The fossil record shows there never was evolution.

[6days]

Sanford's career shows the stark difference between creationism and evolution/old earth. While operating under the framework of evolution/old earth, Sanford authored those "80 peer reviewed articles", invented the gene gun, and was an overall very productive scientist.

You have it backwards. The fact he was published in peer reviewed articles in secular journals shows he understands science. He just doesn't believe in common ancestry...and in fact he says genetics shows "evolution is impossible".

But... besides you having things backwards, it was YOU who brought up topic of it being difficult for a scientist to ditch their beliefs about the past. Sanford, became a Christian but still found it difficult to realize his belief system (evolutionism) was not supported by science.


BTW... the gene gun was only one of several patented inventions of Sanford which has helped feed billions of people

 

[Sonnet]

Bs"d

Why not?

Like Siccar Point? https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?img...bp1M&itg=1&usg=__ZLKlldaaoPYvKix87_puoTTyBV0=

 

[Sonnet]

Bs"d

Christians didn't make it into a legend.

Some do. They have posted on TOL.

 

[Jose Fly]

We are so shocked you think that!

It's not something anyone "thinks"; it's self-evident from the facts. Both Silvestru and Sanford were productive scientists who contributed to their fields.....

....until they converted to Christianity and young-earth creationism, at which point their scientific productivity and contributions came to a complete halt.

That's just the facts.

 

[Jose Fly]

You have it backwards. The fact he was published in peer reviewed articles in secular journals shows he understands science. He just doesn't believe in common ancestry...and in fact he says genetics shows "evolution is impossible".

What are you talking about? Sanford describes it himself in the interview you first posted.

While an "evolutionist" he was a very productive scientist and contributed to his field.

As soon as he became a creationist his contributions to science came to a complete halt.

But... besides you having things backwards, it was YOU who brought up topic of it being difficult for a scientist to ditch their beliefs about the past.

Yep, and I noted that good scientists follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if it contradicts their religious beliefs.

Sanford, became a Christian but still found it difficult to realize his belief system (evolutionism) was not supported by science.

Again, in the interview you posted Sanford describes it quite differently...

"I would not say that science led me to the Lord (which is the experience of some). Rather I would say Jesus opened my eyes to His creation—I was blind, and gradually I could see."

So his abandonment of evolution and adoption of creationism had nothing to do with science, but was the result of his religious conversion that also completely halted his scientific productivity.

BTW... the gene gun was only one of several patented inventions of Sanford which has helped feed billions of people

Invented while he was working under the framework of evolutionary theory. Inventions since becoming a creationist? Zero.

 

[Lon]

But surely not layers each of which contains similar material but different to the adjacent layer?

Again, it depends on what happened when with the plate movements, if this specific comes into play. See here for an abstract

 

[Lon]

Another serious challenge to the Noachian Flood.

is it? Why aren't you guys reading the same things I am reading? :idunno:

 

[6days]

If interested there are other examples of scientists who were atheists, admitting how painful it was realizing the evidence did not support their belief system.

Yes please.

Geneticist John Sanford specifically mentions the "painful" process.
‘I was totally sold on evolution. It was my religion; it defined how I saw everything, it was my value system and my reason for being. Later, I came to believe in “God”, but this still did not significantly change my intellectual outlook regarding origins. However, still later, as I began to personally know and submit to Jesus, I started to be fundamentally changed—in every respect. This included my mind, and how I viewed science and history. I would not say that science led me to the Lord (which is the experience of some). Rather I would say Jesus opened my eyes to His creation—I was blind, and gradually I could see. It sounds simple, but it was a slow and painful process. I still only see “as through a glass, darkly” [1 Cor. 13:12]. But I see so much more than I could before!

 

[Sonnet]

is it? Why aren't you guys reading the same things I am reading? :idunno:

thanks. will have a look.

 

[Sonnet]

Bs"d

My response is that that claim is nonsense.

The book "Earth in Upheaval" shows very much and very strong proof for a world wide flood.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/21746106/Velikovsky-Earth-in-Upheaval

It is a very interesting read.

 

[Jonahdog]

is it? Why aren't you guys reading the same things I am reading? :idunno:

Your second selection, Velikovsky. On occasion various TOL posters like to quote mine Stephen Gould. Here for your reading pleasure is cite to an entire essay of Gould's about Velikovsky http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_velikovsky.html.
Have fun.

 

[Lon]

Your second selection, Velikovsky. On occasion various TOL posters like to quote mine Stephen Gould. Here for your reading pleasure is cite to an entire essay of Gould's about Velikovsky http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_velikovsky.html.
Have fun.

Gould is perhaps most enjoyed not by his prowess of field for me, but his ability to write well. For that, thanks. A few worth mentionings:

And here Velikovsky is not to blame at all. He has merely fallen victim — as have so many others with the most orthodox among previously cherished opinions — to this great revolution in geological thought.

