BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Apr 12 - 06:13 PM

Opium of the masses Paul!

It's better than having them think for themselves, so naturally they lack the capacity, not only to assess evidence, but to recognise that it is evidence.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 01 Apr 12 - 05:54 PM

Just give up Pete. You haven't got the mental capacity to be anything but religious.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Apr 12 - 05:17 PM

operational science is observable,testable,repeatable.evolutionism is not.the only way that the the claim to being otherwise can be posited is to appeal to natural selection which is observable only within the limits of its kind.
this was one of the
"evidences"presented on the tv show.was it mendel and rice development?so natural selection works on rice[or whatever the details were] and new varieties developed.it was still rice at the end of it.
that is no evidence for microbes to mudcatters evolution.
i seem to remember the presenter suggesting apes were our nearest kin based on "similar" body shape.all this is interpretation of the data and IMO a weak argument .
but the story line from first life to higher lifeforms was presented without any evidence-just the confident account of how it was supposed to have happened.
darwin expressed confidence that the fossil record would produce transitional chains but after all these years and probably tons of fossils there aint much to validate that hope but a few debatable items.
if there were any "evidences" i missed please post and we can discuss them and apologies if my memory failed on any details. pete

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 01 Apr 12 - 11:19 AM

Like I said Ray, I thought he was talking about the bible when he posted that...

(Might see you a week on Wednesday, but I fly out to South Africa the next day for a few weeks, so might be packing instead, see how I go.)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: BanjoRay
Date: 01 Apr 12 - 09:33 AM

Pete said making the impossible and unproven sound convincing-that is if you dont think-hang on a mo-wheres the evidence backing up this wondrous story.

Pete the whole program was full of evidence - it was what it was all about! How come you missed it all?

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 01 Apr 12 - 09:15 AM

pete from starry wherever said;

banjo ray -i did infact watch the programme and only see your recommendation today.it was certainly creatively done and a lot easier for a layman than wading through darwins origin and his favoured races.he did a good job IMO of making the impossible and unproven sound convincing-that is if you dont think-hang on a mo-wheres the evidence backing up this wondrous story.at the very start i noted the fluidity of the theory and was mildly amused that a schoolboys efforts changed the parameters of dating "early life"
but i think the programme did aid the understanding of the theory."

Not wanting to sound thick here.. (though I am sure some reckon I will) but all this about making the impossible and unproven sound convincing, err.. Ray was talking about a science program. Making the impossible and unproven sound convincing is what religious people do isn't it? Except not very well, obviously, as nobody seems taken in by it.

I reckon pete has been quoting from his "How to indoctrinate vulnerable people" handbook rather than critique a telly program on fact.

On that note, have you noticed that The Archbishop of Canterbury said today that less children know The Lords Prayer? I thought he had noticed how society was progressing till I noticed the bugger wants it to be taught in all schools. Hasn't anybody told him less than 1% of the country are practicing christians? That over 80% of people who practice any religion don't practice Christianity?

No wonder he wants to go back to academia and wander lost in his books. Pity in some ways, a clever fellow, but realised his failures too late. Sorry Rowan, you don't get anywhere appeasing bigots, even if you most certainly aren't one yourself. Lost cause this religion lark after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Mar 12 - 05:10 PM

""there was also the suggestion that the planes did not sink toward the nose as "maybe"might be expected.""

That one is easy. Planes are not, (as you might intuitively expect, heavy at the nose because of the engine.

Aircraft centre of gravity is very much in the centre of the craft, or it would be hopelessly nose heavy and impossible to control in the air.

Also you would see lots of planes parked nose down.

They will always tend to sink level, unless some other object intervenes.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Mar 12 - 04:02 PM

despite it seeming to be against my expectations' the planes being metal made would appear to sink as in dons schooldays experiment.however CMI had done similar experiments with guitar string under a weight but using a freezer and finding a non sink overnight.
i confess to not knowing if greenland temp is that low especially if summer gets significantly warmer.
there was also the suggestion that the planes did not sink toward the nose as "maybe"might be expected.
as i said i,m still open on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Mar 12 - 08:27 AM

doing the experiment...

