BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 03 Mar 12 - 04:16 AM

I've had a look at the Snelling piece, which includes some good descriptive stuff, but misses some vital information out.

There are some answers to him here.
Answers in Creation (That looks like a site you should find interesting. It's a group who still regard the Bible as inerrant.)

The points that occurred to me are that he bases his arguments to start with on deposition to the deep ocean floor - chalk forms on shallow shelves, which is were the blooms he describes occur.

The flood is described in many places as turbulent. Chalk requires tranquil conditions.

He does not address hard grounds when the chalk ooze floor was occupied by various living things which have left their fossils.

He supposes that the growth of carbonate shells depends solely on the availability of CO2, whereas calcium ions are also needed, and this needs the dissolving of exposed rocks by acid rains (all rain is slightly acid, which is why the supply of calcium is slow.) he does not address this point.

He does mention the increase of nutrients by the stirring up of soils etc, but this is not going to happen in clean water.

He mentions abundant vulcanism as a source for C02 and nutrients. We know that volcanoes erupted during the formation of the chalk, as there are traces of the ash. Traces which look for all the world like fossilised cigarette smoke, and only occur in a few layers, widely separated. Not a vast amount of vulcanism, then. Again, what he describes is not clean water.

He looks impressive, but he leaves out the material which doesn't suit him.

I couldn't find the erosion piece - though did spot him challenging the absence of historic erosion surface by looking at the Grand Canyon, and not well known unconformities.

The main experts on the Chalk are Rory Mortimore and Andrew Gale, and you could do worse than look them up.

Penny

PS Thanks for the compliment on other posts PS

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 03 Mar 12 - 03:44 AM

Pete, that was a response to being told what I believe by someone who doesn't believe any of it. It got my dander up a bit.

I'll gve a glance to that chalk piece - missed the TV, though.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 02 Mar 12 - 07:36 PM

Metaphor. NOT literal.

The Abrahamic Tradition, Christ included, seems to take such things pretty literally, with the whole thing geared up to an after-life of paradise or purgatory*. So, what gives here?

* Yes, I know purgatory isn't Hell as such, but for sake of the alliteration, and the very literal theology of the RCC...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Mar 12 - 07:12 PM

Just checking to see if you were awake, pete.

That was Moses, of course. Noah just drifted around on it. Or near it. Maybe.

You'd be amazed at the number of evangelists who don't catch that.

But whoever it was, we can be certain that he was played by Charleton Heston.

====

As to matters of erosion, I think you'll find that this falls more under the heading of geology than evolution.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Mar 12 - 06:36 PM

don-NOAH ! parting the red sea?sounds a very amusing preacher.

penny-that seemed a bit of a mocking posting unchacteristic of your usual more reasoned arguments and comments.
going back to your earlier postings;you were talking about chalk and hardgrounds.did you see the tv programme last night about the south downs chalk.i caught some of it before an open mic outing.interesting stuff though of course i dont accept the inevitable deep time assertions.i was reading andrew snelling on CMI site tonight giving [IMO ]a good discussion of uiformitarian and diluvial geology re chalk.it certainly aided my understanding of the subject and the arguments as to the formation of the dover etc cliffs, though without my being equal to a worthy recounting.
another argument ,sort of related ,was an article called "disappearing coastlines" which as well as being interesting in the accounts of having to move lighthouses, posed the problem for uniformitarian geology of the rate of erosion being immense distances if really over millenia of deep time.
just as creationist scientists counter evolutionary aguments;it occurred evolutionists probably offer an explanation for this one.
as you are the geologist on mudcat i thought you would be equiped to supply such-if its not too technical for me!
best wishes as always   pete

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Mar 12 - 02:17 PM

Astray, it depends on whether one buys all the supernatural stuff, which (and the evangelical and fundamentalist Christians will never agree with this, but they're not the be-all and end-all of Christianity) is NOT essential to being a Christian.

Heaven and Hell are not geographical locations and Adam and Eve were not actual historical people.

Metaphor. NOT literal.

From a sermon given by an intelligent, thinking pastor:

Doubting is a sign of caring. If I don't care, you can tell me men from the moon visited you last night during your prayers and I will say, "that's nice." But if I care, if I care passionately, I will perhaps ask, "Really? What did they look like? Did you really see men from the moon? I can't believe it!" Which translates into, I want to believe it. I would like to believe that wanting to have faith is a form of faith.

