, I couldn’t really imagine what possessed you to claim that scientific theories are sunk by exceptions regardless of how few they are. Can you give me a single example of science operating this way? Oh, and if you’re going to keep it relevant to the present discussion, make sure your example isn’t an exception that is better explained by a competing theory.

My "alternative theory" I presume is referring to my general belief that the Genesis account is true as written, with no "symbolic" interpretation necessary. I not not agree with the many who try to make it agree with so-called "scientific" theories of Origins for the simple reason that I believe those theories are incorrect, on scientific grounds.

If one wants to call belief in a 6-day creation of multiple complex types at the beginning of life (some thousands rather than millions or billions ago), followed by a global flood several thousand years later that lasted over a year, a "theory" be my guest, but it might be better to call it a revelation orchestrated by God so that humans would have a solid set of starting conditions for our further speculations about the physical world and how it got to be the way it is today.

I favor the straightforward understanding of this revelation because I believe it makes far more sense in explaining how lifeforms have diversified over time than does the idea of all lifeforms today being the result of a bacterial-type starting lifeform that took billions of years to diversity through random accidents altering the DNA.
Any other branch of science that you think should similarly rely on this kind of nonscientific revelation? Do you really feel that your belief that it “makes far more sense” to you is sufficient cause for the rest of us to fundamentally change how we do science? Even though you cannot explain why or how or provide any supporting logic or evidence (remember, “it’s obvious” doesn’t count as either in science)?

... snip
Too bad. I wonder why you skipped that section?

I do not recall calling you a liar, because I always have been of the opinion that you actually believe what you are saying.
Re-read your post 62. I will tell you that it is a pale dodge to start by talking about me personally and then, just before starting with the ad hominem attacks, switch to “evolutionists” while still continuing to respond to my arguments. So while you are talking about me you say evolutionists teach lies, you are calling me a liar.

However, I do not see any logical basis for believing the extrapolation is scientifically valid and I have not seen any support for it other than "why not?" or perhaps attempts to involve subjective judgments regarding the fossil record or perhaps other types of indirect assessments.
You’ve avoided this point before, but what the heck, I’ll mention it again. Extrapolations are deemed unjustified not by default alone. There is usually some sort of reason, logic, evidence, whatever, that suggests caution. Furthermore, we are not talking about a quantitative extrapolation here, in which the rates of evolution would be assumed constant over time. We are talking about a qualitative extrapolation, in which the process doesn’t just completely stop for no reason. That’s what you’re claiming: the process itself will stop working after a certain amount of time for no reason. Can you name another case in science where such a philosophy is accepted?

In order for the process to work it must increase the specified complexity of the genomes involved over time.
Funny, that’s not part of the theory at all. Nor has anyone demonstrated in the slightest that for populations to change genetically over time, the specified complexity (a term, I might add, that is devoid of biological content) of the genomes must increase.

There is no solid evidence that this is possible using a random search strategy which NeoDarwinism advocates.
As you well know, NeoDarwinism (what a quaint term!) does not “advocate” a “random search strategy.” And it’s hard to imagine why there would be hard evidence for something that is considered important only to people who have other, nonscientific reasons for tearing evolutionary theory down.

In fact this was the primary reason I rejected NeoDarwinism 22 years ago.
Ah, I’m sure that was. Genomic specified complexity changes was a hot topic in the early 1980s, wasn’t it? Seriously, you really expect us to believe that you rejected all of evolutionary theory because there was “no solid evidence” that “random search strategies” could “increase the specified complexity of the genome”?

There have been attempts to overcome this difficulty many times over the past 22 years, but all such attempts and examples I have seen have in the end proven to be scientifically inadequate.
That’s because they’ve been done by creationists/intelligent designers, and weren’t really trying to overcome the difficulty, they were trying to show there was a difficulty. This is a topic whose adherents have yet to make enough of a prima facie case for real biologists to care about it.

Your comment in quotes is not an accurate statement of my belief. It may be close, but no cigar. Specifically, the logic may have a superficial appeal (I bought into it for many years), but on closer examination the end result is clearly wrong. To be perfectly clear, I do not believe that the evolutionary model is correct.
So, no descent with modification? No small changes over short time intervals? More generally, no relationship between time and change? I've told you that's the model, and you agreed with me. You can dispute one of the inferences, but it would help for you to provide at the least a logical basis for your disagreement.

There are limiting factors in all physical phenomena.Your position seems to be that it is scientifically proven that small changes will accumulate to large changes given sufficient time. I do not accept that all you need to do to support this is to note that I can't prove it to be wrong.
I’m not asking you to prove it wrong. I’m asking you to provide a rational hypothesis. You betray yourself when you use the phrase “scientifically proven.” Anyone who truly understands science knows that science does not and cannot deal in proofs.

It has been established that small differences occur over short time spans, and larger differences have accumulated over longer time spans. These are observations, scientific facts. Given evolutionary theory, we can make inferences about what would happen over ever longer periods of time, and we can make predictions about what the world would be like as a result. These predictions cover embryology, genetics, ecology, morphology, behavior, biochemistry, geology, biogeography, and probably more. And they are very, very well supported. You no doubt will continue to make unsupported claims to the contrary, but all I can do is remind you what happens whenever I actually get you to discuss specific evidence.

Almost everybody and everything appears on the internet, including writings by professionals and many journal articles.
A little bait and switch, bob? Or do you really think this responds to my statement above? Let’s try it out: “Anyone who believes what they read on the internet by professionals in the field over what professionals in the field publish...” Nope, sorry, the fact that professionals put stuff on the web does not address my point at all.

On a personal note I read hundreds of books about evolution, written by professionals, and have many of the same books in my personal library.
And yet you still think Mitochondrial Eve refers to the original human female, that Haldane was puzzled about evolutionary rates, that tides primarily move water laterally, that people used cytochrome C data to construct phylogenies, that creationism but not evolutionary theory predicts that the age of the oldest fossils known can only increase as new fossils are found, that the simplist marine creatures are found on the bottom of the ocean… (yes, links are available upon request).

Some aspects of evolutionary theory are better supported than others, but this tends to change over time as research and evidence accumulates.
Yep, the overall level of support increases.

The one thing that originally convinced me 22 years ago that NeoDarwinism was wrong was the concept that random mutations was the principal mechanism driving a transformation from a hypothetical protocell to all lifeforms found today and in the fossil record.
That’s not exactly what you said above convinced you.

And it’s wrong, random mutation is not the principal mechanism driving anything, much less the evolution of all life. Mutations do little (nothing?) more than provide a little variation in a population.

I have never wavered in my belief that the "random mutation" idea was wrong,
As you’ve described it, I’d agree that it’s wrong, but so would the rest of the scientific community.

in fact it is stronger today than ever and continues to grow as new research and findings continue to come out in a literal flood of information.

NeoDarwinism is for all intents and purposes dead, despite the feverish efforts of its shrinking roster of proponents to revive the corpse.
You might want to add the following to your monumental reading list:

Shermer, M. 2002. Why people believe weird things.
•••Chapter 3: How thinking goes wrong.
••••••Section 6. Bold statements do not make claims true

bob b
January 28th, 2006, 08:10 PM
Then you must do much of your typing whilst unconscious. Or maybe you have a unique concept of ad hominem Maybe you don’t consider accusing someone of typically “shooting the messenger” to be an ad hominem attack, but whatever you consider it, my point was that you aren’t likely to back it up.

I am not so sure that you would accept someone coming to you and saying, “I respect you as an individual, but that group called Christians to which you belong are sure a bunch of idiots!”

Frankly, I find that statement hilarious coming from a fundamentalist Christian.

So you do find it productive to spend time and effort making accusations, but you don’t find it productive to spend time and effort backing them up?

Then your eyes need checking, bob, because I have spent a great deal of time trying to discuss the evidence and you and pretty much everyone else on the Biblical literalist side of the fence do everything in your power to avoid discussing the evidence.

How much time would it have taken to read the one-sentence quote, from you, placed right there in my post? Since it didn't involve the fossil record, it almost seems like you're trying to avoid the actual issue.

That’s usually true. In this case, I couldn’t really imagine what possessed you to claim that scientific theories are sunk by exceptions regardless of how few they are. Can you give me a single example of science operating this way? Oh, and if you’re going to keep it relevant to the present discussion, make sure your example isn’t an exception that is better explained by a competing theory.

Any other branch of science that you think should similarly rely on this kind of nonscientific revelation? Do you really feel that your belief that it “makes far more sense” to you is sufficient cause for the rest of us to fundamentally change how we do science? Even though you cannot explain why or how or provide any supporting logic or evidence (remember, “it’s obvious” doesn’t count as either in science)?

Too bad. I wonder why you skipped that section?

Re-read your post 62. I will tell you that it is a pale dodge to start by talking about me personally and then, just before starting with the ad hominem attacks, switch to “evolutionists” while still continuing to respond to my arguments. So while you are talking about me you say evolutionists teach lies, you are calling me a liar.

You’ve avoided this point before, but what the heck, I’ll mention it again. Extrapolations are deemed unjustified not by default alone. There is usually some sort of reason, logic, evidence, whatever, that suggests caution. Furthermore, we are not talking about a quantitative extrapolation here, in which the rates of evolution would be assumed constant over time. We are talking about a qualitative extrapolation, in which the process doesn’t just completely stop for no reason. That’s what you’re claiming: the process itself will stop working after a certain amount of time for no reason. Can you name another case in science where such a philosophy is accepted?

Funny, that’s not part of the theory at all. Nor has anyone demonstrated in the slightest that for populations to change genetically over time, the specified complexity (a term, I might add, that is devoid of biological content) of the genomes must increase.

As you well know, NeoDarwinism (what a quaint term!) does not “advocate” a “random search strategy.” And it’s hard to imagine why there would be hard evidence for something that is considered important only to people who have other, nonscientific reasons for tearing evolutionary theory down.

Ah, I’m sure that was. Genomic specified complexity changes was a hot topic in the early 1980s, wasn’t it? Seriously, you really expect us to believe that you rejected all of evolutionary theory because there was “no solid evidence” that “random search strategies” could “increase the specified complexity of the genome”?

That’s because they’ve been done by creationists/intelligent designers, and weren’t really trying to overcome the difficulty, they were trying to show there was a difficulty. This is a topic whose adherents have yet to make enough of a prima facie case for real biologists to care about it.

So, no descent with modification? No small changes over short time intervals? More generally, no relationship between time and change? I've told you that's the model, and you agreed with me. You can dispute one of the inferences, but it would help for you to provide at the least a logical basis for your disagreement.