Of course, you also have to be sure the experiment is showing what you think it does. As Don said, the pressure per square metre for a skater is very large, but for a kilogram wieght with a base of, say 10cm diameter, the additional pressure is quite small. That's why a person can lie on a bed of nails quite comfortably - the weight is spread of a substantially larger are than it would be for a single nail.

But back to the kilogram weight. I think more trials are called for. I bet the weight came from a set of weights and measures, so was metal: that introduces possibilities of the weight acting rather like a radiator, for example, because it is a good conductor with a large surface area. So I would want to try other objects - a bag of sugar sealed in plastic, for example, preferably with the same sized base as the weight.

Again, that's the scientific approach. What was the prediction? What happened? What alternative explanations for the observations could there be? How can we test which of the alternative explanations might be right and which are definitely wrong? You need to be looking at all of those, and several other things, all the time. That's method, not belief, and it applies to everything in science. Hence, for example, it was possible for the Einsteinian model of the universe to supercede the Newtonian. Of course, scientists are only human too, so no-one says it is automatic, as lots of people have careers, research grants and what-not to complicate things ...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Mar 12 - 08:03 AM

""i am unsure of the ice skater comparison.surely not much impression would be made in the ice if skater merely stood still.""

Then once again some homework is indicated.

Way back in the fifties at grammar school, we carried out the requisite experiment.

We placed a large block of ice across two bricks in the school refrigerator and put a one Kg weight on top, After a weekend, we found the weight fully enclosed in the ice, with only a small dent on top to show how it got there.

Repeated over a longer period, the weight finally dropped out of the bottom.


I would be unsure what would happen as well - which is the exact point of doing the experiment.   In fact, its the point of doing the experiement even if you are 'sure' but haven't actually tried it or seen the results.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Mar 12 - 06:41 AM

""i am unsure of the ice skater comparison.surely not much impression would be made in the ice if skater merely stood still.""

Then once again some homework is indicated.

Way back in the fifties at grammar school, we carried out the requisite experiment.

We placed a large block of ice across two bricks in the school refrigerator and put a one Kg weight on top, After a weekend, we found the weight fully enclosed in the ice, with only a small dent on top to show how it got there.

Repeated over a longer period, the weight finally dropped out of the bottom.

Your ice skater doesn't remain long enough in one place, but if he did the result would be the same.

It is the pressure which causes this and standing still won't prevent it, but accelerate it. To understand the reason why it works for fast moving skaters, you have to look at the surface area of a skate blade, and calculate the tons per square inch generated by the weight of a human being acting through that minute area.

There are others here who are mathematicians and could supply figures for this better than I.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 04:31 PM

all the examples given were of natural selection within the limits of the kind in question.this was recognized and written of by creationists before darwin borrowed the idea and then extended it.

Pete, you don't understand that you don't understand. You don't even understand that ther is anything to understand.

Confucius he say:

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not: he is a fool. Shun him.
He who knows not, and knows that he knows not: he is a sage. Revere him.
He who knows, and knows not that he knows: he is an asset. Strip him.
He who knows, and knows that he knows: he is an asshole. F*** him.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 04:19 PM

banjo ray -i did infact watch the programme and only see your recommendation today.it was certainly creatively done and a lot easier for a layman than wading through darwins origin and his favoured races.he did a good job IMO of making the impossible and unproven sound convincing-that is if you dont think-hang on a mo-wheres the evidence backing up this wondrous story.at the very start i noted the fluidity of the theory and was mildly amused that a schoolboys efforts changed the parameters of dating "early life"
but i think the programme did aid the understanding of the theory.