One of [Doubting] Thomas' great virtues was that he absolutely refused to say that he understood what he did not understand, or that he believed what he did not believe. There was an uncompromising honesty about him: he would never still his doubts by pretending they did not exist.

For a lot of us, I think, it is not a question of whether or not there is a God as much as it is what kind of God do we have, what can we expect of God, are our expectations of God about the reality of God or about our own desires?

When you think of it, to believe the Gospel is to believe something fantastic, as in a fantasy. Of all the people you have known who have died, not one, I daresay, has risen from the dead, physically. Yet we are to believe that Jesus rose physically from the grave, from death to physical life. We would like to believe, we yearn to believe, but it is clearly understandable that we might have a doubt or two, perhaps until we see and experience evidence of resurrection in our own lives, or in the lives of those around us.

There is a well-known quote that goes "There is more faith shown by honest doubt than in all the creeds of the world." Who said it is not certain, but it has been attributed to both Alexander Pope and William Blake.

What makes a Christian a Christian is how seriously they take the ethical teachings of Jesus, NOT whether they actually believe that Noah parted the Red Sea by waving a stick.

Also, a pastor I know commented that there are self-style Christians who are "so hell-bent on getting to heaven, that they are of no earthly use to anyone!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 02 Mar 12 - 12:28 PM

1000

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 02 Mar 12 - 12:28 PM

Wait for it...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 02 Mar 12 - 12:12 PM

Interesting point - but maybe it wasn't the point at the beginning, before it was codified.

I'm putting the rest of my answer in the Freethinking thread.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 02 Mar 12 - 07:00 AM

I'm Christian, and I don't go round assuming others are on their way to Hell

Does Christianity work without Hell, I wonder? What is the point of the death of Christ if not to redeem humanity for its sinfulness acquired at The Fall? If you take away Hell from Christianity, then the root is lost entirely and Christ's sacrifice is meaningless. Of course all this is richly symbolic of human nature and the struggles we have between Nurture and Nature / Good and Evil / Reason and Impulse on a day to day level. Like me - ha! - going on wheat / carb & fat free Spring Diet because I know it's good for my health, but I still wake up craving crumpets and toast, and find myself drooling over pies & cake in the bakers window. Mind you, I did manage to quit smoking 13 years ago which gave me hope that Reason can triumph over Impulse, and, indeed, addiction; I also quit Christianity for much the same reasons, and whilst I still see the appeal of Secular Jesuist Humanism, I still have more sympathy for smokers than I do for Christians. After all, Smoking really does bring one closer to one's maker...

As one who spends a lot of time researching Medieval religious sculpture and poetry, I find the underlying psychological themes fascinating too - and alarmingly 'modern' too. The Abrahamic Tradition is well ingained in western thought; its basic dualities and paternalistic oppositions underwrite pretty much everything from Marxism to Right Wing Functionalism with it prerequisites of poverty & suffering, and where, most paradoxically, Christianity finds its natural home! Even the 'saintly' Mother Theresa stood testimony to that much.   

human superiority and human 'dominion' over the rest of 'creation'

I think those ideas are ingrained pretty deep, Shimrod. It's right there in the paternalistic sactimoniousness of the Abrahamic Tradition which feels any form of dominion is God-given - be it the desecration of nature, or the wholesale oppression of humanity by church and government alike. Both Tony Blair and David Cameron seem to be good Christian chaps who, no doubt, have no trouble getting to sleep at night, knowing that God is on their side. But wholesale massacre and the active propagation of misery apart, for me it comes down to something so simple as seeing an elderly homeless chap quite forcibly evicted from Manchester Cathedral one freezing January day for having nodded off in the warm. Were the ushers wearing WWJD bracelets - or was that just my imagination? Either way, on especially cold days, when I'm at my most cynical, and when people are literally freezing to death on the streets, I might find myself looking up into the vast emptiness of cathedrals - wherein the hot-air rises - and thinking what a fine way to waste our precious resources just keeping warm an empty space where no one will ever go...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Mar 12 - 05:25 AM

I note that Iona and pete, with their usual selectivity, have not answered any of my points about Christianity (with it's assumptions of human superiority and human 'dominion' over the rest of 'creation') being at the root of our present horrendous environmental and ecological problems.

