BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 02:15 PM

And where is the evidence that she 'really thinks we ought to talk epistemology' in those 17-odd posts and 10 days? Answer: absolutely nowhere, because she hasn't mentioned it since. And that happens pretty much whatever the topic.
I know, I know.....I haven't answered a lot of the arguments that have been presented. I've got about three drafts full of them, but it's hard for one person to keep up with the arguments of who-knows-how-many. I am doing my best.

And yes, I plan on getting back to epistemology here soon. You all haven't answered my question yet!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 01:13 PM

There's no evidence Iona is a she. I suspect they are in fact a committee.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 01:00 PM

Why should I bother with a closed (and small) mind

The only reason I can think of is to make clear to third parties that that is what we are dealing with. It's quite easy to illustrate. On 02 Feb 12 - 03:58 AM she said "Let's drop the slurs and talk epistemology". Then again a little while later (at 06 Feb 12 - 02:16 AM) she says "I really think that we ought to talk epistemology".

So on 06 Feb 12 - 03:26 AM, I say something, while admitting I am no expert on the subject.

I may have miscounted, but I think she's posted 17 times since then. And where is the evidence that she 'really thinks we ought to talk epistemology' in those 17-odd posts and 10 days? Answer: absolutely nowhere, because she hasn't mentioned it since. And that happens pretty much whatever the topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 10:03 AM

1) Any discussion of the history of Niagra Falls that does not mention the Wisconsinan galciations and isostasy rebound is pure rubbish.

2) It reveals total ignorance to state that we need to know how much C-14 was initially present to get an accurate date. As BB points out, as with all radiometric dating techniques absolute amounts are never known and are irrelevant. It is always the *ratio* of parent to daughter product that fixes the date. The starting amount of parent does not matter in the least.

3) Steve Shaw is also correct. It is thoroughly insulting to those who know what they are talking about to be lectured by an ignoramus who is not even aware of how ignorant she is. Every time you post one of your pseudo-scientifc screeds it becomes ever more obvious that you read selectively and with little will (perhaps capacity?) for comprehension. I think it is time for me to start writing pseudo-scholarly lecturettes on the Bible...


Sheesh. Not worth it. Why should I bother with a closed (and small) mind, when I can address 65 young open minds four times a week (and get them in on the big hoax, right Iona?)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 09:56 AM

I still haven't grasped what Niagara Falls has to do with anything (have so far found no reference to Niagara Falls in the Bible - I'll keep looking).

Anyway I couldn't help noticing this little gem among your latest 'cut-n-paste-from-the creationists-website' diatribe, Iona:

"One man who lived near the falls told Lyell that the falls had eroded 150 feet in the past 40 years. Divide 150 by 40 and you get 3.75 feet of erosion per year. If we use this method to date the falls, it comes out to the age of 7 to 9 thousand years old."

How do you know that the rate of erosion has been constant over time? Isn't that a "uniformitarian" argument?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 09:15 AM

Ok, all bible scholars, which of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_errata
do you believe to be the true gospel word of your imaginary deity?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 09:14 AM

700!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 09:06 AM

typo-

The RATION of C-14

should be

The RATIO of C-14

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 07:54 AM

Iona works hard to say why she doesn't like any of the scientific evidence but says nothing in support of YEC. If YEC is true, what evidence would you present to a non-believer, Iona? Or is it only possible to believe in YEC if you also believe in the bible? ['possible' is not the ideal word, but I draw the line at words like 'reasonable' or 'sensible']

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 07:44 AM

Iona,

C-14 is an isotope of carbon. The RATION of C-14 to other isotopes is relatively constant ( within the error of the measurements being made) and the total amount of carbon around does not affect that ratio. Thus, your comments about carbon abundance have no bearing on the use of C-14 to date biological materials.

Of course, one MIGHT say that God provides all this evidence of evolution and just created everything a few thousand years ago, fossils et al. If that is the case, who are you to argue with the FACT that God WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, from his own created works, and has provided all this evidence in support of it? Aren't your arguments the work of Satan, trying to get you to believe other than what God WANTS you to believe??