frogprince-i read the link you supplied.i did expect to read other suggestions and i wondered what they might be.i also read pennys link,though somewhat tec for me.it seemed to me that the ICR and CMI articles did discuss points raised by these and yourself.i am unsure of the ice skater comparison.surely not much impression would be made in the ice if skater merely stood still.more convincing was the suggestion that seasonal temp change contributed to planes sinking.
for me verdict is open as far as the planes are concerned.

i find the discussion about what constitutes evolution interesting .
all the examples given were of natural selection within the limits of the kind in question.this was recognized and written of by creationists before darwin borrowed the idea and then extended it.
needless to say none of this is enough to equate to particle to people evolution.
pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 02:42 PM

Steve: I'm not sure what you think IS evolution then. Natural selection is a universal- it works on everything, it's just a description of a process, not a "thing". Biological evolution (to me and I think most scientists) is the change of a population's genome as accumulated changes are acted on by the selection process. Note that there's no presumtion about the cause of those changes- random mutation is definitely the main source historically, but deliberate human intervention has become significant in the last 20000 years out of the three billion the process has been going on.

Stringsinger: what makes you think evolution and multibillion year timescales are in any way inimical to religions? Many forms of Christianity are perfectly happy with it. Fundies on the other hand, well, you're right, no argument or demonstration will cure their sour guts.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 02:22 PM

That's right, Paul. What I was challenging slightly was the notion that selective breeding is evolution. Selection, whether natural or artificial, in itself does not amount to evolution. It is the mechanism for evolution - not the only one, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 02:04 PM

What must be considered here is that indoctrination changes the brain chemistry.

No argument will ever work against a fundamentalist.

There is no logic to be incorporated into this discussion that will make any difference.

People who have been disillusioned by religion come to their own conclusions
through their personal experience and not because anyone has advocated that they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 01:25 PM

Natural selection is the action of the entire environment on any changes to the genome. In the case of selective breeding, humans are part of the selective pressure in an environment that is partly (sometimes almost wholly) controlled by humans. You can't think of us as something outside nature.

Even in these cases, though, there are other environmental pressures. Even the cleanest farm is swarming with microorganisms, some of which may become pathogenic.

Some organisms flourish in a constructed environment, when they would quickly die out in a different one, that lacked constant human intervention. That's not much different from organisms that require a particular diet, that die out when that diet ceases to be available. Or other organisms that flourished in the absence of predators, but quickly succumbed when they arrived. You might recognise giant pandas and dodos in there.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 09:40 AM

Point taken. But, on its own, selection, whether natural or artificial, is not evolution. Darwin's theory is that of evolution by means of natural selection. Selection is the non-random action on heritable material which can miscopy. That does indeed lead to evolution, but, in itself, is not evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 09:31 AM

If evolution is independent of intervention, then there could be an argument to say that selective breeding is a situation that "nature" then has to deal with, so in the grand scheme of things, could be (and is argued for in many texts) a facet of evolution? That said, I hear where you are coming from Steve, and don't disagree as such, and I hear your acknowledgement that selection is a tool in evolution's armoury.

There are many who don't like the idea that human intervention is just another aspect of entropy or even evolution. Such people would feel more comfortable ascribing the intervention elsewhere. Wonder where that could be?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 09:18 AM

It is well to remember that 'selective breeding'....of livestock, strains of rice...whatever... IS evolution. When we intentionally choose certain genetic attributes to cross, we are doing what it might take nature eons to do...and nature might never go the exact route we 'hurried along'

This isn't quite right. Selective breeding means our selecting traits that are already present which may or may not be advantageous in the wild. With selective breeding we are altering the balance in the gene pool from what "nature" might have determined, and we may well be maintaining traits that might otherwise die out, but we are not producing new genetic material. Left to their own devices, most of our "creations" would not compete very well in the wild. Selective breeding is also known as artificial selection and was used by Darwin to support his theory of natural selection. But selection is not evolution, though it is certainly a tool in its armoury.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 08:47 AM

pete from seven stars (hopefully all less than 6,000 light years away...) dismisses core drilling and ice data in its entirety as there have been occasions when it has not been all that accurate...