I don't count pete's lame and unconvincing "stewardship" cliche.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 02 Mar 12 - 05:01 AM

Hey, I'm pretty sure I'm Christian, and I don't go round assuming others are on their way to Hell, and I know a good few others who don't even accept that there is such a place, or if there is, that it is occupied (I think that is the Jesuit position).
Even despite feeling strongly that some of those who rejoice in its existence ought to taste some of their own favoured punishment, and the neighbour who made my last home hellish ought to find out what it is like being their neighbour, I wouldn't go so far as eternity for the lesson.
(And yes, Iona and pete, I know Jesus talked about the place, and I'm being picky about texts. But I have company in it.)
(And I'm being prayerful about this posting, and I'm not being told to stop.)
(On the other hand, the computer might chew it up, which sometimes happens with stuff I'm doubtful about, and I take as an indication that I shouldn't do it.)
Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 02 Mar 12 - 04:34 AM

I don't think it is in all Christians by any means, as I've got all the way through to retirement age withut noticing it much. But recently, it has led to my leaving another site.

Just spotted this, Penny!

I think such general santimoniousness goes hand in hand with the sort of mentality we see here regarding YEC. Of course not all Christians are into YEC, but once we start believing in a GOD then it raises all sorts of other issues too. What is God? Why happens to those who don't believe? etc. etc. My main issue here is that otherwise reasonable & rational human beings are prepared to carry around such medieval notions as Heaven and Hell. Indeed, such beliefs are the very core of the Christian faith; the idea of Salvation, and Sin, and a wrathful God who would create us with free will within a universe of infinite wonder only to punish us for all eternity for finding something better to do with our lives than being religious.

Soon as I meet a Christian - any Christian - I know that in their hearts I am headed to Hell, there to suffer an eternity of hellish damnation along with the rest of humanity for simply being human. As I said earlier I can't see how anyone can believe in any stripe of Christianity and not hold with YEC - because one is as rediculous as the other. This is why I'm an atheist - that and the reason that no concept of any God I've ever read about has ever measured up to the divinity and spirituality of John Coltrane, whose Prophetic Creations are truly filled with wonder and spiritual beauty.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Mar 12 - 01:15 AM

Anyone willing to book a flight on YEC airlines?
Really? Oh C'mon! It is the TRUTH!
Iona and pete are typing on specially created keyboards.
And when I lay my blessed hankie on the 'puter, I can *feel* the power.




Yup it is sarcasm. No loss because we are speaking entirely different languages, and using entirely different thought (so-called) processes. I bet I would like pete and Iona on a hike or in a mixer, but they just ain't speakin the same language. Fun, but tiring. I'm done.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 08:43 PM

Agreed!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 08:34 PM

Well there will be an explanation for its existence, and it's fun seeking out that explanation, as long as we stick to evidence and reason. I suspect that the explanation will be a lot simpler than we might suppose (just look at how Darwin's explanation for all the beauty and complexity of life on Earth can be summed up in a single sentence, innocent of technical words), but I'm sure that the laws of physics will take care of it to the full. No need for inexplicable "explanations" for which there is no evidence and never will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 08:25 PM

I don't believe that the universe needs an explanation for its existence. Nor a hypothetical "Creator."

It just IS.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 07:57 PM

I also enjoyed Jack's post, though I wouldn't dignify the notion of God's existence by calling it a "hypothesis!" It fails the definition because it is not a proposed explanation based on observation (it's actually a giant non-sequitur), and because it cannot be tested. In fact, religion deliberately places God beyond testing. To suggest that God is the explanation for all the beauty and complexity of the universe also fails miserably because the proposed "explanation" is infinitely harder to explain (and infinitely more complex, to boot) than the stuff it is supposedly there to explain!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 06:20 PM

Sugarfoot Jack, I just reread your post at 01 Mar 12 - 11:53 a.m.

Excellent!!

This was a point that I kept trying to put across, but you said it much more eloquently than I. Thanks!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 02:17 PM

""well tia-who made this rule that you are referring to?
and how do you think newton or the numerous other scientists who were christians and creationists would answer your challenge?""