Which of course, was scientifically postulated.

Gould admits that he has no expertise when criticizing the most of Velikovsky's work, just his own paleontology and that of a book 27 years past when he was likely in his teens. I have not read Velikovsky.

 

[Jonahdog]

Lon: My apologies, not sure how I confused your post with one by Elia.

 

[6days]

Yes please.(examples of scientists who were atheists, admitting how painful it was realizing the evidence did not support their belief system.)

Dr. Jerry Bergman PhD "At Wayne State University, where I earned my bachelor’s, master’s, and Ph.D. degrees, I was exposed to evolution. Influenced by my atheist father and my professors, I accepted this worldview, as did most of my peers. We also accepted the atheist philosophy that came with it......

"....The evidence against Darwinism was a critical factor in my acceptance of creationism, which opened the door to my acceptance of Christianity, biblical reliability, and a young-earth creation worldview. Like many scientists who came before me, I discovered that the evidence supports the truth of the Bible." http://www.icr.org/article/8535

 

[Sonnet]

Not long ago, Venus emerged from Jupiter, like Athena from the brow of Zeus—literally! It then assumed the form and orbit of a comet. In 1500 B.C., at the time of the Jewish exodus from Egypt, the earth passed twice through Venus's tail, bringing both blessing and chaos; manna from heaven (or rather from hydrocarbons of a cometary tail) and the bloody rivers of the Mosaic plagues (iron from the same tail). Continuing its erratic course, Venus collided with (or nearly brushed) Mars, lost its tail, and hurtled to its present orbit. Mars then left its regular position and almost collided with the earth in about 700 B.C. So great were the terrors of these times, and so ardent our collective desire to forget them, that they have been erased from our conscious minds. Yet they lurk in our inherited and unconscious memory, causing fear, neurosis, aggression, and their social manifestations as war.

(Immanuel Velikovsky - Worlds in Collision)

Does this discredit Velikovsky?

 

[Sonnet]

S. J. Gould on Velikovsky's 'Earth in Upheaval'

First, the assumption that similarity of form reflects simultaneity of occurrence: Velikovsky discusses the fossil fishes of the Old Red Sandstone, a Devonian formation in England (350-400 million years old). He cites evidence of violent death—contortion of the body, lack of prediction, even signs of "surprise and terror" engraved forever on fossil faces. He infers that some sudden catastrophe must have extirpated all these fishes; yet, however unpleasant the death of any individual, these fishes are distributed through hundreds of feet of sediments that record several million years of deposition! Likewise, the craters of the moon are similar in appearance, and each one formed by the sudden impact of a meteorite. Yet this influx spans billions of years, and Velikovsky's favored hypothesis of simultaneous origin by bubbling on the surface of a molten moon has been conclusively disproved by the Apollo landings.

Thoughts anyone?

Relevant passage in Velikovsky: https://www.scribd.com/doc/21746106/Velikovsky-Earth-in-Upheaval

Pages 51-54.

 

[Sonnet]

Bs"d

My response is that that claim is nonsense.

The book "Earth in Upheaval" shows very much and very strong proof for a world wide flood.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/21746106/Velikovsky-Earth-in-Upheaval

Maybe you would like to respond to Gould's rebuttal of this book?

 

[Lon]

S. J. Gould on Velikovsky's 'Earth in Upheaval'

Thoughts anyone?

Gould also said some of it was wrong on science's end also, that is, that he said Velikovsky had been misled by science. Also, Velikovsky was written well before Gould. Gould was a bit harsh with scientists as well, so I see him as being an equal-opportunity offender on his call-outs. He did write well. Some of the time, Gould actually made his oppenents look better by writing their position, probably better than some of them did in the first place, thus inadvertently giving them a higher praise than he likely intended. He does Velikovsky a service by ensuring for posterity he'd be well known. Velikovsky certainly wrote well, painting vivid pictures. -Lon

 

[Elia]

Gould is perhaps most enjoyed not by his prowess of field for me, but his ability to write well. For that, thanks. A few worth mentionings:

Which of course, was scientifically postulated.

Gould admits that he has no expertise when criticizing the most of Velikovsky's work, just his own paleontology and that of a book 27 years past when he was likely in his teens. I have not read Velikovsky.

Bs"d

So you haven't read it, Gould is not qualified to comment on it, so what are you trying to say?

 

[Lon]

Bs"d

So you haven't read it, Gould is not qualified to comment on it, so what are you trying to say?

Even Gould said he wasn't qualified on most of it, but extrapolated from his own area of study of paleontology and biology. So even Gould agrees with you to an extent. I always found Gould to be a conundrum. He at times said things that would favor an Evolutionist, but he also challenged his own colleagues a fair share of the time and was quotable by creationists because of it.