I’m not asking you to prove it wrong. I’m asking you to provide a rational hypothesis. You betray yourself when you use the phrase “scientifically proven.” Anyone who truly understands science knows that science does not and cannot deal in proofs.

It has been established that small differences occur over short time spans, and larger differences have accumulated over longer time spans. These are observations, scientific facts. Given evolutionary theory, we can make inferences about what would happen over ever longer periods of time, and we can make predictions about what the world would be like as a result. These predictions cover embryology, genetics, ecology, morphology, behavior, biochemistry, geology, biogeography, and probably more. And they are very, very well supported. You no doubt will continue to make unsupported claims to the contrary, but all I can do is remind you what happens whenever I actually get you to discuss specific evidence.

A little bait and switch, bob? Or do you really think this responds to my statement above? Let’s try it out: “Anyone who believes what they read on the internet by professionals in the field over what professionals in the field publish...” Nope, sorry, the fact that professionals put stuff on the web does not address my point at all.

And yet you still think Mitochondrial Eve refers to the original human female, that Haldane was puzzled about evolutionary rates, that tides primarily move water laterally, that people used cytochrome C data to construct phylogenies, that creationism but not evolutionary theory predicts that the age of the oldest fossils known can only increase as new fossils are found, that the simplist marine creatures are found on the bottom of the ocean… (yes, links are available upon request).

Yep, the overall level of support increases.

That’s not exactly what you said above convinced you.

And it’s wrong, random mutation is not the principal mechanism driving anything, much less the evolution of all life. Mutations do little (nothing?) more than provide a little variation in a population.

As you’ve described it, I’d agree that it’s wrong, but so would the rest of the scientific community.

You might want to add the following to your monumental reading list:

Shermer, M. 2002. Why people believe weird things.
•••Chapter 3: How thinking goes wrong.
••••••Section 6. Bold statements do not make claims true

I found little relevant material regarding the main points of the discussion in your voluminous posting, but will admit that your last suggestion that I go to Shermer as a reference was quite a hoot. He was disposed of nicely by Enyart in their debate on evolution. And the Section 6 statement is equally amusing because that is precisely the problem with the idea that small changes can lead to large ones given sufficient time.

Incidentally, random mutation is the principle mechanism proposed to drive evolution. It is a matter of history. Mendelian genetics was orginally seen as a barrier to unlimited evolution. It was only when the element of random mutation was introduced that people believed that they had found a way around Mendel's findings. Combining genetic material was not going to create things not already latent in their genetic material, but mutations might, or so they thought. When genes were discovered this initially seemed to help the "cause", until the additional complication arose that multiple genes were necessary to generate a function, and the still later additional complication that multiple functions could be affected by a change in a single gene.

In other words, functions and traits were systems, elaborately woven together in marvellous ways well beyond the capabilies of human designers.

22 years ago I started to read about DNA, etc. and with my background in human engineered systems was able to readily recognize that knowledge gained about those systems would be applicable to biological systems. Biological systems were automatic feedback control systems, albeit far more elaborate and sophisticated than the human designed ones of that earlier time period. No subsequent findings have changed this; they have only made it more obvious to more people.

These findings are what destroy the hope that one can use random changes to generate what we see in nature given a starting point of a hypothetical primitive protocell. It does not mean that some sort of additional variation cannot be produced (beyond what sexual recombination would do), but such variation would be of the downhill variety, not the kind that would place one on a path to more and more elaborate and sophisticated systems and structures, because there is no such gradual pathway. There are only isolated "landing pads" of successful designs, far removed from one another. Only ingenuity could cause a "leapfrog" from one workable design to a different workable design.

Some today would call this the problem of generating "specified complexity" through random trials.

At the time of my rejection of the "random mutation" idea some 22 years ago I suppose I would have simply referred to it as the problem of "making chicken salad out of chicken s___t."

Thus, I began to gradually favor what I now propose is the better idea that if multiple successful designs were available at the beginning, then the small and limited amount of variation that would be caused by sexual recombination would be able to quickly generate all the variety we see in nature, not completely excluding a small amount of additional minor variation due to random mutations.

noguru
January 29th, 2006, 07:24 PM
In other words, functions and traits were systems, elaborately woven together in marvellous ways well beyond the capabilies of human designers.


Yes Bob, and they now have an apparatus that can make a metal sphere levitate between two electromagnetic poles. Years ago we would have thought that to be well beyond the capabilities of human designers. And some probably would have assumed such a thing to be possible only through the "supenatural". Now that we understand it comprehensively enough to create this device, we know that nothing supernatural is involved at all.

bob b
January 29th, 2006, 08:56 PM
Yes Bob, and they now have an apparatus that can make a metal sphere levitate between two electromagnetic poles. Years ago we would have thought that to be well beyond the capabilities of human designers. And some probably would have assumed such a thing to be possible only through the "supenatural". Now that we understand it comprehensively enough to create this device, we know that nothing supernatural is involved at all.

Unless you believe that humans were supernaturally created in the first place. ;)

Jukia
January 30th, 2006, 06:57 AM
I found little relevant material regarding the main points of the discussion in your voluminous posting, but will admit that your last suggestion that I go to Shermer as a reference was quite a hoot. He was disposed of nicely by Enyart in their debate on evolution. And the Section 6 statement is equally amusing because that is precisely the problem with the idea that small changes can lead to large ones given sufficient time.

.

I havent read the rest of your post bob b but your comment about Pastor Enyart "disposing" of Shermer is simply factually incorrect. To the extent that Enayrt "won" that "debate" it was only because it was Enyart's show and he controlled the discussion. Anyone listening with an objective ear would find that show just dumb.

noguru
January 30th, 2006, 07:28 AM
Unless you believe that humans were supernaturally created in the first place. ;)

Yes Bob, that is an a priori assumption. So far there is no empirical evidence to support this. And then you use this assumption to support your conclusion that it must have been supernatural, because we do not know how it naturally occured. :think:

aharvey
January 30th, 2006, 09:45 AM
I found little relevant material regarding the main points of the discussion in your voluminous posting, but will admit that your last suggestion that I go to Shermer as a reference was quite a hoot. He was disposed of nicely by Enyart in their debate on evolution.
Now that's a classic ad hominem. You don't need to consider Shermer's point that bold statements do not make claims true because (you think) Shermer lost a debate to Bob Enyart.

And the Section 6 statement is equally amusing because that is precisely the problem with the idea that small changes can lead to large ones given sufficient time.
And here's another ploy: you avoid its relevance to your statement by claiming (without justification) that it applies to a completely different statement, one that I have at least provided the logical basis for.

Incidentally, random mutation is the principle mechanism proposed to drive evolution. It is a matter of history. Mendelian genetics was orginally seen as a barrier to unlimited evolution.
Gee, as a professional biologist I have to say that this directly contradicts my understanding of the relevant history. Mendelian genetics solved the biggest problem Darwin had with his ideas, namely how traits got passed on without constant blending.

It was only when the element of random mutation was introduced that people believed that they had found a way around Mendel's findings. Combining genetic material was not going to create things not already latent in their genetic material, but mutations might, or so they thought. When genes were discovered this initially seemed to help the "cause", until the additional complication arose that multiple genes were necessary to generate a function, and the still later additional complication that multiple functions could be affected by a change in a single gene.

In other words, functions and traits were systems, elaborately woven together in marvellous ways well beyond the capabilies of human designers.
Sorry, none of this has anything to do with your foolish claim that random mutation is the primary mechanism of evolution, which is equivalent to claiming that volcanoes are the primary mechanism of soil formation.

22 years ago I started to read about DNA, etc. and with my background in human engineered systems was able to readily recognize that knowledge gained about those systems would be applicable to biological systems. Biological systems were automatic feedback control systems, albeit far more elaborate and sophisticated than the human designed ones of that earlier time period. No subsequent findings have changed this; they have only made it more obvious to more people.
Yawn. Funny that you've made this same claim how many dozens of times, but have not articulated or elaborated beyond these simplistic boilerplate claims (advertisements?).

These findings are what destroy the hope that one can use random changes to generate what we see in nature given a starting point of a hypothetical primitive protocell. It does not mean that some sort of additional variation cannot be produced (beyond what sexual recombination would do), but such variation would be of the downhill variety, not the kind that would place one on a path to more and more elaborate and sophisticated systems and structures, because there is no such gradual pathway. There are only isolated "landing pads" of successful designs, far removed from one another.

Only ingenuity could cause a "leapfrog" from one workable design to a different workable design.

Some today would call this the problem of generating "specified complexity" through random trials.
Yes, but none of these "some" are biologists.
At the time of my rejection of the "random mutation" idea some 22 years ago I suppose I would have simply referred to it as the problem of "making chicken salad out of chicken s___t."

Thus, I began to gradually favor what I now propose is the better idea that if multiple successful designs were available at the beginning, then the small and limited amount of variation that would be caused by sexual recombination would be able to quickly generate all the variety we see in nature, not completely excluding a small amount of additional minor variation due to random mutations.
Sorry. bob, I momentarily forgot how little you know or understand about biology, or science, or proper arguementation (i.e, logic and evidence), and how little you care to understand biology, or science, or proper arguementation, as evidenced by how readily you repeat the exact same nonsense regardless of how much information is provided you, how incredibly selective you are in choosing what to respond to, how frequently those "responses" are in fact evasions, and how readily you dismiss actual evidence and logic as voluminous verbiage. No doubt in a few months you'll be spouting the same nonsense about Mitochondrial Eve with the same unshakable confidence as you did last week. Virtually all of your claims seem to be presuppositions! There's really no point in trying to discuss them, an elementary point that I seem to need to relearn every few months...

bob b
January 30th, 2006, 10:27 AM
Yes Bob, that is an a priori assumption. So far there is no empirical evidence to support this. And then you use this assumption to support your conclusion that it must have been supernatural, because we do not know how it naturally occured. :think:

Your words are beginning to convince me that you fly under false colors when you claim to be a Christian. I have always been under the impression that a Christian took it for granted that the first human beings were created by God.

bob b
January 30th, 2006, 10:50 AM
Back to the subject of this thread.


There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.

Quotation from someone in a position to know the facts and who was proposing a "better" speculative story.

thelaqachisnext
January 30th, 2006, 11:51 AM
FYI -anyone:

On top of the hills near us that extend for miles and miles and are forested, which are owned by Weyerhouser and the State of Washington and other private companies, there are exposed layers of not quite fossilized into hard rock sea creatures by the millions -I haven't counted them, but they are so thick where exposed that there is never an inch between one to another.
the hills extend for quite a few miles -I'd have to look up the square miles to say how many; but one can drive more than fifty miles through them in some places to get to the next town.
Evidences of the flood are all over this earth -so what do the so called experts who deny the flood know, but the folly of denial?