Why don't you ask yourself if Galileo would consider that he established the Heliocentric FACT of the solar system's physical nature because of Christian Creationist support, or in spite of its opposition?

He was forced to recant or DIE!!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 02:06 PM

Iona has no response to the things I said in my post of 29 Feb 12 - 05:57 p.m., except to try to twist the punch line in the Peanuts strip that I linked to.

Iona, you have no response to any of the things I said, other than a flippant remark?

Your faith may be regarded as admirable in some circles, but in the REAL world (a world which MAY have been created billions of years ago by a Supreme Entity of such magnitude that the human mind is incapable of comprehending It, even in mythological terms), that kind of blind faith is tragic.

Again, Iona, what do you do in the REAL WORLD to benefit your fellow humans? Feed the hungry? Clothe the naked? Comfort the sick, lonely, poor in spirit? Visit those in prison?

I have referred to Matthew 25:35-40 a couple of times in this thread. I suggest that you go on to read further in Matthew 25. Verses 42 through 46.

According to the Bible, there are many acts that are sinful. But also according to the Bible, there are sins of omission as well.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 01:52 PM

I would be perfectly happy to see these superstitious bigots go unchallenged, if they were not trying to force everybody to follow their idiocy.

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.- Christians tortured a young boy to death believing him to be a witch.

They want to own our relationships.

An MP wants to prevent lovers from marrying.

They want their superstition taught in schools

Even though our bot has proclaimed that it has no scientific evidence for its beliefs, it wants them included in school curricula. A whole raft of proposals to cripple science teaching in American schools. This list is almost a year old- there have been several more since.

Fundamentalists infiltrate the US military.

This report is 4 years old. It has got worse since.

Posing as faithful and charitable followers of religion, this extreme rightwing political movement threatens the civil liberties of everybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 12:29 PM

I don't get frustrated over this. Trying to convince people who refuse to see is as nuts as the people you're trying to convince.

Science and religion are completely different and people who think science is just another belief system are idiots. Science involves theories that are tested to develop conclusions. Religion involves believing what you've been told. Science involves re-evaluation and accepting new conclusions when the observed warrants. Religion involves not testing what's 'known' and ignoring anything which warrants rethinking. Science tries to fit the theory to the evidence. Religion tries to fit the evidence into the belief.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 12:26 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=1bSZslEDUl0

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 12:15 PM

I think I will follow DMcG into the shadows and not bang my head on this wall any more. I may read it at times...but I can't spare the time for details.

(take care, Pete... sing the good ones.)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stu
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 11:53 AM

As a scientist, you have to be open to the fact there might be a God, or Gods. However, what is required by science is observable, reproducible evidence that could be used to test the hypothesis that God exists. At present, that evidence simply doesn't exist. Iona hasn't presented a single drop of evidence, and as Joe points out her attempt to turn the tables by asking people to prove that God doesn't exist is rather wide of the mark.

This raises some interesting questions. What if there were beings alive in the universe that were so powerful we could only understand them as divine entities? Perhaps the intuition of so many of my fellow humans that some divine being exists is simply them recognising we're being observed by one of these beings? To an ant crawling over the surface of its anthill, the huge being that appears without warning in the sky above the anthill, blocking out the sun with its immense bulk and that can, with a simple exhale of breath scatter its fellow ants hither and thither, or with a swipe of his hand smite the anthill and destroy the labours of many over long years in a second, may appear divine in nature, but in fact is the scientifically explicable David Attenborough making a programme on ants. They could not comprehend the vast power at his disposal, the ability to travel distances incomprehensible to an ant. His ability to communicate with words and pictures to millions in the same instant. However, he's not a God, he's a chap and he's part of the universe, using technology discovered by the scientists so derided by fanatics.

Pure speculation of course, but it's fun. I loved Carl Sagan's idea in Contact that there were beings capable of manipulating the very fundamental nature of the universe itself, and leaving a message in pi to indicate their existence.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 07:12 AM

Don Firth,

Excellent post of 29 Feb 12 - 05:57 PM .





Iona,

IF you were following Biblical direction, YOU WOULD NOT TELL OTHERS TO BELIEVE the Bible.

You have not answered any of my statements about the KNOWN MISTRANSLATIONS of the KJ Bible. Are YOU saying that the men who translated from the Hebrew KNEW BETTER THAN GOD what GOD wanted to say?????