Ok.

I placed a rubber duck on a bench at the side of my garden pond earlier and prayed to God that when I come back from having a crap, it would have turned into a duck billed platypus.

It didn't.

So prayers don't work.

Ditto God.

Which is good news, because at a stroke, we can rely on cores demonstrating more than 6,000 years! Isn't that great? All of a sudden, science isn't reliant on the fantasy comfort blanket of others!

Oh joy! I'd pray with gratitude but there's no bugger there to hear it..

You know what is sad though? This comfort blanket concept is so hard wired that my flippant comments, written in order to provoke, are seen as bad taste even by rational people. That's how far we have to go in order to stop people from wanting to control others.

If I had a hammer... I'd hammer it in the wri...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 30 Mar 12 - 06:46 AM

It is my understanding that the basis of ice core dating is the succession of layers showing the seasonal variation in snowfall, in the same way as tree-ring dating. There are additional factors which help to refine the annual layers, as shown in this paper:

Ice core dating

It is produced by the Thera Foundation, which studies the eruption which caused the formation of the caldera at Santorini and the end of the Minoan civilisation, and which collects evidence for dating it from various sources. It discusses the argument for a particular volcanic signature in the ice of Greenland, and looks at the possibilities for error, and comparisons with other dating techniques. (NB. delta18O levels refer to changes in oxygen isotope ratios during the year.) Because they are arguing about a particular date, they go into some detail about the precision of the technique - but note that they are writing about a difference of a few decades, not millenia.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 08:52 PM

Bugger!! Beaten to it.

Well done BanjoRay, we at least are capable of scientific reasoning.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 08:47 PM

Interesting, Frogprince!

It does miss one point about objects sinking through ice though.

When pressure is applied to ice it raises the freezing point of the water, which melts at the points of contact, allowingt the object to sink quite rapidly into the ice, which then freezes over above the object as the pressure is no longer acting on it.

This is how ice skates work. A skater moves on a film of liquid water thawed by the pressure of the blade on the ice.

So the speed with which a heavy aircraft will sink is entirely independent of the age of the ice.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,BanjoRay
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 08:40 PM

I seem to have caused Attenborough to have evolved into Attemborough.
Sorry!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,BanjoRay
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 08:38 PM

FrogPrince's link is interesting. In addition to the facts in it, heavy objects resting on ice do sink into it - the pressure causes thin layers of water to form which flow out from under. It's how ice skates work.
Pete if you can get British TV on IPlayer, watch tonight's (Thursday)great program on BBC4 with David Attemborough which tells a very full story of Darwin's theory with superb illustrations.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: frogprince
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 07:12 PM

Don and Pete may both find this site interesting

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 06:46 PM

Pete notes that he read an article on the Creation web site about the lost squadron. Before I based any ideas on information presented on a web site like that, which has a self-evident bias, I would most certainly check that information with a number of less biased sources.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 06:31 PM

It is well to remember that 'selective breeding'....of livestock, strains of rice...whatever... IS evolution. When we intentionally choose certain genetic attributes to cross, we are doing what it might take nature eons to do...and nature might never go the exact route we 'hurried along'.

Pete... with life forms that breed rapidly, such as insects, we CAN get dramatic changes. Evolutionists do not claim, as you have suggested in the past, that insects will 'change' into birds or sheep into dogs, but that the immensely ancient ancestors of these forms were not exactly 'birds' or 'sheep'.. but something quite different. And those are what paleontologists dig up & study.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: frogprince
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 05:54 PM

"Yo, Pete? Have you, at any time, come across anything on Creation.com which raised a question in your mind because it
sounded to you like questionable science, or questionable interpretation of data?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 05:33 PM

banjo ray.i did,t see the programme but it would be interesting to know why the ice cores "plainly show" 9000 years.certainly an interpretation of the data based on assumptions about the evidence might suggest that.i do know that rocks are often dated variously and i have heard that rock formed in recent years by volcanic action has been dated as millenia old!
i did read an interesting article on creation.com called "the lost sqaudron".planes that crash landed on greenland ice were eventually found and one painstakingly recovered and restored in the 1980s i think.what surprised the recovery team was that they were 250 ft under the ice and 3 mile removed from the crash.what i wonder is;if they done an ice bore there how many years would they calculate if they knew not that the planes were there?.
pete

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 02:29 PM

'if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...' it's a genetically engineered water buffalo.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 01:50 PM

It doesn't sound like a duck. Its proboscis is an electrodetector. It is soft and flexible, not hard keratin.