Lynn73
January 30th, 2006, 11:56 AM
FYI -anyone:

On top of the hills near us that extend for miles and miles and are forested, which are owned by Weyerhouser and the State of Washington and other private companies, there are exposed layers of not quite fossilized into hard rock sea creatures by the millions -I haven't counted them, but they are so thick where exposed that there is never an inch between one to another.
the hills extend for quite a few miles -I'd have to look up the square miles to say how many; but one can drive more than fifty miles through them in some places to get to the next town.
Evidences of the flood are all over this earth -so what do the so called experts who deny the flood know, but the folly of denial?

Exactly. The evidence of the global flood is everywhere. Fossils of things are found in places that would not have been their normal habitat. The fountains of the deep broke up, it rained, you have water and mud swirling and flowing everywhere laying down these layers as the water settled and ebbed. It is the folly of denial, I agree wholeheartedly.


http://www.calvaryag.org/apologetics/apologetics_11-evidence_flood.htm

thelaqachisnext
January 30th, 2006, 11:56 AM
Yes Bob, and they now have an apparatus that can make a metal sphere levitate between two electromagnetic poles. Years ago we would have thought that to be well beyond the capabilities of human designers. And some probably would have assumed such a thing to be possible only through the "supenatural". Now that we understand it comprehensively enough to create this device, we know that nothing supernatural is involved at all.
The earth's magnetic fields -and the universe's- were harnessed from the beginning, as artifacts that are evidences of that fact prove, that are found all over the earth; Suppression of the facts of earth's true history leave modern government schooled persons in the dark ages as to our history, and those artifacts support the Word of God from the beginning to the end.

bob b
January 30th, 2006, 11:57 AM
New finding of human footprints:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0130mexican_footprints.asp

Johnny
January 30th, 2006, 12:05 PM
Evidences of the flood are all over this earth -so what do the so called experts who deny the flood know, but the folly of denial?Feh. Evidence of a flood or evidence that your backyard was once part under the sea millions of years ago? Let me ask you: did those millions and millions of sea creatures die in 40 days AND just happen to be deposited in ground there by transient floodwaters which, when receeding rapidly, did not pull most of them back out to sea?

bob b
January 30th, 2006, 12:13 PM
Feh. Evidence of a flood or evidence that your backyard was once part under the sea millions of years ago? Let me ask you: did those millions and millions of sea creatures die in 40 days AND just happen to be deposited in ground there by transient floodwaters which, when receeding rapidly, did not pull most of them back out to sea?

Why do so many Christians believe the Flood lasted 40 days? Fascinating.

aharvey
January 30th, 2006, 12:20 PM
FYI -anyone:

On top of the hills near us that extend for miles and miles and are forested, which are owned by Weyerhouser and the State of Washington and other private companies, there are exposed layers of not quite fossilized into hard rock sea creatures by the millions -I haven't counted them, but they are so thick where exposed that there is never an inch between one to another./QUOTE]
[QUOTE=thelaqachisnext]I'm curious what you mean by "not quite fossilized into hard rock sea creatures." Do you mean the sea creatures are not quite fossilized, or the sediment they are in is not quite hard rock?/QUOTE]
the hills extend for quite a few miles -I'd have to look up the square miles to say how many; but one can drive more than fifty miles through them in some places to get to the next town.
[QUOTE=thelaqachisnext]Evidences of the flood are all over this earth -so what do the so called experts who deny the flood know, but the folly of denial?
Evidence of floods are indeed all over this earth; that doesn't make them the same flood. Evidence of catastrophes are also all over this world; likewise, that doesn't make them all the same catastrophe, much less a single, global flood. Floods have happened all over the world in recent recorded history, as have other catastrophes, but not all at the same time, right? So why would you assume that fossils in Washington state were deposited as a result of the same single flood as fossils in Africa and everywhere else? There are patterns in the horizontal and vertical distribution of those fossils that are, to say the least, very difficult to explain as the result of a single flood event. Not to mention the strong relationship between the geographic distribution of modern organisms and that of recent fossils, you know, those that would have been most recently buried by the flood.

It may be comforting to say that "the existence of fossils around the global is consistent with a single global flood," but you should realize that the existence of fossils is just as consistent with a bunch of regional floods and other catastrophes spread out over long periods of time, and the patterns in which those fossils are distributed find ready explanation in the latter hypothesis but none in the former.

aharvey
January 30th, 2006, 12:29 PM
Exactly. The evidence of the global flood is everywhere. Fossils of things are found in places that would not have been their normal habitat. The fountains of the deep broke up, it rained, you have water and mud swirling and flowing everywhere laying down these layers as the water settled and ebbed. It is the folly of denial, I agree wholeheartedly.


http://www.calvaryag.org/apologetics/apologetics_11-evidence_flood.htm
I wonder if bob b will have anything to say about this link (e.g, its discussion of Mt. Everest and Mt. Ararat). It's been a while since I've heard a creationist claim that mountains were at their current heights when the flood covered them. Makes for some interesting calculations as to how much water was required, and raises some interesting questions about where that much water could have come from, and where it all went afterwards. More typically these days, the creationist line is that the Earth's surface topology was very different than today, much flatter, and they even buy into plate tectonic theory, just cramming all that plate movement into the year or so duration of the flood (you'd think that would have been worth at least a brief mention in the Genesis account, given that that much geologic activity in such a short amount of time would have created far more, er, interesting and dramatic challenges to survival than would a mere flood itself).

Jukia
January 30th, 2006, 02:13 PM
FYI -anyone:

On top of the hills near us that extend for miles and miles and are forested, which are owned by Weyerhouser and the State of Washington and other private companies, there are exposed layers of not quite fossilized into hard rock sea creatures by the millions -I haven't counted them, but they are so thick where exposed that there is never an inch between one to another.
the hills extend for quite a few miles -I'd have to look up the square miles to say how many; but one can drive more than fifty miles through them in some places to get to the next town.
Evidences of the flood are all over this earth -so what do the so called experts who deny the flood know, but the folly of denial?
On top of most hills near my house in eastern Connecticut is a bit of dirt and then granite. Is that evidence of Noah's flood???

fool
January 30th, 2006, 04:06 PM
I got ice-age issues in Michigan.

noguru
January 30th, 2006, 06:00 PM
Your words are beginning to convince me that you fly under false colors when you claim to be a Christian. I have always been under the impression that a Christian took it for granted that the first human beings were created by God.

Really Bob, I don't care what you think. As a matter of fact we have been over this issue before. I guess you are going to resort to your strategy of plausible deniabilty again. So just to freshen up your stale memory, I will explain my beliefs again to you (not like its going to sink in this time).

I believe in God through a leap of blind faith. I openly and honestly admit this. Since I do believe in God my philosophical world view does see Him as the creator of the universe, and by virtue of this the creator of humankind. I do realize however that from the view of natural philosophy, since there is no empirical evidence for God, we cannot use Him as a factor in any equation regarding the material sciences. It's really quite simple Bob. But you seem to keep loosing track of this very simple concept. Do you understand now? :juggle:

noguru
January 30th, 2006, 06:03 PM
I got ice-age issues in Michigan.

They also have them in Cape Cod, and some of the other islands near Long Island Sound. They come in the form of kettle ponds.

thelaqachisnext
January 30th, 2006, 06:06 PM
On top of most hills near my house in eastern Connecticut is a bit of dirt and then granite. Is that evidence of Noah's flood???
No, silly. That is evidence of the creation. :ha:
Now if they had layers of sea creatures fossilized -or almost fossilized on them- or land creatures jumbled in masses together, washed together by the force of great waters and buried in the mud of a great flood, then that would be evidence of the flood that covered the whole earth and left billions of dead 'things' laid down in rock layers all over the earth.

noguru
January 30th, 2006, 06:22 PM
No, silly. That is evidence of the creation. :ha:
Now if they had layers of sea creatures fossilized -or almost fossilized on them- or land creatures jumbled in masses together, washed together by the force of great waters and buried in the mud of a great flood, then that would be evidence of the flood that covered the whole earth and left billions of dead 'things' laid down in rock layers all over the earth.

Well if the sea creature fossils you mentioned on hills were left by a global flood, why wouldn't there be sea creature fossils on the low rolling hills of eastern CT?

So let me get this straight, when there are fossilized sea creatures on a mountain that's evidence of a global flood? When there aren't any fossilized sea creatures on a mountain that is evidence of "supernatural" creation? How convenient. :)

bob b
January 30th, 2006, 06:32 PM
Really Bob, I don't care what you think. As a matter of fact we have been over this issue before. I guess you are going to resort to your strategy of plausible deniabilty again. So just to freshen up your stale memory, I will explain my beliefs again to you (not like its going to sink in this time).

I believe in God through a leap of blind faith. I openly and honestly admit this. Since I do believe in God my philosophical world view does see Him as the creator of the universe, and by virtue of this the creator of humankind. I do realize however that from the view of natural philosophy, since there is no empirical evidence for God, we cannot use Him as a factor in any equation regarding the material sciences. It's really quite simple Bob. But you seem to keep loosing track of this very simple concept. Do you understand now? :juggle:

No.

The beliefs you describe are called "theism" (i.e. belief in God).

Christianity is more than belief in God. Christian beliefs derive from a set of books collectively known as "The Bible". The first of these books starts out "In the beginning ... "

So apparently you at least believe the first sentence. Am I correct?

noguru
January 30th, 2006, 06:48 PM
No.

The beliefs you describe are called "theism" (i.e. belief in God).

Christianity is more than belief in God. Christian beliefs derive from a set of books collectively known as "The Bible". The first of these books starts out "In the beginning ... "

So apparently you at least believe the first sentence. Am I correct?

Bob, I believe all of it. I believe that Jesus was God in the flesh. I believe that he died for our sins. I believe that he rose again. I believe that he validated other scripture while he walked on this earth. The only difference you and I have is what parts we view as literary device and what parts we view as a literal scientifically accurate historical narrative.

And yes Bob, we have been over this many times. We go through the same motions every time, and it seems to get us nowhere. So spare me your newest attempt at your absent minded inquisition. It is not my fault that your memory is failing in your old age. Actually this is quite ironic, because in the inquisition they tried to convert people to Christianity. And it sure seems to me that you are trying to convert people out of Christianity if they don't agree with your exact view of Genesis. Hmmm I'm starting to wonder whose side you are really on. :think:

bob b
January 30th, 2006, 08:53 PM
Bob, I believe all of it. I believe that Jesus was God in the flesh. I believe that he died for our sins. I believe that he rose again. I believe that he validated other scripture while he walked on this earth.