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 06:54 AM

The lithosphere, that part of the rocky layers of the Earth which moves around, is about 100 km thick - 100,000 m, with a volume of 5.054 X 10 to the power of 19 cubic cm. It has an average density of 2.7 grams per cubic cm, and an overall mass of 1.365 X 10 to the power of 23 kg.

It is very massive.

The hydrosphere, if spread over a featureless Earth, would be about 2440 m deep. Its mass is about 1.314 X 10 to the power of 21 kg. The pressure at the surface would be about 244 kg per square cm.

(Sorry I can't properly notate the numbers.)

Prove to us that that amount of water could exert a force on that amount of rock to move it.

You might need to go into newtons, The newton is the SI unit for force; it is equal to the amount of net force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at a rate of one metre per second squared.

And the force due to gravity.

Roughly speaking, you could imagine a metre cube of lithosphere rock, with a layer of 24.4 cm of water on top of it. Could the water move the rock?

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 04:39 AM

"I've told you before, the Bible is the ultimate authority. If I didn't appeal to it to prove itself, then it wouldn't be. Thus, it is not circular reasoning. I'd like to hear what y'alls ultimate authority is."

A completely delusional statement, if I ever read one!

Iona, there IS NO ultimate authority - live with it!!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 04:17 AM

Don Firth


'The best belief I can adhere to is that Jesus was a teacher who had some very good things to say about how people should treat each other.

Well worth heeding.'

Don,

Thanks for that statement.

I also believe[but not in any 'faith' or religious sense] that Jesus was a real person in history, with attributes as you've described.


Iona,

Without providing any source material for your assertions, you really can't be taken seriously

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 02:59 AM

Well, Iona, that's a different tack - asking people to prove that there's NOT a God. I guess that's akin to asking people to prove that there's not a color called qltza.

I think you're going up the wrong tree, getting into the "proof" business. If you believe in God and that belief makes your life richer, then that's a wonderful thing - my belief in God certainly does that for me.

But when people force me into a combative mode and demand that I defend my belief in God, I get into territory that is not where I want to be. My faith does me good when it is a positive, uplifting thing - but not when it gets into combat. I see a God who is "slow to anger, rich in loving kindness, abounding in love." That God fills my life and keeps me going. That God leads me to love others and to love the world that God created (however that creation came to be). But my faith doesn't drive me to fighting about the specifics of the origin of the world - it's an interesting thing to study, but not anything to fight about.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 02:48 AM

What evidence would be required for me to abandon my belief that God created the earth as He says He did? Prove to me that God doesn't exist and I'll recant everything I've said. It's an impossible task. You can't disapprove the very Being who created you!

Iona
"Let God be true, though every man a liar!" (Romans 3:4)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 02:44 AM

"Noah's flood would have created the force needed to quickly and effectively 'buckle' the gelogic plates and create mountains and valleys, etc."

No it wouldn't! That's the most ridiculous claim you've made yet, Iona!

You can't brush off my argument like that, just saying "'TISN'T!" and considering it rebuffed. What evidence do you have that a worldwide, catastrophic flood couldn't create drastic changes in the earth? How do you know that?

Iona
[again, I hope I haven't posted this before. It's been in my drafts a while and sometimes I forget to delete after I post them]

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 02:00 AM

and how do you think newton or the numerous other scientists who were christians and creationists would answer your challenge?


There were, and are, many Christian scientists. But they are honest; when the evidence contradicts the Bible, they accept the evidence. Because the Bible is not 100% literally accurate, they accept that parts are metaphorical, parts are mistranslated, and parts are simply state propaganda from two and a half thousand years ago. That doesn't make them any less Christian than you. Or perhaps, to you, it does.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 01:14 AM

Pete
It is not my rule!
It is how science works.
You have ducked again.
If you wish to have a scientific discussion, you really must answer the question:
"What evidence (specifically) would be required for you to abandon your belief in YEC?"
Ask me the converse "What evidence (specifically) would be required for you to abandon your belief in evolution", and I will give you a clear, simple answer.
Why can't you do the same?
Actually I know why.
Because your position is not base on science.
So answer the question explicity, or admit that your position is not scientific, but faith-base (which is fine, believe me!)
But before you (or Iona who is carefully avoiding this question) can claim any scientific basis for your views, you must answer this question clearly and succinctly and unequivocally...and you are assiduously avoiding doing so!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 12:53 AM

". . . perfect."