The sound of the platypus is heard in the land - or the water.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 01:34 PM

It barks like an aardvaark and roars like an ant.

Convergent evolution is well known- but isn't reverse evolution. It's guided evolution- not guided by a Designer, but by the laws of physics. If you live in water, and want to get around fast (like predators often do and their prey often need to do), hydrodynamics will favour the selection of those individuals which approximate better to a good hydrodynamic shape. If you need to grasp things, get a thumb- and if your thumb has already evolved into something else, evolve a wrist bone into something that works like a thumb. If you need to see the shape and colour of things around you, get an eye- optical laws dictate it will be one of a few available models.

Of course, nearly all the examples we tend to quote are based on the same body plan, head in front, tail behind, a leg at each corner. It would be fascinating to see what could have evolved around a different basic template, but despite the huge blossoming of exoplanets (not long ago some astronomers argued that our Solar system could be unique) I can't imagine being able to peep in on one in my lifetime, or for several to come. Sad. But since the laws of physics are the same, we can expect convergence even there.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 01:30 PM

More like Jimmy Durante, I would think, with the schnoz they have.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 01:28 PM

Elvis Presley?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: frogprince
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 01:14 PM

Really serious question that just came to mind here: what does platypus sound like?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 29 Mar 12 - 05:48 AM

Steve Shaw said;
"Evolution does not have a "reverse." Evolution does not have goals and is not a linear process or a progression in any direction. A phenomenon that has produced all the diversity, complexity and beauty of life on Earth is a plethora of Pandora's boxes, hundreds of millions of genies out of hundreds of millions of lamps. The very idea of evolution "going into reverse" is utterly ludicrous."

Correct.

Entropy dictates a slide in one direction, ending with a few slow burning stars getting dimmer and this God character saying "Bugger, that wasn't supposed to happen..."

Reverse evolution may not be possible but if conditions dictate that the appropriate size, shape and mannerisms happen to be indistinguishable from a similar convenient form a few million years previously, it would have the appearance of reverse evolution. The myriad variables you refer to make the probability the same as for any other form.

if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Mar 12 - 07:13 PM

ah don-you are greatly mistaken in thinking i "get all hurt"by opposing views.
however i do find it sad that you feel the need to support your opinion by offerring insults.
most of the religious threads [though not exclusively] are started by unbelievers apparently keen to spread their faith position and mock the fundamentalist position.i dont think most of them are surprised that bible believers respond.
in fact i take it to be an invitation to participate.
without any ill feeling-pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Mar 12 - 06:37 PM

""thankyou don for supplying the rationale and apparent justification for persecuting christians in atheist states.if only christians would hide their faith in Christ or deny him when challenged they could avoid harrasment ,arrest and even death on occasion!""

Hysterical crap.

They are persecuted along with other groups (you said it yourself), and the reason is that they challenge the Communist governments, not that they practise their religion.

You and Iona have been doing the same thing for twenty seven pages on this thread. You throw your religious beliefs in peoples' faces and demand they share those beliefs. and then get all hurt when they don't roll over and see things your way.