You do well to believe these things for they are the mark of a genuine Christian.


The only difference you and I have is what parts we view as literary device and what parts we view as a literal scientifically accurate historical narrative.

Don't forget the other side of the coin, for you believe in evolution, the doctine that claims that natural forces were sufficient to generate all life on Earth from hypothetical primitive protocells, which I totally rejected on scientific grounds before I became a Christian believer.


And yes Bob, wee have been over this many times. We go through the same motions every time, and it seems to get us nowhere. So spare me your newest attempt at your absent minded inquisition. It is not my fault that your memory is failing in your old age.

The "shoot-the-messenger" tactic.


Actually this is quite ironic, because in the inquisition they tried to convert people to Christianity.

Christians are commanded to preach the Gospel and convert people to Christianity. Obviously the inquisition screwed up in that regard.


And it sure seems to me that you are trying to convert people out of Christianity if they don't agree with your exact view of Genesis.

Genesis is the foundation of Christianity, because unless Adam and Eve fell and hence caused all of their descendents to inherit a sinful nature it would not have been necessary for Christ to come and bear the sins of humanity.

Mere animals do not sin, because they have no free will to choose what is right or wrong as humans do.

It may be possible for you to retain your faith as you currently state you possess, but your actions here help convince others that perhaps the evolutionists are correct that God is not a necessary hypothesis to explain all that is found in nature. Pure Naturalism will suffice thank you without believing, as fool might say: "in a fictional being who demanded blood in order to wash away the fiction of sins which are merely "harmless preferences".
After all, who would want to voluntarily submit to the will of another who might be just as fictional as the players in the Genesis symbolic stories? Patsy.

No. God is real, just as the characters in the stories that God inspired in order to tell us the real account of creation to counter the story taught in our schools as scientific truth.

You do not believe God's account and hence feel obligated to "symbolize it", because you have too much faith in the infallibility of scientists to determine what happened in the distant past. Let us hope others do not follow your example.

I was lucky that knowledge of DNA came along in time to free me from the otherwise attractive stories that appeal to the innate longing of humans to be "their own man" (center of their own universe).

thelaqachisnext
January 30th, 2006, 09:44 PM
Well if the sea creature fossils you mentioned on hills were left by a global flood, why wouldn't there be sea creature fossils on the low rolling hills of eastern CT?

So let me get this straight, when there are fossilized sea creatures on a mountain that's evidence of a global flood? When there aren't any fossilized sea creatures on a mountain that is evidence of "supernatural" creation? How convenient. :)

Duh!

As to the hills of CT -have you investigated them all, personally, and can you say -under oath- that there are no fossillized sea creatures on those mountains?

But as to your remarks; have you seen what great moving waves of water do? try looking at the effects of just a tsunami and show me where the evidence of destruction is evenly distributed!

You want to imagine that there should have been a uniform distribution of masses of land animals and of sea creatures that were all caught and buried by the massive mountains of great mud and left high and dry -or low and dry- after the waters receded? -get serious!

thelaqachisnext
January 30th, 2006, 09:51 PM
No, silly. That is evidence of the creation. :ha:
Now if they had layers of sea creatures fossilized -or almost fossilized on them- or land creatures jumbled in masses together, washed together by the force of great waters and buried in the mud of a great flood, then that would be evidence of the flood that covered the whole earth and left billions of dead 'things' laid down in rock layers all over the earth.
I just wanted to add that the above is a quote from Ken Ham that Buddy Davis made a song about -don't mean to plagarize, the phrase has just become part of my vocabulary and I should have put it in quotes because some who read this are not familiar with the source.

noguru
January 30th, 2006, 11:21 PM
You do well to believe these things for they are the mark of a genuine Christian.



Don't forget the other side of the coin, for you believe in evolution, the doctine that claims that natural forces were sufficient to generate all life on Earth from hypothetical primitive protocells, which I totally rejected on scientific grounds before I became a Christian believer.



The "shoot-the-messenger" tactic.



Christians are commanded to preach the Gospel and convert people to Christianity. Obviously the inquisition screwed up in that regard.



Genesis is the foundation of Christianity, because unless Adam and Eve fell and hence caused all of their descendents to inherit a sinful nature it would not have been necessary for Christ to come and bear the sins of humanity.

Mere animals do not sin, because they have no free will to choose what is right or wrong as humans do.

It may be possible for you to retain your faith as you currently state you possess, but your actions here help convince others that perhaps the evolutionists are correct that God is not a necessary hypothesis to explain all that is found in nature. Pure Naturalism will suffice thank you without believing, as fool might say: "in a fictional being who demanded blood in order to wash away the fiction of sins which are merely "harmless preferences".
After all, who would want to voluntarily submit to the will of another who might be just as fictional as the players in the Genesis symbolic stories? Patsy.

No. God is real, just as the characters in the stories that God inspired in order to tell us the real account of creation to counter the story taught in our schools as scientific truth.

You do not believe God's account and hence feel obligated to "symbolize it", because you have too much faith in the infallibility of scientists to determine what happened in the distant past. Let us hope others do not follow your example.

I was lucky that knowledge of DNA came along in time to free me from the otherwise attractive stories that appeal to the innate longing of humans to be "their own man" (center of their own universe).

Well Bob, there is the fundamental difference between you and I. I believe in God and Jesus because I want to, without being forced into it by fear of eternal damnation or the need to supplement my ignorance of the natural world. You believe in God and Jesus because of your fear of eternal damnation and to supplement what you do not understand about the natural world. Or at least this is what you seem to claim.

noguru
January 30th, 2006, 11:25 PM
Duh!

As to the hills of CT -have you investigated them all, personally, and can you say -under oath- that there are no fossillized sea creatures on those mountains?

But as to your remarks; have you seen what great moving waves of water do? try looking at the effects of just a tsunami and show me where the evidence of destruction is evenly distributed!

You want to imagine that there should have been a uniform distribution of masses of land animals and of sea creatures that were all caught and buried by the massive mountains of great mud and left high and dry -or low and dry- after the waters receded? -get serious!

What I have seen can be better explained by long ages, many multiple local floods, and catastrophes compounded with long periods of climatic stability.

thelaqachisnext
January 30th, 2006, 11:47 PM
What I have seen can be better explained by long ages, many multiple local floods, and catastrophes compounded with long periods of climatic stability.
So explain to us just how to keep, oh, let's say, for instance, a jelly fish, completely intact for long ages while it is 'becoming' a fossil, the cells of it's delicate body remaining perfectly intact so that one could slice the fossilized jelly fish 'made rock' and see the cell structure in a perfectly preserved state :D

noguru
January 31st, 2006, 12:46 AM
So explain to us just how to keep, oh, let's say, for instance, a jelly fish, completely intact for long ages while it is 'becoming' a fossil, the cells of it's delicate body remaining perfectly intact so that one could slice the fossilized jelly fish 'made rock' and see the cell structure in a perfectly preserved state :D

One way that fossils are created is during large, medium or small cataclysmic events. Even in a relatively stable biome small cataclysmic events cause fossilization. Rapid burial by sedimentary buildup in water, or by sandstorms in arid terrestrial climates are the most common events that cause fossilization. Also there is immersion in substances that have little or no oxygen.

Actually organisms like jellyfish that have little or no hardened tissue (like bone or cartilage) are not common fossils. They do in rare instances become fossilized. Are you by chance referring to this AIG article?

AIG's take on the fossilized jellyfish (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/fossils.asp)

I know this seem to be strong evidence for a global deluge on the surface. But a closer analyses shows that this is a less likely scenario than the scenario presented by those who propose a less sever cataclysm. Here is a good explanation;

From another site that I will not mention, unless you would like a PM.



I presume you are referring to the fossil jellyfish in wisconsin. I am sure your source told you that there are mudcracks above and below the fossil jellyfish - clear evidence of drying out thus proving that these fossils could not have been formed during a global flood. There is also other clear evidence that these fossils were formed on a beach such as characteristic ripples and rill marks. The hypothesis of a stranding on a shoreline coincides well with what we know of mass jellyfish strandings today and the form of the fossils is the same as those made by jellyfish expose subaerially or intermittantly wetted and not rapidly buried. So why are the fossils there? the explanations given in the paper are:

"(1) lack of erosional scouring of fossiliferous layers by poststranding tides, waves, and wind; (2) minimal scavenging by terrestrial and intertidal organisms; and (3) little or no postburial bioturbation."

You should ask the question why did the creationists that told you these jellyfish were evidence of a deluge when there was clear evidence that they are not? They tricked you into bearing false witness (claiming fossil jellyfish as evidence of a deluge) by hiding the facts from you - is this the behaviour i should expect from christians?

Also remember that conventional geology does not prohibit rapid burial, it just says it tends to be a rare event - and it is. Well preserved fossils are exceptionally rare. Nearly all fossils are just fragments of the hard parts of organisms - for example conodonts which are the teeth of a fish which are know from millions of examples throughout the world yet a fosil preserving the soft parts of the organism has only recently been found - this indicates that most organisms in the past were not rapidly buried but decayed leaving only their more resilliant bits behind.

Hagadorn, J.W., Dott, R.H., and Damrow, D., 2002, Stranded on an Upper Cambrian shoreline: Medusae from Central Wisconsin: Geology, v. 30, p. 147-150.

Jukia
January 31st, 2006, 06:30 AM
Duh!

As to the hills of CT -have you investigated them all, personally, and can you say -under oath- that there are no fossillized sea creatures on those mountains?

But as to your remarks; have you seen what great moving waves of water do? try looking at the effects of just a tsunami and show me where the evidence of destruction is evenly distributed!

You want to imagine that there should have been a uniform distribution of masses of land animals and of sea creatures that were all caught and buried by the massive mountains of great mud and left high and dry -or low and dry- after the waters receded? -get serious!

First of all, there are no real mountains in CT. CT east of the Connecticut River consists of a low range of hills just to the east, then a series of vaguely rolling forested hills, except along the shore near Long Island sound where the land slopes to the south and the Sound.

But I am trying to make sense out of your claim that the, what did you say "partially fossilized marine animals" (what is partially fossilized?), covered a large area near you. Do you know what these are? Are the soft parts fossilized or just the hard parts? And how do you think they got there? I know Noah and the Flood. But really, how do you connect all these particular dead sea creatures (and in order to fully answer the question I think you do need to know what they are and what exact body parts are fossilized, partial or otherwise) and great moving waves of water, like a tsunami you posited above?
And can you track down some cite to the particular site so the rest of us can check it out.
Thanks for your help.

aharvey
January 31st, 2006, 07:40 AM
The "shoot-the-messenger" tactic.
Bob, what do you call it when your response to something you disagree with is 1) not to show that it is wrong, but 2) to accuse that person of not being a "true Christian"? Isn't that a classic example of "shooting the messenger"?