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 07:39 AM

Here's a map showing how oil prospecting is helped by assuming the link between Africa and South America have related geology.

Depositional environments in Pangaea

I can't find the one I was looking for which not only relates gem and gold bearing strata, but also landforms. But it's out there somewhere.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 07:22 AM

"The same basic arguments apply to your 'continental drift', Don. I don't deny that the continents look like they were at one time connected. Perhaps they were. I wouldn't be surprised. Your taking a uniformitarian stance on the issue doesn't dissprove me: after all, uniformitarianism doesn't really fit the facts, as I just illustrated."

Arguments from the supposed erosion rates of Niagara and carbon dating do not apply to plate tectonics, which does not require quotes, as continental drift does not.

There is the obvious apparent match in shape, first spotted from primitive mapping by Francis Bacon, but the theory uses much much more information than that. (Incidentally, the match is along the submerged continental rise, not the exposed land.) For instance, older geological structures on either side of the Atlantic match in detail. (There's a map of Precambrian rocks
here) which illustrates this point, along with some other evidence.

There is also evidence from the distribution of fossils, but I doubt you would believe it.

Beyond the shape and rock distribution evidence, there is that from the ocean floor. Before evidence from naval surveys became available, the reasons the base of the oceans was of much younger age than the continents, and of basalt were unclear. But those surveys revealed the worldwide ranges of mid-oceanic ridges, down the centre of which ran a rift, in which lava was still being erupted. Examples of ridge structures can be seen in Iceland, currently active, but also in Cornwall, Cyprus, the Alps and other sites where they have ended up on land. The latter are called ophiolite complexes, and include sheeted basalt dykes and pillow lavas (extruded under water - look for video from Hawaii).

Igneous rocks can be dated by alternative radioactive decay products to C dating, and these dates can also be linked to the magnetic regime under which they cooled. It is known from this that the Earth's magnetic field has reversed through time on a number of occasions - these changes can be found in layered igneous rocks on land, such as the Deccan Traps in India. (These rocks include between the layers ancient soil horizons, suggesting emplacement over long stretches of time, and are quoted in a real scientific argument about the extinction of the dinosaurs as an alternative to the Chixulub impact. a similar set of rocks in Siberia has been dated at the same time as the much greater Permian extinction, which happened at an identifiably different time from the K-T extinction.)

Magnetic reversals can also be found on the floors of the oceans, showing that new floor is laid down at the ridges, and then forced apart as yet further basalt in intruded. There are many such reversals which can be mapped and dated.
Pacific Northwest map here

To hypothesise that there has been a significant change in the rate of generation of ocean floor you would need evidence of such a change. You would also need to explain the existence of the older ocean floors which have left their traces in the ophiolite complexes on land.

I believe there is reasonable access to the ocean floor data if you want to examine the source data. (It is no longer ocnfined to the US Navy.)

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 06:54 AM

Incidentally numero two, do update yourself on the matter of "continental drift", a long-outmoded (though not wrong, exactly) and potentially misleading notion, particularly to the uninitiated and/or Aunt Sally brigade, of which you appear to be a proud member. You may or may not care to investigate the theory of plate tectonics, which posits a driving force behind the movement of the plates which constitute the land masses and oceans. Interesting stuff it is too, though you may not like it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 06:46 AM

Incidentally, I doubt whether most evolutionists [sic]give a damn as to how old Niagara Falls are. Curious about it and vaguely following the arguments, perhaps, but I don't see an awful lot of scope there for emotional involvement, frankly.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 06:42 AM

No-one "guesses" the amount of C14 in the past. Do study the wiki article on radiocarbon dating to find out just how much work goes into the calibration on which accurate carbon dating is predicated. If I told you that you were absolutely bonkers because of your belief in this God fellow of yours, ridiculing you in offensive and dismissive terms, you'd be mightily offended. So kindly refrain from ignorantly offending the scientific community in this manner, OK?