Well, I guess that depends on what your standards of perfection are.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 06:19 PM

By the way—

"how do you think newton or the numerous other scientists who were christians and creationists would answer your challenge?
did they not hold unswervingly to the teaching that you deem unscientific?it was under such that science made such great advances and it can be argued that this was a result of their bible based faith not despite it"

Sorry, pete, but you come up empty on this one. Many scientists such as Galileo, Newton, and numerous others went into science partially in order to reinforce belief in God by learning how He did it.

What they found, however, established that these things could not have happened the way the Bible or the Church said they did. Nor was the Cosmos the way they claimed it was. And since this unsettling revelation, scientists have stopped looking to the Bible or the Church for answers to questions about the nature of Nature.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 06:12 PM

"Has it every occured to you that you might be wrong?"

Yep. That's why I rely on the Bible, because it's perfect!



I wish I had all day to answer all of you. I'm working on some posts, but that takes time, and I haven't got tons of it!

'the world didn't have huge mountains like we have today'

"Iona,

If you believe that AND you believe Genesis 8:4, then there's another contradiction - could you explain please?"

I said that before the flood the world didn't have huge mountains like we have today. Many of the mountains and mountain ranges we have now were formed during the flood by volcanic activity, sedimentary rock, the earth's plates being thrust upwards, etc.
So it's not a contradiction, it's how you are reading what I wrote! :)


[if that response is a duplicate, sorry]

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 05:57 PM

Iona, take a look at the THIS ENTRY.

There are over one hundred and fifty different Christian denominations and sects. Each one of these groups differs with the others over matters of belief—and each one claims a Biblical basis for their differences with all the others!

In fact, Iona, many of these different groups have felt free to violate the Sixth Commandment and murder large groups of those other Christians who did not believe quite as they did! And felt smugly justified in doing so!

There are at least ten major holy books, including the Bible, The Torah, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the sayings of the Buddha, Confucianism, the Vedas, the Tao Te Ching—each one delineating a particular mythology and belief system. And NONE of them has any OBJECTIVE prominence over the others. All they have to support them are the beliefs of the followers of these religions.

They all claim Ultimate Authority. But NONE can PROVE it.

So—

Other than your FAITH, Iona, what do you have to support your beliefs? And why should I—or anyone—believe as you do?

(Here come the threats, folks! If you don't believe, you will suffer the Torments of Hell through all Eternity!)

####

Do I believe there is a God? I don't know. And neither do you! You have faith that there is a God, but faith is not knowledge. If there was, or is, a Supreme Intelligence that created the Cosmos, then that Entity is so far beyond our comprehension that anyone who claims that he or she "knows the mind of God" or what God wants of us is either delusional or a con-merchant.

Do I believe that the heavens and the earth were created in 4004 BC? No. The "heavens" came into being some 12.5 billion years ago in a process called the "Big Bang." But there is some debate about the actual nature of this. The matter (in the manner of rational science) is still open to question and further research. [See the writings of Michio Kaku about the possibility (probability) of multiple universes and multiple dimensions and how they come into existence, and his support for these ideas.] The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Life began on the planet almost from the beginning (once volcanic activity had abated sufficiently and water began to precipitate out of the newly formed atmosphere) in the form of one-celled entities that began to reproduce themselves and evolve into more complex, multicellular forms, first through mutation, and then through interbreeding. The environment weeded out the less successful "experiments" as new varieties evolved.

The evidence for this is overwhelming. And the process is still going on.

Do I believe in the Virgin Birth, the Divinity, and the Resurrection of Jesus?

First, I believe it quite likely that there was a historical Jesus because there are sources other than the Bible for his existence. The writings of Flavius Josephus, for example. And somebody started the whole Christian movement. I don't really believe that it was just a fraternity house prank that got out of hand (although…..).

The Virgin Birth. First, in the mythology of most of the religions of the world, all major religious figures entered and left the world in some miraculous manner. Second, early on, the word "virgin" was synonymous with "young unmarried woman" (in both Aramaic and early Greek, as I've been told). Further, when Christians tried to pre-empt the followers of some pagan beliefs, they wooed the Virgin cults with the idea that Mary was a virgin. So—tough to seriously believe.