And what do you call it when you then promptly accuse him of engaging in that very tactic?

bob b
January 31st, 2006, 09:13 AM
Bob, what do you call it when your response to something you disagree with is 1) not to show that it is wrong, but 2) to accuse that person of not being a "true Christian"? Isn't that a classic example of "shooting the messenger"?

And what do you call it when you then promptly accuse him of engaging in that very tactic?

I'm not sure I have ever used the terminology "true Christian" as a general tactic to support my views.

I have used similar words like "genuine", and perhaps the exact phrase "true Christian" to discuss the characteristic beliefs used historically to differentiate Christians from cultists.

These characteristics revolve around belief in Jesus Christ, who He was and what historical events prove His claims.

Perhaps you should understand better a slightly different topic, how to differentiate between weak Christians and strong Christians as St. Paul did.

Weak Christians are true Christians, e.g. noguru, who believe in the major elements which define a Christian, but waver in their beliefs regarding the authority of scripture. This causes them to be easy prey for the latest scientific speculations, particularly about Origins, which conflict with scripture, causing them to feel a need to "symbolize" scripture so they do not feel foolish in the eyes of the world by rejecting the infallible pronouncements of the High Priests of Truth, i.e. scientists.

I hope this helps you to interpret my postings more accurately. :)

Jukia
January 31st, 2006, 09:18 AM
In other words, bob b, one needs to rely on the authority of the author? Didn't you just criticize me for that on another thread?

And I think what finally turned me off from most fundamentalists I know is the ease with which they judge other Christians.

aharvey
January 31st, 2006, 09:35 AM
The "shoot-the-messenger" tactic. [accusation aimed at noguru]

Bob, what do you call it when your response to something you disagree with is 1) not to show that it is wrong, but 2) to accuse that person of not being a "true Christian"? Isn't that a classic example of "shooting the messenger"?

And what do you call it when you then promptly accuse him of engaging in that very tactic?

I'm not sure I have ever used the terminology "true Christian" as a general tactic to support my views.
Check here for noguru's post and your "response" (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1007872&postcount=96). Then perhaps you will be able to actually answer my questions above instead of relying on the evasions below (what does any of this have to do with "shooting the messenger" claims, other than to more fully develop your own use of the tactic?). Indeed, I might ask what you would call answering a question by changing the subject like this?

I have used similar words like "genuine", and perhaps the exact phrase "true Christian" to discuss the characteristic beliefs used historically to differentiate Christians from cultists.

These characteristics revolve around belief in Jesus Christ, who He was and what historical events prove His claims.

Perhaps you should understand better a slightly different topic, how to differentiate between weak Christians and strong Christians as St. Paul did.

Weak Christians are true Christians, e.g. noguru, who believe in the major elements which define a Christian, but waver in their beliefs regarding the authority of scripture. This causes them to be easy prey for the latest scientific speculations, particularly about Origins, which conflict with scripture, causing them to feel a need to "symbolize" scripture so they do not feel foolish in the eyes of the world by rejecting the infallible pronouncements of the High Priests of Truth, i.e. scientists.

I hope this helps you to interpret my postings more accurately. :)

thelaqachisnext
January 31st, 2006, 10:12 AM
First of all, there are no real mountains in CT. CT east of the Connecticut River consists of a low range of hills just to the east, then a series of vaguely rolling forested hills, except along the shore near Long Island sound where the land slopes to the south and the Sound.

But I am trying to make sense out of your claim that the, what did you say "partially fossilized marine animals" (what is partially fossilized?), covered a large area near you. Do you know what these are? Are the soft parts fossilized or just the hard parts? And how do you think they got there? I know Noah and the Flood. But really, how do you connect all these particular dead sea creatures (and in order to fully answer the question I think you do need to know what they are and what exact body parts are fossilized, partial or otherwise) and great moving waves of water, like a tsunami you posited above?
And can you track down some cite to the particular site so the rest of us can check it out.
Thanks for your help.
They had to be laid down by water in a flood and they are on hills: on many mountains around the world are fossilized sea creatures in rocks, too, in varying stages of fossilization; and it doesn't take any degree to understand they got there by Noah's flood, but it does take belief in the God of the Bible.

In my own layman's terms (with my limited understanding); to be partially fossilized the sea creatures (or plant life), were trapped under the mud -perhaps by huge volcanic ash deposits that came so suddenly they could not escape (ours does look as if it is encased in a layer of volcanic ash -it is sand like) - and as the body decomposed, the cells were replaced with the minerals from the water passing through the 'mud' on top and around, but not enough pressure -and therefore heat- were applied to fossilize the completely replaced cell structure into 'hard' -fossilized- rock. One can break it apart 'fairly' easily. I don't know the hardness of the rock, but it could be measured with the proper instruments, but it is brittle enough, and breakable.

We can identify clams -of some kind- in a piece my hubby brought home last week when he was on the 'mountain'. -I'll get a digital and post it, if possible. There are no large marine fossils, that we know of, in the deposits, but masses and masses of clams and tubular wormy things..
My daughter and her hubby have known of the massive beds of this particular deposit and have gathered the softer 'fossil' rocks from there, at times (it makes a fun outing), over the years, only about fifty miles, by car, from the site hubby brought home the last piece.
If you want to check a map of the area out, look for John's river in Washington State and for the site of the abandoned nuke plant near Elma Washington. The hills stretch from near Elma to Raymond and beyond and out to the Ocean, near John's River.

I have no idea what CT looks like or what may be found by search or has been found by search there, but we are familiar with our own area.

The following info is taken from http://www.calvaryag.org/apologetics/apologetics_11-evidence_flood.htm

"b. Fossils are found in the Himalayan Mountains. If you will go to the following web site http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/geology_visual.html you can see pictures of a marine animal called Ammonite which are found in large numbers in the Kali Gandaki river in Nepal. Ammonites were sea animals having shells - either straight or coiled. Some of the fossils are large with a diameter up to 2 meters. These animals are proof that the ocean once covered this area.

c. There are abundant fossil remains of marine life found atop every mountain range in the world. This evidence makes it clear that all the mountains of the world have been under water at some time in the past, as indicated by sedimentary rocks and marine fossils near their summits. For example, clusters of hundreds of gigantic (300kg/650lbs) fossilized oysters found atop the Andes Mountains in South America.
See web site: http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/geology_visual.html "

Jukia
January 31st, 2006, 10:14 AM
Thanks, I'll try to find some info on the area you are familiar with.

Do you think that the Flood was higher than Mt. Everest as it is now or was Mt. Everest lower then?

bob b
January 31st, 2006, 10:29 AM
Check here for noguru's post and your "response" (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1007872&postcount=96). Then perhaps you will be able to actually answer my questions above instead of relying on the evasions below (what does any of this have to do with "shooting the messenger" claims, other than to more fully develop your own use of the tactic?). Indeed, I might ask what you would call answering a question by changing the subject like this?

On the surface you appear disingenous in accusing me of "changing the subject" when I was simply explaining how I make a distinction between the terms "true Christian" and "weak Christian". Didn't you refer to the term "true Christian" and accuse me of using that term in an effort to apply the "shoot the messenger" tactic against noguru?

When noguru articulated more completely his religious views I was happly to use the term "true Christian" as historically defined to describe him.

On the other hand I then used the term "weak Christian" as a title which correctly describes a Christian who "symbolizes" scripture in an effort to reconcile it with currently popular secular views regarding Origins, many of which have no scientific basis in fact.

If anyone, including noguru or yourself, wish to discuss specific cases of scripture which should be "symbolized" to agree with secular Origins views, I would be happy to participate, but feel a separate thread would be more appropriate than this thread which should properly be focused more narrowly on the nature of "The Fossil Record".

thelaqachisnext
January 31st, 2006, 10:34 AM
Thanks, I'll try to find some info on the area you are familiar with.

Do you think that the Flood was higher than Mt. Everest as it is now or was Mt. Everest lower then?
I don't think you'll find any expert who would have a comment on the area I described to you, and mostly they just give out any old -you know -'Barbara Striesand' as a certain person calls it- but if you were inclined to visit the area for yourself, I could direct you to spots where these things are easily investigated: some of the spots are not so easily gotten to, but it is possible. The particular spot hubby brought a piece home from recently is seven miles beyond the nuke plant site, near Elma, Wash, through forest roads. The daughter and hubby go back into the same hills from highway 101, near Westport, for many miles to get to the wilderness area where they collect samples from..

Of course, the flood waters were 'fifteen cubits higher' than the highest mountain, but I don't know how high the pre-flood mountains were; but the Word does say that the mountains were raised (so they existed, it seems, from the wording), and the valleys sank down; which seems to be part of the way the LORD handled the waters of the flood that came down from above the atmosphere -and don't seem to have been put back. -But as to where all the water is, now; remember (you and I had this discussion before), I also believe Dr Walter Brown's theory of the splitting of earth's mantle to release the waters from beneath, and the great crevasses that are now in the ocean bottoms take a lot of water to fill.

Jukia
January 31st, 2006, 10:38 AM
I cannot believe that if these fossil beds are as extensive as you say that there would not be someone who has studied them.
Would love to see them but since my youngest moved back from Seattle to Connecticut I dont know if I will get out there in the near future.
In what seems to be a prior life I was a graduate student in biology with an emphasis on marine science. Walt Brown's theory is total nonsense as far as I am concerned.

aharvey
January 31st, 2006, 11:23 AM
On the surface you appear disingenous in accusing me of "changing the subject" when I was simply explaining how I make a distinction between the terms "true Christian" and "weak Christian". Didn't you refer to the term "true Christian" and accuse me of using that term in an effort to apply the "shoot the messenger" tactic against noguru?
Yes, because that's exactly what you did!

noguru said that you used an a priori assumption "to support your conclusion that it must have been supernatural, because we do not know how it naturally occured." Your response to this was not to disagree with his charge in any way, but to question whether he was really a Christian. Why is that not "shooting the messenger"?

When noguru articulated more completely his religious views I was happly to use the term "true Christian" as historically defined to describe him.
...while still managing to avoid responding to noguru's original point, that you used an a priori assumption to support your conclusion that it must have been supernatural, because we do not know how it naturally occured.