Be a Fundamentalist Creationist fruit loop by all means, but don't presume to tell me and all the other non Fundamentalists and non Christians in the bloody world what we should believe. We have our own faiths, and the fact that you and your kind don't like it doesn't say one damn thing about the faiths and the people in question, but it says plenty about the arrogance of your position.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Mar 12 - 05:10 PM

bearded bruce -i rather think that the scholars that interpret the heb "yom"as meaning long ages do so because they accept deep time not because they can justify that conclusion on the text of gen 1.
a parallel use of the word occurs in numbers 7.here we have 12 days on which 12 princes of israel present gifts.if the word for "day""yom"means long ages those princes must have lived an awful long time.
the heb scholars that confirm this reading include
james barr   oxford
andrew steinman   concordia uni illinois
ting wing   sanford uni
if you can cite a heb scholar who takes your view on purely heb grammer considerations i am always interested to consider the merits or otherwise of an alternate view.

thankyou don for supplying the rationale and apparent justification for persecuting christians in atheist states.if only christians would hide their faith in Christ or deny him when challenged they could avoid harrasment ,arrest and even death on occasion!
pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: saulgoldie
Date: 28 Mar 12 - 07:33 AM

Not to be rude by returning to the theme of this thread, but...


Colbert & Page on evolution


Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Mar 12 - 07:26 AM

"why would that take precedence over the meaning of the original text and the meaning of the hebrew words contained there-in."

The point is that the original text DOES take precedence- NOT the KJV.

If you look at the Hebrew, the exact word used in Gen. for "day" is NOT the same as the present 24 hour period is called, at least according to scholars. If you have divine enlightenment otherwise, then obviously I have to defer to the voices in your head.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 28 Mar 12 - 06:24 AM

Persecution e.g.

China persecutes a group called Falan Gong (sp?) which is quasi-religious, and not approved by the government, as well as those Christian churches which are also not approved. Some are allowed. The Chinese government feels the need to control everything, and thus bans anything which has its own hierarchy. It allows a version of the Catholic church, but denies papal authority and appoints its own bishops.

As stated above, it is dissent, or behaving outside the box it stamps on, not Christianity particularly.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 12 - 08:24 PM

Evolution does not have a "reverse." Evolution does not have goals and is not a linear process or a progression in any direction. A phenomenon that has produced all the diversity, complexity and beauty of life on Earth is a plethora of Pandora's boxes, hundreds of millions of genies out of hundreds of millions of lamps. The very idea of evolution "going into reverse" is utterly ludicrous.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: BanjoRay
Date: 27 Mar 12 - 07:20 PM

Interesting program on BBC2 Tuesday night - Horizon, about weather and climate etc. They pointed out that ice cores taken from the deepest ice packs plainly showed the seasonal weather patterns for a full 9000 recognisable years. Of course 3000 of those years must have been imaginary........

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Mar 12 - 06:13 PM

""are you denying that the authorities in these states are persecuting faith groups and other dissenters?""

You just answered your own question without even knowing it.

They are persecuting dissenters and if faith groups fall into that category they will obviously run into trouble. They are not being persecuted for their faith, but for expressing dissent.

Almost any government which is not democratic will do this, but it doesn't mean that those governments are atheist. They are simply intolerant of opposition in any form.

You are in the habit of drawing false conclusions which appear to confirm your hard wired bias. The don't stand up to logical examination.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Mar 12 - 04:49 PM

well don firth.i did look at the FOR site but i have not gone too far as there seemed no obvious link to the subject though im sure it must be included.is your criticism that i am wrong or that i am incomplete.
maybe clarify,provide a specific link?
are you denying that the authorities in these states are persecuting faith groups and other dissenters?
best wishes pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 06:59 PM

Considerably more than 2 minutes homework, pete.

I belong to a couple of organizations, one of which is the Fellowship of Reconciliation, that deal with things like this.

Perhaos YOU need to do a bit of homework.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 06:00 PM

i think that if you had done a little more than 2 mins homework, don ,you would find that there are organizations that document persecution ,in these countries, of faith groups by the authorities;the worst of which being north korea.

bearded bruce-sorry but i am not following your argument.which old text do you mean?
and why would that take precedence over the meaning of the original text and the meaning of the hebrew words contained there-in.