Incidentally, radiocarbon dating is applied only to relatively recent material, 60,000years old or less.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 03:17 AM

Since continental drift happens at a rate of one to ten centimeters per year, contemplate how long it took for the North and South American continents and the European and African continents to drift the approximately 3,000 miles apart. Or the Hawaiian Archipelago to form.

Now—

Reconcile that with the fundamentalist Christian idea that the Earth is only 6,016 (4,004 + 2012) years old!.


This type of argument has been addressed before between Evolutionists and Creationists. You're proposing that if the rate of continental drift is consistent, and has been so for eons of undocumented time (i.e. before man evolved).
Your illustration of the continental drift is a uniformitarian assumption--the same as the one Charles Lyell made at Niagara Falls. Niagara Falls has four million cubic feet of water flowing over it every minute. *whistles* No wonder it's the most powerful waterfall in N. America! Charles Lyell traveled there in order to find evidence to support the uniformity theory. He tried to find the age of the falls and calculated it to be 35,000 years old. He got this date by calculating the rate of erosion.
One man who lived near the falls told Lyell that the falls had eroded 150 feet in the past 40 years. Divide 150 by 40 and you get 3.75 feet of erosion per year. If we use this method to date the falls, it comes out to the age of 7 to 9 thousand years old. For some reason Lyell did not use this rate, but rather claimed that it was 35,000 years old. But neither date can be correct because of further factors:

Niagara Layers
Like many canyons, gorges and cliffs, we can see multiple layers of sediment at the Niagara site. Lockport Dolomite is the top layer, and is pretty hard. The middle layer is the Rochester shale. Now, as the water cascades down the falls it erodes the softer shale away from under the dolomite, leaving the latter sticking out in a ledge until it eventually breaks off in large chunks. At the current location of the falls, the dolomite is about ninety feet thick. Throughout the rest of the length of the gorge it gets thin, to about 45 feet thick. This means that in the past, the Falls probably eroded faster because of the difference in thickness of the hard top layer, plus the amount of water that flows over the falls will effect the rate.

So there goes the 35 thousand years age. *chucks number out window* Even evolutionary scientists have concluded that the age of the falls is much younger than that. The general consensus is that the falls are twelve thousand years old. But does this date fit? Carry on, my dear Watson. Let us investigate.



Two separate views
Evolutionists divide upon this point into two camps: the Uniformists and the Actualists. The Uniformist says that the rock layers were made only by slow gradual processes.
The Actualist says that the earth's rock layers were made by slow gradual processes plus natural catastrophes.

Most actualist geologists say that the evidence shows natural catastrophes forming the earth and changing erosion rates. However, they still hold to the Uniformitarian views when they try to date the Niagara Falls. Again, they say the date is 12 thousand years. Why? They use carbon dating and look at the general 'evolutionary age' of the surrounding area.



Carbon Dating
Carbon is an element on the earth, just as oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen (represented by the letters C-carbon; N-nitrogen; O-oxygen and H-hydrogen). Water, as we all know, is made up of two H's, and an O, giving us the common prefix of "H2O". That's the basics.

Now, all living things take in carbon from their environment. Only living things, not rocks or things like that. This type of carbon is the type that they measure in dating, and is called Carbon 14 or C-14.
When a tree, shell, or bone dies it stops taking in C-14 and the existing C14 begins to deteriorate and become nitrogen 14 (N-14). If we know the rate at which the change from C-14 to N14 happens, we can tell how long the tree has been dead. Easy, right?

Right. As long as we are Uniformitarians!

The problem is that we do not know the amount of C-14 in the environment when the plant or animal died. We can measure what it is at the moment, but what if the amount was different in the past? We already know that there were different C-14 levels in the past environment!

If we guess the wrong amount of C-14, then the log will not be the right age when 'dated' using Carbon dating. Although the uniformitarians have ways to try and correct these 'differences' or 'problems', their dates are still wrong if they do not assume the correct amounts of C-14 in the past.