God Incarnate? In the same way that ALL humans are God Incarnate. Kinda depends on how you look at it.

Resurrection in the body? Also fits standard religious mythology. The miraculous reappearance of Jesus after the Crucifixion fits the standard narrative for major religious figures. As I recall, Buddha was supposed to have "beamed up" also. Mohammed? Yeah, I think so.

The best belief I can adhere to is that Jesus was a teacher who had some very good things to say about how people should treat each other. Well worth heeding.

I attend a Christian church. Why? Fair question. First, socially. A very neat bunch of people attend this church and we enjoy each others' company and sometimes "party down" outside of church activities. None of them is a hard-charging, breast-beating evangelist.

Second, the pastors have all been intelligent and open for all kinds of discussions, religious and otherwise. And their sermons, believe it or not, tend to be pretty interesting and deal with the here-and-now rather than a lot of random speculation about the hereafter.

And third and probably foremost, the social programs that the church is engaged in allows me to multiply my own efforts. It is one of five churches in the area that offer meals to the poor and homeless, and who actively search for low cost or no cost housing for the homeless. The church is also the national headquarters of the Lutheran Peace Fellowship, that works actively for Peace and Justice issues. It is also deeply involved in doing "Alternatives to Violence" workshops in the state's reformatories and prisons. I have been particularly active in these last two activities.

One does not have to buy the whole ideology in order to strive to make the world a better place.

Other than proselytizing, Iona, what have YOU been doing to improve the world lately?

Don Firth

P. S.   If there, indeed, IS an anthropomorphic God, and if He is a just and loving God, I believe that He will be far more interested in what I DO than what I believe.

P. P. S.   Worthy of serious thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 05:28 PM

"I've told you before, the Bible is the ultimate authority. If I didn't appeal to it to prove itself, then it wouldn't be. Thus, it is not circular reasoning."

That is amazing.... it is a true classic! I would LOVE to present that at a convention of Logicians and Philosophers... just to watch their jaws drop in awe! It is like a 3-layer, Mobius strip of logic... swallowing its own tail and burning its candle at both ends & in the middle..... and maybe 3-4 other strained metaphors!

The closest thing to it I ever heard was when a woman I knew eloped ...and they bought a ring with this label inside:

"Genuine Imitation Lucite"

Thank you, Iona... you scare me, but you made my day!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 05:25 PM

well tia-who made this rule that you are referring to?
and how do you think newton or the numerous other scientists who were christians and creationists would answer your challenge?
did they not hold unswervingly to the teaching that you deem unscientific?it was under such that science made such great advances and it can be argued that this was a result of their bible based faith not despite it.
it is quite apparent to me that this is about a philosophical allegience as much, if not more than scientific discussion.i am very limited academically but i know enough to know that the very beginning of evolutionism is an impossibility.abiogenesis is a philosophical necessity for atheists never-the-less.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 03:39 PM

Iona,

The Bible

1. has contradictory sections.
2. TELLS us NOT to believe people who tell us where God is.

So, if the Bible is true,

1. We have to believe parts are both True AND False ( see my earlier post)
2. We should NEVER listen to you OR ANYONE who is talking about God.



So, your insistence on telling us what God said is in direct opposition to the Bible

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 03:03 PM

Why does there have to be an ultimate authority?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 02:42 PM

Round and round and round, the old cracked record goes on. The Bible is false*; therefore it can't be the ultimate authority for anything. Indeed, it is certainly not even the ultimate authority for itself; there are many competing versions of it.

This idiotic line of thought reminds me of those fanatics who burned the Great Library of Alexandria, arguing that so many books were unnecessary; if they contradicted Holy Writ they were blasphemous, if they agreed with it they were superfluous.






*falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (if you look pneumatically enhanced in a Fiat, you'll still look like a bimbo on a Number 57).

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 01:19 PM

I've told you before, the Bible is the ultimate authority. If I didn't appeal to it to prove itself, then it wouldn't be. Thus, it is not circular reasoning. I'd like to hear what y'alls ultimate authority is.


Iona
"Let God be true, though every man a liar" (Romans 3:4)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 12:59 PM

Suibhne Astray, this is one of my recent problems.