On the other hand I then used the term "weak Christian" as a title which correctly describes a Christian who "symbolizes" scripture in an effort to reconcile it with currently popular secular views regarding Origins, many of which have no scientific basis in fact.
...while still managing to avoid responding to noguru's original point, that you used an a priori assumption to support your conclusion that it must have been supernatural, because we do not know how it naturally occured.

If anyone, including noguru or yourself, wish to discuss specific cases of scripture which should be "symbolized" to agree with secular Origins views, I would be happy to participate, but feel a separate thread would be more appropriate than this thread which should properly be focused more narrowly on the nature of "The Fossil Record".
...while still managing to avoid responding to noguru's original point, that you used an a priori assumption to support your conclusion that it must have been supernatural, because we do not know how it naturally occured.

In the grand scheme of things, I doubt noguru would even rate this particular argument as especially profound. To me, however, it is an exquisite example of how you routinely use the very tactics that you routinely, and falsely, accuse your opponents of.

thelaqachisnext
January 31st, 2006, 11:45 AM
I cannot believe that if these fossil beds are as extensive as you say that there would not be someone who has studied them.
Would love to see them but since my youngest moved back from Seattle to Connecticut I dont know if I will get out there in the near future.
In what seems to be a prior life I was a graduate student in biology with an emphasis on marine science. Walt Brown's theory is total nonsense as far as I am concerned.
I remember; but Brown's is in hydrolics, is it not.

The hills are forested, and experts cannot cover every acre of ground in the world; and some seem to think because they haven't covered something, then it just doesn't exist.
Locals who work in an area or hike and explore know more about an area than any outsider.
I looked up the Wynoochee hills, once (which go north and west from Montesano, Wash), and no place can I find that a jasper vein runs through them, yet, daughter and hubby have driven through and collected what does seem to be jasper, for years, from them. They call it 'cinnamon rock', and a large vein runs for miles, exposed in many places in those hills.
Perhaps it isn't really jasper, but I cannot find it listed at all, and a daughter who studies rocks tells me it is jasper. Also, another thing, in the hills there, that no 'expert' has listed -or studied- is a lake formed by a meterorite, (part of earth blown out to space by the breaking up of the great deep at the flood :) returning home, and it is obvious when one hikes in and studies the terrain.
If you really want to know -ask the locals who are 'awake and aware' of their territory.

and as far as experts go; they know nothing but what they themselves can see and test, really, so I don't believe them just because they are supposed to be 'expert': one can hardly find out anything from seeking it out from 'experts'. For instance: we have a strange slug that we have not identified, in our area -nor would we ask anyone to identify it, as we'd just get our area made off limits for humans because some, so- called, 'rare' excuse has been found to kick out humans; but the slug has a tail that resembles a lizard tail, in being whiplike and pointed (not that the slug whips it, just that it 'resembles' a lizard tail, though short), and a larger 'crest', if that's what one calls it, of sorts, on its head; and it changes colors rather like a chameleon -one being a neon green, and it exudes a neon green slime: frankly, I'm afraid that we brought it to our property from the Wynoochee hills, where daughter and hubby took us chantrelle mushroom hunting, and where these things were first found by daughter. Now we are finding them on our place UGH! -but 'experts' haven't listed them in anything I have seen...but here they are!

Jukia
January 31st, 2006, 11:50 AM
I dont care what Brown thinks his hydroplate theory deals with. It is insane. I am aware of NO evidence to support it. However, let that go.
Maybe your slug is the result of the abandoned nuke site?
And if you do not at least look at what "experts" claim why bother to try to understand anything? Seems to me that we look to experts for advice and information on lots of things.

thelaqachisnext
January 31st, 2006, 12:02 PM
oops.

thelaqachisnext
January 31st, 2006, 12:02 PM
I dont care what Brown thinks his hydroplate theory deals with. It is insane. I am aware of NO evidence to support it. However, let that go.
Maybe your slug is the result of the abandoned nuke site?
And if you do not at least look at what "experts" claim why bother to try to understand anything? Seems to me that we look to experts for advice and information on lots of things.
Now, now, Jukia, I do read what others write, but the point is that because someone says something doesn't make them an expert for saying it; and also, they cannot remark on what they have not investigated, and some who deny the flood are not honest and will not believe any evidence because thier minds are made up and they do not investigate.

Sorry, nope! the nuke plant was never finished, never operational (unions killed it by their stupid 'rules', making it impossible to finish the thing within budget), and mutations are detrimental, from such things, when they do happen; and these are healthy, multiplying slugs, not some harmfully mutated things -daughter thinks they're kinda cute.

aharvey
January 31st, 2006, 01:57 PM
and as far as experts go; they know nothing but what they themselves can see and test, really, so I don't believe them just because they are supposed to be 'expert': one can hardly find out anything from seeking it out from 'experts'. For instance: we have a strange slug that we have not identified, in our area -nor would we ask anyone to identify it, as we'd just get our area made off limits for humans because some, so- called, 'rare' excuse has been found to kick out humans;
Let me see if I have this straight: you claim you can hardly find out anything from seeking it out from 'experts,' but you won't ask an expert to identify this peculiar slug (supposedly out of fear that you'd get kicked out of the area), and then you this same slug as an example of how little experts know?!?

but the slug has a tail that resembles a lizard tail, in being whiplike and pointed (not that the slug whips it, just that it 'resembles' a lizard tail, though short), and a larger 'crest', if that's what one calls it, of sorts, on its head; and it changes colors rather like a chameleon -one being a neon green, and it exudes a neon green slime: frankly, I'm afraid that we brought it to our property from the Wynoochee hills, where daughter and hubby took us chantrelle mushroom hunting, and where these things were first found by daughter. Now we are finding them on our place UGH! -but 'experts' haven't listed them in anything I have seen...but here they are!
Incidentally, if you are at all interested in identifying these creatures, I have some small experience in such matters (having described a dozen new species of invertebrates, done identifications for both other scientists and the general public, set up web sites to facilitate the identification of invertebrates, etc.). If they are in fact spreading as you seem to be saying, then it's most unlikely to be endangered enough to inconvenience you in any way (you must know that you can't be "kicked out" for even the most endangered species); indeed, if it is indeed anything out of the ordinary, it's more likely that this is an introduced species from somewhere else that could end up being a real invasive headache.

Now, now, Jukia, I do read what others write, but the point is that because someone says something doesn't make them an expert for saying it;
I'm curious: what do you think does make someone an 'expert'?

and also, they cannot remark on what they have not investigated, and some who deny the flood are not honest and will not believe any evidence because thier minds are made up and they do not investigate.
Is your mind made up on the subject of the flood? Is it fair to say that you will not therefore believe any evidence to the contrary? If so, how can you possibly suggest that having one's mind made up on a subject is a sign of dishonesty?

thelaqachisnext
January 31st, 2006, 02:44 PM
Let me see if I have this straight: you claim you can hardly find out anything from seeking it out from 'experts,' but you won't ask an expert to identify this peculiar slug (supposedly out of fear that you'd get kicked out of the area), and then you this same slug as an example of how little experts know?!?

Incidentally, if you are at all interested in identifying these creatures, I have some small experience in such matters (having described a dozen new species of invertebrates, done identifications for both other scientists and the general public, set up web sites to facilitate the identification of invertebrates, etc.). If they are in fact spreading as you seem to be saying, then it's most unlikely to be endangered enough to inconvenience you in any way (you must know that you can't be "kicked out" for even the most endangered species); indeed, if it is indeed anything out of the ordinary, it's more likely that this is an introduced species from somewhere else that could end up being a real invasive headache.

I'm curious: what do you think does make someone an 'expert'?

Is your mind made up on the subject of the flood? Is it fair to say that you will not therefore believe any evidence to the contrary? If so, how can you possibly suggest that having one's mind made up on a subject is a sign of dishonesty?


I'm curious: what do you think does make someone an 'expert'?
An expert is knowledgable in what they actually have handled and studied -not pretending to be so in what they have not handled and studied. i.e, God wrote the book; He's handled and 'studied' (made everything according to His plan); I read His Word and accept His Word over all naysayers.
-Yep! -call me a fundamentalist in Believing what the Word says.

Is your mind made up on the subject of the flood?
Yep! -I met the author of the Book and He is trustworthy -do you know Him?


Is it fair to say that you will not therefore believe any evidence to the contrary?
There is no evidence to the contrary of the flood; all evidence validates the claims of Scripture.


Let me see if I have this straight: you claim you can hardly find out anything from seeking it out from 'experts,' but you won't ask an expert to identify this peculiar slug (supposedly out of fear that you'd get kicked out of the area), and then you this same slug as an example of how little experts know?!?
Yep: and I hardly know anything, myself. I've lived long enough to know that there are not so very many experts in any subject, though there are a few masters of some areas.
Search on about any subject and look at what has changed in what so-called experts say about it over the years -or even in the same years!.
find me an unchanging, undisputed opinion on any subject, please -if you can, that is related to the subjects in discussion: but even in other subjects, like voice, for instance, my daughter had a hard time finding a voice teacher who could actually teach her how to use her voice in areas that she knew she did wrong and did not know how to correct; yet, three teachers never taught her what she needed to know. The fourth one did, and now she is a voice teacher, herself, a master of the art among many experts who cannot teach what they are paid to do.

I trust no one when it comes to species and kinds. I have a plan to build on our property and no, thank you; we'll keep the neon sluggie to ourselves. We live in an area where they tried to kill our local industry by protecting a so called endangered species that multiplies like mad and is not in any danger and never was -and everyone knows it; but that is not what matters at all; only the lies matter after they are told by the left wing environmental nutcases who worship the earth and not the Creator of it, and who deem themselves gods, in His place.

I'm skeptical of you, you see, and do not trust anyone when it comes to the environment, as man is classified as an unnatural intruder and they have taken away our constitutional rights by the bagfuls over supposed 'rare' species.


I have a book written by the University of Washington which identifies all flora and fauna of the Pacific Northwest. The strange slug is not in it, though all others are; nor have we found it online nor do we think that it is rare -just new to us; and I mentioned it specifically to say that man -the experts- knows very little about the world around him.

aharvey
January 31st, 2006, 04:00 PM
An expert is knowledgable in what they actually have handled and studied -not pretending to be so in what they have not handled and studied. i.e, God wrote the book; He's handled and 'studied' (made everything according to His plan); I read His Word and accept His Word over all naysayers.
-Yep! -call me a fundamentalist in Believing what the Word says.

Yep! -I met the author of the Book and He is trustworthy -do you know Him?
The $64,000 question is why you are so darn convinced of your own intellectual prowess that you understand exactly what he said.