A second problem with Carbon Dating
Some plants and animals take in different amounts of carbon. This makes them appear older (or younger) than they really are.
there are many unknown factors that may have changed the rate of amount of C-14 in the environment. So we can see that though evolutionists may call themselves actualists, but their reliance on carbon dating is still founded upon the basis of uniformitarianism because they trust that the rate of carbon decay is consistent.

Glaciers and conclusion
Evolutionists say that the Niagara falls area was formed after the melting of the 18,000 year old Wisconsin glaciation (the glaciers that carved the Great Lakes), making the falls area about twelve thousand years old.

Creationists would say that the glacial period took place after the worldwide flood and the falls area is less than 5,000 years old. The current rate of erosion is 1 foot per year (but the historical rate has been about three feet), and the falls have moved back seven miles from their probable starting point. So if we're going to go by the current rate of erosion, it'd take a long time for the falls to get where they are today. But since the Niagara river was carved by the Wisconsin glaciers, there would have been a lot more water going over them than there is now. All factors considered (and also bringing into account the fact that we don't know the entire environmental history of the falls), what once was thought to be a huge blow to Creationism is now a strong proof for it!

The same basic arguments apply to your 'continental drift', Don. I don't deny that the continents look like they were at one time connected. Perhaps they were. I wouldn't be surprised. Your taking a uniformitarian stance on the issue doesn't dissprove me: after all, uniformitarianism doesn't really fit the facts, as I just illustrated.

"Get it? Got it. Good!!" ;)

{Iona}

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 02:18 AM

"one churchy elderly Oxford/Cambridge don's unconvincing attempts at a fantasy world."

Not to the C S Lewis Society of Florida. Surprise, surprise, they are creationist propagandhies.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 11:49 PM

He's a stochastic scholastic
His words ain't plastic
Ain't ecclesiastic
An' he ain't sarcastic

This man talk philosophy
Ain't hung up on Calvary
He ain't involved with prophecy
It seems he's very what you see
And what you get is brevity
No bombastic monastic's he
An' that's the way I think it be

Amen (I don't mean the rifle)
Amen (I don't mean to trifle)
Amen (I don't mean to stifle)
Anyone who bursts into to song
Amen (and please pass me the bong)


OK, so now I'm thinking of pursuing a career in rap. People have said

Don't give up the day job (from an opera fan)
What did I ever do to you? (from a guy with rap-writer envy)
Sh#t dad, that's bad (from my daughter)
What does stochastic mean? (from a Republican)

The End

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 10:09 PM

I was personally told by someone that they "couldn't imagine" the complexity of the wonders of the Universe without it being 'designed' by some intelligent force.

I replied, "I can!"   

Whether you can or cannot is merely how you look at things. I do not require a simple 'cause' to explain *everything*. I see how complex it is... and I see the science beginning to work out the necessary processes. First Cause? *shrug*... it doesn't worry me that we may never be able to definitively state how it all began. Those who cannot bear not knowing just *name* that elusive cause "God"... sure saves a lot of studying.,,, and if lots & lots of theologians have not only done it before, and attached crumbling manuscripts as 'evidence', why that makes it easy. You just chant 'ditto' and sign the book. That 'thinking' stuff is way too time consuming....

(who.. me?- sarcastic?....nawwwww...)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: John P
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 07:46 PM

Speaking of Unitarian jokes: The only time God gets mentioned in a Unitarian church is when the janitor kicks over the mop bucket.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 05:51 PM

I'm in the habit of watching programs like "NOVA" on PBS, and a decade or so back, I thoroughly enjoyed Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series. Solid science, along with some of Sagan's interesting speculations based on that science—complete with often spectacular visual effects, some of which are from powerful telescopes, NOT special effects.

Within recent years, I've followed the occasional programs (and the fascinating books) by theoretical physicist Michio Kaku.

A couple of years ago, another such program (or so people were led to believe) entitled "The Privileged Planet" was show. Beautiful visuals taken from astronomical photos along with narration by rich-voiced British actor John Rhys-Davies (Gimli the Dwarf in the "Lord of the Rings" series). Right up there with all the production values of the best of "NOVA."