It's in the psychology of Christians to equate such behaviour with LOVE; they both LOVE and FEAR The Lord, because of whatever darkness they cultivate in their rotten hearts.

I don't think it is in all Christians by any means, as I've got all the way through to retirement age withut noticing it much. But recently, it has led to my leaving another site.

There was a book in our local Oxfam, on fearing God, which I glanced at, and decided it wasn't for me. But it niggled at me over the weeks, and I looked at it more, and decided it wsn't for anyone. So I bought it. Since I have done so, I've looked at the internet on the subject, and found how much there is on this theme, though nothing as disturbing as that particular book.

All of them seem to have missed the sort of teaching found in Bunyan or Charles Wesley, where once one has accepted Christ, burdens are gone, chains have fallen off - and fear has to be one of those negative things.

This particular book, as well as being very much about how powerful the author was - there was a lot of "I" in the writing - had a piece about not "disrespecting" God. It was like reading about a Mafia boss.

I went for advice on what to do with it to the other site. After all, censorship is ungood, and destroying books is doubleplus ungood. And I was met with some very nasty, hurtful, personal abuse from a couple of self identified Christians. Which fits your interpretation, but took me by surprise. Some people there had liked some of my posts.

Not really relevant to the YEC issue, but one of the two was of that persuasion.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 12:32 PM

Iona says: "If the Christian is doubting something, I'd say they need to spend a lot of time in prayer and study of the Scriptures. That's the only place where there are real answers to any question."

This is the bedrock problem with debating it with her. If questions about the status of the bible are to be answered only by reading the bible, it is a classic case of circular reasoning and assuming the answer.

A few years ago, 2 Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door, and we 'discussed' issues for awhile. They read bible verses to show me what they wished to impart. I finally explained that I really did not accept the Bible as 'ultimate authority', as there were too many problems (as have been noted in this thread). So...frustrated, they went away, but CAME BACK a few days later with a 'more experienced' member to clarify things. How did he do it? He read me different Bible verses!
Like Iona, they simply did not 'get it' that using the Bible to defend the status of the bible broke all sorts of rules of logic.

I have a copy of the Book of Oahspe, which is claimed to be a "new Bible", dictated by Heavenly Messengers. If I showed it to Iona...or Pete... and read them parts of it, they would see immediately why they should not accept it because someone simply stated that it "was inspired from Above".

"Oh, but WE have the real, original **truth** and those other attempts must be tricks of Satan"... or something...

You cannot win when someone is internally committed to ONE answer, no matter what contrary evidence is offered.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 10:49 AM

Ah yes, Xeno's Paradox, or one of its variants.

Nice one Bruce.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 07:07 AM

Iona,

The Bible does have the answers:

Matt 24:
23Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

25Behold, I have told you before.

26Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.


You have been deceived by the MEN who wrote the Bible you are using. I have given examples earlier of the mistranslations: Those who established the present Christian faith had a vested interest in that deceit.

Why do you think that THEY were inspired by God, and the present day evolutionists are not????

IF you say that "The Bible tells you so.", lease do the following:

Take a piece of paper and write on one side "What is written on this paper is true:"
On the other side, write "The statement on the other side of this paper is a lie."

Now, think about it, and when you understand, reply.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 05:20 AM

The particular glaciation to which I referred was not the one resulting in moraines etc in North America, which in the UK saw ice down as far as the Thames. This one left traces almost* to the Equator. There would have been no possibility for any large fauna - and we are large fauna - to survive. The Wikipedia article mentions only aquatic life. It also refers to more than one Snowball Earth episode. There would have been no opportunity for any observer to record it.

Jewish sources debate whether Job was written in the fifth century BCE, or by Moses. Others also debate its age. As they do its historicity. It cannot be placed sensibly closer to recent glaciations**, and certainly not to the Snowball earth events.

*almost - because I don't have a map in front of me. I have seen reconstructions covering everything, but this is still under discussion. Temperatures at the equator would be like those in the Antarctic.

** It takes a very long time to grind down an overdeepened glacial valley and advance an ice sheet over the land to leave behind great depths of boulder clay and push up huge blocks of sedimentary rock into it. (See Norfolk coast Chalk in glacial till) It takes a very long time to melt again. YEC timescales do not allow for this to follow the Noahchian flood.

Penny