There is no evidence to the contrary of the flood; all evidence validates the claims of Scripture.
That's unfortunately a definitional statement; if you presuppose that both the Bible and your interpretation of the Bible are inerrant, then of course definition no evidence could possibly contradict your interpretation of Scripture, and anything that appears to do so must somehow be wrong. I've never quite understood, though, why one's interpretation of Scripture is never considered a possible source of the spurious contradiction...

Yep: and I hardly know anything, myself. I've lived long enough to know that there are not so very many experts in any subject, though there are a few masters of some areas.
Search on about any subject and look at what has changed in what so-called experts say about it over the years -or even in the same years!.
find me an unchanging, undisputed opinion on any subject, please -if you can, that is related to the subjects in discussion:
I'm always puzzled that y'all think it's a virtue that learning more about something should never change your mind about it. Then what is the point of learning more?

I trust no one when it comes to species and kinds. I have a plan to build on our property and no, thank you; we'll keep the neon sluggie to ourselves.
Yikes. I've never considered myself an environmental activist, but I confess to wincing when people knowingly risk endangering entire species because it might inconvenience their own selfish personal short-term construction plans. I'm sure God'll be proud ("Yeah, I made that slug as kind of a joke anyways").

We live in an area where they tried to kill our local industry by protecting a so called endangered species that multiplies like mad and is not in any danger and never was -and everyone knows it; but that is not what matters at all; only the lies matter after they are told by the left wing environmental nutcases who worship the earth and not the Creator of it, and who deem themselves gods, in His place.
Like I said, you're more likely to have a new invasive species that will overrun your place thanks to your "keeping to yourself." But what's most likely is that this slug, if it even is a slug, is already known to science, just not to you.

I'm skeptical of you, you see, and do not trust anyone when it comes to the environment, as man is classified as an unnatural intruder and they have taken away our constitutional rights by the bagfuls over supposed 'rare' species.
And then to try to rationalize it in terms of protecting your poor widdle vanishing constitutional rights ... Pathetic.

I have a book written by the University of Washington which identifies all flora and fauna of the Pacific Northwest.
No such book exists, I'm afraid. It would be extraordinarily thick and technical well beyond your interest.

The strange slug is not in it, though all others are; nor have we found it online nor do we think that it is rare -just new to us; and I mentioned it specifically to say that man -the experts- knows very little about the world around him.
But all you've demonstrated is how little you know, not the experts. Don't you see the irony?

bob b
January 31st, 2006, 04:05 PM
The $64,000 question is why you are so darn convinced of your own intellectual prowess that you understand exactly what he said.

That's unfortunately a definitional statement; if you presuppose that both the Bible and your interpretation of the Bible are inerrant, then of course definition no evidence could possibly contradict your interpretation of Scripture, and anything that appears to do so must somehow be wrong. I've never quite understood, though, why one's interpretation of Scripture is never considered a possible source of the spurious contradiction...

I'm always puzzled that y'all think it's a virtue that learning more about something should never change your mind about it. Then what is the point of learning more?

Yikes. I've never considered myself an environmental activist, but I confess to wincing when people knowingly risk endangering entire species because it might inconvenience their own selfish personal short-term construction plans. I'm sure God'll be proud ("Yeah, I made that slug as kind of a joke anyways").

Like I said, you're more likely to have a new invasive species that will overrun your place thanks to your "keeping to yourself." But what's most likely is that this slug, if it even is a slug, is already known to science, just not to you.

And then to try to rationalize it in terms of protecting your poor widdle vanishing constitutional rights ... Pathetic.

No such book exists, I'm afraid. It would be extraordinarily thick and technical well beyond your interest.

But all you've demonstrated is how little you know, not the experts. Don't you see the irony?

"Shoot the Messenger" Tactic. :)

Plus "Authority" to boot.

aharvey
January 31st, 2006, 04:10 PM
"Shoot the Messenger" Tactic. :)
Not even close, bob. I wasn't avoiding the subject by unfavorably comparing thelaqachisnext's lack of expertise to that of "expert's." The concept of the limitations of one's knowledge and that of 'experts' was the subject of the entire discussion!

For crying out loud, bob!

aharvey
January 31st, 2006, 04:14 PM
"Shoot the Messenger" Tactic. :)

Plus "Authority" to boot.
Then you add this one to boot?!?! Let me repeat from my previous post: The concept of the limitations of one's knowledge and that of 'experts' was the subject of the entire discussion! Talking about the knowledge of experts is not engaging in the fallacy of Authority. The fallacy of authority is when you dismiss your opponent's argument with, say, some disparaging remark about how you used to think that way before you became an authority on the subject. Care for me to provide a link to one of your posts as an example?

Double "for crying out loud," bob!

noguru
January 31st, 2006, 08:16 PM
Then you add this one to boot?!?! Let me repeat from my previous post: The concept of the limitations of one's knowledge and that of 'experts' was the subject of the entire discussion! Talking about the knowledge of experts is not engaging in the fallacy of Authority. The fallacy of authority is when you dismiss your opponent's argument with, say, some disparaging remark about how you used to think that way before you became an authority on the subject. Care for me to provide a link to one of your posts as an example?

Double "for crying out loud," bob!

Yes, it quite all right when Bob claims that his beaurocratic experience in aerospace systems engineering qualifies him to make proclamations contrary to what most biologist think. But when you claim expertise in, well your field of expertise, you are relying on authority. Oh the irony, expecially coming from someone who claims that his interpretation of Genesis is authoritative. Methinks Bob is quite delusional. :D

thelaqachisnext
January 31st, 2006, 09:16 PM
The $64,000 question is why you are so darn convinced of your own intellectual prowess that you understand exactly what he said.


Duh!
He said it so plainly that any five year year old can understand it; He does say tht out of the mouth of babes and sucklings He has perfected praise -sorry about those who consider themselves so 'educated' they can't believe His Word just as it stands.


That's unfortunately a definitional statement; if you presuppose that both the Bible and your interpretation of the Bible are inerrant, then of course definition no evidence could possibly contradict your interpretation of Scripture, and anything that appears to do so must somehow be wrong. I've never quite understood, though, why one's interpretation of Scripture is never considered a possible source of the spurious contradiction...

It isn't an interpretation at all to just believe what is so plainly written -and you know it, I'm sure, or you are a fool -scripturally speaking, of course :)

I'm always puzzled that y'all think it's a virtue that learning more about something should never change your mind about it. Then what is the point of learning more?

Learning more of anything -virtuous and good and truthful- is to learn more about God's truth and marvels -which I consider a pleasure

Yikes. I've never considered myself an environmental activist, but I confess to wincing when people knowingly risk endangering entire species because it might inconvenience their own selfish personal short-term construction plans. I'm sure God'll be proud ("Yeah, I made that slug as kind of a joke anyways").

Sorry, but we take our rights to have dominion pretty seriously around here and don't cotton to outsiders who think that the God who created all things and gave dominion over this planet to man (Adam and ben Adam) and who destroyed every single thing in the global flood that had the breath of life but those that were on the ark; and yet repopulated and reseeded this earth, cannot keep it in His own way for all time.
-He is going to destroy the creation one more time, by fire, you know -or don't you? and regenerate all animal kinds as they were in the beginning for the redeemed human sons of God -those adopted in Christ- to dwell on forever, after the thousand year Sabbath Rest of it is ended.


Like I said, you're more likely to have a new invasive species that will overrun your place thanks to your "keeping to yourself." But what's most likely is that this slug, if it even is a slug, is already known to science, just not to you.

-of course its a slug! -and we have ways, around here, called vigilante law :)
-then they are keeping their 'knowing' pretty secret, are they not? -BTW, science is not an entity, not a person, not a living being, not anything but a body of information that changes continously: God's word does not change

And then to try to rationalize it in terms of protecting your poor widdle vanishing constitutional rights ... Pathetic.

I believe in the constitutional rights of every citizen -sorry about you, and I don't believe it is a 'living, changing, document'.


No such book exists, I'm afraid. It would be extraordinarily thick and technical well beyond your interest.

-and the book I have is supposed to cover all flora and fauna of the Pacific Northwest, published by the university of Washington.
I doubt you'd understand at all what my interests are -have you read through the Bible front to back and more than once, BTW?


But all you've demonstrated is how little you know, not the experts. Don't you see the irony?

Tut! Tut! -I admitted up front that I know very little: but I did confess that I do know the Creator personally and I do look forward to learning, forever, of His marvelous creation.

aharvey
February 1st, 2006, 07:40 AM
Duh!
He said it so plainly that any five year year old can understand it; He does say tht out of the mouth of babes and sucklings He has perfected praise -sorry about those who consider themselves so 'educated' they can't believe His Word just as it stands.
Gee, then why is it so hard for Christians to agree amongst themselves on how it should be interpreted? Indeed, I’m inclined to agree that it is straightforward, and am baffled that folks interpret text that is clearly symbolic/poetic/allegorical in tone as a literal history.

It isn't an interpretation at all to just believe what is so plainly written -and you know it, I'm sure, or you are a fool -scripturally speaking, of course
See above. Very few people read the Bible and interpret it the same way, unless of course they choose to take someone else’s word for it.

Learning more of anything -virtuous and good and truthful- is to learn more about God's truth and marvels -which I consider a pleasure
I’m glad you think so, but that's not really my point. Why do you think it’s a bad thing for learning more to change the way you think about something?

Sorry, but we take our rights to have dominion pretty seriously around here and don't cotton to outsiders who think that the God who created all things and gave dominion over this planet to man (Adam and ben Adam) and who destroyed every single thing in the global flood that had the breath of life but those that were on the ark; and yet repopulated and reseeded this earth, cannot keep it in His own way for all time.
Um, so the passenger pigeon is not really extinct, or it never existed?

And let's be honest: you wouldn't cotton to an "insider" who disagreed with your views on why it's okay to plunder God's creation either, would you?

-He is going to destroy the creation one more time, by fire, you know -or don't you? and regenerate all animal kinds as they were in the beginning for the redeemed human sons of God -those adopted in Christ- to dwell on forever, after the thousand year Sabbath Rest of it is ended.
Well that does make things easy for you: why worry about protecting what we’ve got now, given that God is going to burn it all to a crisp one day anyways!

-of course its a slug!
I've heard a lot of descriptions of critters from non-biologists that have the same tone as yours, and they quite often turn out to be something very different from what the person thought they had, so you'll pardon me if I don't just take your word for it.

-and we have ways, around here, called vigilante law
Ya gonna lynch all them thar varmints?