It wasn't until the last fifteen or twenty minutes or so that I tumbled to what the program was really all about. It had talked about how the earth was the "Goldilocks planet" of this solar system—not too cold, not too hot, but "just right." It slithered past the issue of evolution, but, in a sense, capitalized on it by indicating that this was the only planet in the solar system that was hospitable to the higher animals—and man. Futhermore, the solar system was not surrounded by thick clouds of interstellar dust, so we are able to see a great deal of the rest of the universe, and learn just how huge and magnificent it really is.

All of this, of course, is true.

But then came the sucker punch:   without really saying so in so many words, the statement was made—or the question asked—how could this have all worked out so beautifully for mankind if there were not some Intelligence behind it all?

I had damn near been sucked in! This program was a propaganda film for "Intelligent Design."

I did a bit of research and discovered (!) that it was put out by The Discovery Institute, a creationist think-tank based right here in Seattle, well-funded nationally, whose purpose was to, among other thingsm, influence school curricula nationwide in terms of replacing scientific education with Creationism—or at least "Intelligent Design," which is nothing more than Creationism in a lab coat!

The Discovery Institute is a non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design. Founded in 1990, the institute describes its purpose as promoting "ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty."Its Teach the Controversy campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.

A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis", through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community. In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions",and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions". It was the Federal Court's opinion that Intelligent Design was merely a redressing of Creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition.

The rest of the story HERE.

One of their chief tactics is outlined HERE.

This smacks of "conspiracy theory." But, sports fans, this is not THEORY.

Don Firth

P. S. I wonder if Iona and pete know anything about this. . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 05:39 PM

And there's a demonstration you were right!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 04:52 PM

"And you can NEVER be sure that your interpretation matches the intention"

Ain't that what I said? Don't dick with it!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 03:27 PM

<-> If The Bible is read as a divinely-inspired book that tells humans God's laws and thoughts on things--as some folks say it does--then don't dick with what He said.

Well, ok, as you as you understand that when you read the words you are still imposing your own interpretation, that's how all words work. And you can NEVER be sure that your interpretation matches the intention

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 02:53 PM

"He still goes around knocking on peoples' doors, but he doesn't know why."

No doubt singing the hymn, "We Would Rather Not Be Moved"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 02:43 PM

a reply to pete: He said "nothing has been presented that demonstrates darwin to be true,other than what he himself said on p8 of origins;ie-acknowloging that the evidence he presents could as well be otherwise interpreted."

Pete- the argument in NOT with Darwin directly. He merely came up with a theory, based on physical evidence he found in his travels. He was trying to explain certain aspects of diversity.
Others soon saw that his theory needed to be investigated, as it was important to understanding the world and our place in it. For over a hundred years science has been 'interpreting' the evidence, and gathering MORE evidence.
You, pete, make far too much of the phrase "could as well be otherwise interpreted.". Otherwise does not mean just denied! Of course there are varied interpretations...and additions... and revisions. That is what science does! New evidence requires it.
What has become clear though, is that the basic point remains-- species DO change over millions of years....and eventually some lines grow apart until they can no longer cross breed. We do **NOT** see a duck become a lion, or even a dog become a cat. Evolution does **NOT** work that way, and when you use that assertion to argue agains evolution, YOU are missing the point! (I tried to state that when I said that it does not happen in a straight line.) It happens in a multi-branched tree...and some branches die and go nowhere....and many/most of the bones we dig up are example of dead branches-- and there are branches & twigs that will simply never BE found.

   If you eve get a chance, look into Stephen Jay Gould's "A Wonderful Life".... and plow your way thru the 1st 25-40 pages.(Much of the book is detailed analysis of the various specimens) There is no better explanation of HOW evolution works and how we KNOW that the fossils in the Burgess Shale prove the theory. If you truly grasp what Gould explains, you cannot doubt the truth of the basic concepts... it is only the details of the billions of stages that are evasive.