-then they are keeping their 'knowing' pretty secret, are they not?
How do you figure? Just because you haven’t found its name? You’ve made it pretty clear that learning out about this stuff is not your thing. I’ll bet there are tons of plants and animals in your area that you know nothing about, but that hardly means they are unknown to science!

-BTW, science is not an entity, not a person, not a living being, not anything but a body of information that changes continously: God's word does not change
…and your point is…?

I believe in the constitutional rights of every citizen -sorry about you, and I don't believe it is a 'living, changing, document'.
What I don’t believe is hiding behind the constitution as long as it doesn’t inconvenience you.

-and the book I have is supposed to cover all flora and fauna of the Pacific Northwest, published by the university of Washington.
And I’m telling you that you are misunderstanding the book’s intent. No book exists that covers every single species of plant and animal found in the Pacific Northwest. I don’t suppose you care to provide the title of this book?

I doubt you'd understand at all what my interests are -have you read through the Bible front to back and more than once, BTW?
Does the first sentence have anything to do with the second? You have given me a sense about your interests and attitudes, but I’d hardly claim to be an expert! And yes, I’ve read the Bible cover to cover many times over my life. That’s why I find Biblical wooden literalists to be a strange and kinda sorry bunch. Y’all seemed to have drawn some pretty extreme conclusions before reading the Book.

Tut! Tut! -I admitted up front that I know very little: but I did confess that I do know the Creator personally and I do look forward to learning, forever, of His marvelous creation.
No need to tut tut me. I guess you missed the irony. Ah well.

thelaqachisnext
February 1st, 2006, 11:32 AM
Gee, then why is it so hard for Christians to agree amongst themselves on how it should be interpreted? Indeed, I’m inclined to agree that it is straightforward, and am baffled that folks interpret text that is clearly symbolic/poetic/allegorical in tone as a literal history....See above. Very few people read the Bible and interpret it the same way, unless of course they choose to take someone else’s word for it.

Anyone who gives a private interpretation is clearly defiant of the Word, itself, which says that no prophecy of the Scriptures is of any private interpretation. The Word, itself, interprets the Word. Isolation of a text from the whole leads to distortions and confusions. The Scriptures are one Book, with one story, from Genesis to Revelation. The creation; the fall of angels and man; the redemption of man; the judgment of angels and man; and the regeneration of the heavens and the earth: and who, what, when where and why is the theme running throughout the Book.



I’m glad you think so, but that's not really my point. Why do you think it’s a bad thing for learning more to change the way you think about something?
I know only instinct (the wisdom put in my heart by the Creator) and nothing about how to think about anything other than the natural instincts, if I have not read -and FYI, I'm a compulsive reader, so reading boring things was a compulsion from my earliest days (which I have tried to break myself of by being more discerning in my reading and accountable with my time), and have found no wisdom in man's writings that can disprove what the Word of God has told me.

The point on science being nothing but a body of changing beliefs by fallible men and not an entity, a being..., is that if you put your trust in 'science' then you have put your trust in something that really does not exist as a thing that can defend itself or be truth in and of itself. There is not one body of writing -that is written by man- in any science that is not disputed by another man in that science; all boils down to opinions that keep on changing. God's Word does not change and has never and can never be disproven. And God has not hidden in His Word, deceitfully or craftily, things that refute the open plain statements about His creation. He did it the way He said He did it and He did it in six ordinary (almost) twenty four hour days as we know them; and the evidences of the global one time flood are worldwide for anyone to see; but scoffers are willfully ignorant of the evidences and the truth of His Word.


Um, so the passenger pigeon is not really extinct, or it never existed?pigeons exist and did exist. Pigeons are not extinct; therefore, passenger pigeons can also branch off the mainline at any time -again. Variety in the kinds is a flowing thing. it happens, and can happen again and probably happened in the past. Genetic information is not lost after all, apparently; according to the discovery of a -flax plant, I think it was- that had reverted back to the parent stock after many generations though it was genetically modified. the discovery totally astounded the 'scientific' community -that was aware of it, last year. Passenger is a modern name. The same could have existed before as a branch and can exist again -if it is important to the Creator, He'll regenerate 'passenger' in the regeneration of the earth.


And let's be honest: you wouldn't cotton to an "insider" who disagreed with your views on why it's okay to plunder God's creation either, would you?
Define plunder. Do you mean using the earth, as God gave it to us to use? Man is the king and the caretaker of the earth; but the earth is created for man's benefit, not for the benefit of the earth, itself. And there is nothing new under the sun. It has all been done before. plants grow all by themselves according to the command given in the beginning, and animals reproduce according to the command given them in the beginning and all for the 'king'; 'Adam and ben Adam'.


Well that does make things easy for you: why worry about protecting what we’ve got now, given that God is going to burn it all to a crisp one day anyways!
God will burn, melt, regenerate the planet -and the heavens- in His time. He is LORD and not I. and He gave us this planet to have dominion over (but Jesus came and bought it back, cause our first father sold it), and we are to occupy till He comes.


I've heard a lot of descriptions of critters from non-biologists that have the same tone as yours, and they quite often turn out to be something very different from what the person thought they had, so you'll pardon me if I don't just take your word for it.
You don't have to take my word for anything, for then I would be greater than God, in your eyes, as the non-existing entity called 'science', is to you, now.


Ya gonna lynch all them thar varmints?
Actually, I put a bounty on them; grandkids get a penny a slug. I consider them very much a part of the curse -or out of their place because of the curse.


How do you figure? Just because you haven’t found its name? You’ve made it pretty clear that learning out about this stuff is not your thing. I’ll bet there are tons of plants and animals in your area that you know nothing about, but that hardly means they are unknown to science!
My point was exactly that no one knows it all -if you go back and re-read what I wrote, you'll see that was the conclusion that I've come to; there are few 'masters'.



And I’m telling you that you are misunderstanding the book’s intent. No book exists that covers every single species of plant and animal found in the Pacific Northwest. I don’t suppose you care to provide the title of this book?
The actual title of the -falling apart- book on my shelf is, 'Plants and Animals of the Pacific Northwest' -it is funny, though; I only think of it as 'Flora and Fauna...' and it was printed by the U of W Press. I've had it so long that I related it to the U of W, only. I used to live near the U of W Arboreatum and loved to visit daily -and hubby and I came to the Pacific Northwest because he planned to attend their School of Forestry, originally, but he got sidetracked by a new program offered at a local college in undersea technology, and went there instead -I digress..


Does the first sentence have anything to do with the second? You have given me a sense about your interests and attitudes, but I’d hardly claim to be an expert! And yes, I’ve read the Bible cover to cover many times over my life. That’s why I find Biblical wooden literalists to be a strange and kinda sorry bunch. Y’all seemed to have drawn some pretty extreme conclusions before reading the Book.

Obviously, I am completely fundamentalist in my approach to the Word of God and to the constitution. God will defend His Word; but he put in the power of the 'people' of this nation the authority to defend the constitution -and if we do not, we have no one to blame but ourselves: unfortunately, as long as the wicked are in this world there is war against God and man.
I didn't read the book before I met the Author in such a conversion experience (I was a rebel before) that I would never have dared to believe that He could deceive or lie: I met Him as the Holy Creator of me, and the one most life changing experience of that meeting was the absolute knowing that He is Holy. I was taught evolution in school and thought that somehow (mysteriously, as it was never explained) it blended with the Creation; but after taking up the Word of my New LORD, and reading it, I was confronted with the absolute straightforwardness of His declarations and was asked, personally, what I would believe, 'now'; by that still small voice spoken in a sentence to me that only I heard. It was a moment of truth and I thought about it and said to Him that I would believe His Word, no matter what I did not understand, just as He said it. Amaxingly, He then began to bring into my path all manner of proofs of the creation, evidences that it was just as as He said it, that had been repressed in the government schools that I was brainwashed in.
My own children's brains were then washed with the pure water of the Word and given the abundant evidences of Creation to show them that God is not a man and does not lie.


On reading the Bible; how is it that you approach it, then? -as the Word of God or the words of man?


No need to tut tut me. I guess you missed the irony. Ah well.
I guess I did, for I had not claimed to know everything about anything, and had said that I know little; but one thing I do know is that there is not any man who knows everything about anything, either.

I don't know what a wooden literalist is. I am fundamentalist in believing God said it and meant it. He gives us His plan in the oracles given to the Jews and explains them in those oracles; but many miss the message, as there is a dual meaning in all that He gave in the oracles; but they are there to learn for anyone who is interested.

I hope you have enjoyed my own opinions in replying to yours. Now; shall we get back to the theme of the thread?

noguru
February 1st, 2006, 06:22 PM
Anyone who gives a private interpretation is clearly defiant of the Word, itself, which says that no prophecy of the Scriptures is of any private interpretation. The Word, itself, interprets the Word. Isolation of a text from the whole leads to distortions and confusions. The Scriptures are one Book, with one story, from Genesis to Revelation. The creation; the fall of angels and man; the redemption of man; the judgment of angels and man; and the regeneration of the heavens and the earth: and who, what, when where and why is the theme running throughout the Book.


If this is true in the way that you claim, then human interpretation is not neccesary to determine its meaning. IOW, the bible can be represented as an algorithm and the results can be obtained by simply following this algorithm.

Is this what you are saying?

Or is it actually that only your interpretation qualifies as "non-private"?

Can you please define "non-private"?

thelaqachisnext
February 1st, 2006, 09:24 PM
If this is true in the way that you claim, then human interpretation is not neccesary to determine its meaning. IOW, the bible can be represented as an algorithm and the results can be obtained by simply following this algorithm.

Is this what you are saying?

Or is it actually that only your interpretation qualifies as "non-private"?

Can you please define "non-private"?
'private' is idios, of oneself, and the next verse (2 Peter 1:20), says the prophecies came of the Holy Spirit, not of men, and men cannot give private interpretations to them, as the Holy spirit, Himself, gives understanding from the Word, of the Word, and anyone who brings an interpretation outside of the Word that contradicts the Word in any place is giving 'private' interpretations.

We are told to "be diligent to study, showing ourselves approved unto God, workmen that do not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth: and 'rightly dividing' is to lay it out like a plowman plows, row by row, comparing Scripture to Scripture -so I have read, anyway: and that says it all; within the Scriptures we find all doctrine and all doctrine is supported with Scripture, not anything outside Scripture.
That's a layman's definition for you, from me; and we are all supposed to be Bereans, proving all things by Scripture that anyone claims is Bible doctrine. Jesus Christ is the Living Word of God made flesh, and God honors His Word above all His name; so we would be wise to prove all things by the Word and discard anything that cannot be proven by Scripture, plainly.

Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.