Understanding the basics of evolution does NOT disprove a 'God' starting it all.... it only shows what happened after BEING started.

Remember... there is a good reason why you and others say "I believe" in the Bible. Belief is a word that shows something other than "know".

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 02:31 PM

Did you hear about the Jehovah's Witness who converted to Unitarianism?

He still goes around knocking on peoples' doors, but he doesn't know why.

Pa-dum-pum!!   (Rim-shot.)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 12:52 PM

Me again not entering my 999.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 12:52 PM

Hi, Mr Happy.

"Apart from not eating meat, fish and eggs, strict Jains do not eat onions and garlic because they increase sexual desires. Strict Jains also do not eat any root vegetables like potatoes because smaller insects are killed in their harvest and the vegetable itself will have millions of bacteria."

I don't know that they are always successful, but they try.

#############################

My point was that God's word is interpreted by some people for other people, and not always for the best of reasons: "God meant to say . . ." or "God meant that law for an older time when . . .", etc. It either is or is not God's word. If The Bible is read as a divinely-inspired book that tells humans God's laws and thoughts on things--as some folks say it does--then don't dick with what He said.

I live in a simple world.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 11:28 AM

On that subject;

Isn't there something about thou shalt not bear false witness? (Can't remember the full text, been many years since I was a last in an RE lesson at school!)

Seems to sum up the usual evangelist tripe about twisting the bible to suit their particular brand of bigotry?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 11:27 AM

Ok, Jains & other veggies don't consume animals, but vegetables, fruit & seeds are life forms too & can't be eaten without them having to die

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 11:15 AM

'Ain't what it says in the original. The word used is the Hebrew for "murder", ie, to unlawfully kill a human being. OK to kill anyone, as long as you do it legally.'

OK, "Thou shalt not murder" is good, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 11:09 AM

"We & the other life forms would have nothing to eat"

I'll pass that on to the Jains.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 10:59 AM

No life could exist on earth without killing.

We & the other life forms would have nothing to eat

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 10:49 AM

"read in The Bible that "Thou shalt not kill","

Ain't what it says in the original. The word used is the Hebrew for "murder", ie, to unlawfully kill a human being. OK to kill anyone, as long as you do it legally.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 10:41 AM

Part of the difficulty as I see it is that The Bible is interpreted in more ways than Darwin can be.

"In one very limited sense, as we shall hereafter see, this may be true; but it is preposterous to attribute to mere external conditions, the structure, for instance, of the woodpecker, with its feet, tail, beak, and tongue, so admirably adapted to catch insects under the bark of trees. In the case of the misseltoe, which draws its nourishment from certain trees, which has seeds that must be transported by certain birds, and which has flowers with separate sexes absolutely requiring the agency of certain insects to bring pollen from one flower to the other, it is equally preposterous to account for the structure of this parasite, with its relations to several distinct organic beings, by the effects of external conditions, or of habit, or of the volition of the plant itself.

The author of the 'Vestiges of Creation' would, I presume, say that, after a certain unknown number of generations, some bird had given birth to a woodpecker, and some plant to the misseltoe, and that these had been produced perfect as we now see them; but this assumption seems to me to be no explanation, for it leaves the case of the coadaptations of organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life, untouched and unexplained.

It is, therefore, of the highest importance to gain a clear insight into the means of modification and coadaptation."

##########################

When I read in The Bible that "Thou shalt not kill", I take that to be an imperative from The Boss, period. Far as I know, the only group of people who adhere to that philosophy are Jains. Not Christians, Jews or Moslems.

I have asked Christians how they reconcile capital punishment, eating meat and the casualties of war with their beliefs based on the word of God and received pretty much the same answer which boils down to "That's not what God meant." I have in the past replied, "I thought He'd already spoken for Himself when He said, 'Thou shalt not kill.'" I seldom waste the breath anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 07:48 AM

I wasn't ever aware that there was a Darwin vs religion debate? (Other than Huxley vs "Soapy Sam" before we were all born.)

I love this weird idea that if you accept the science of evolution, you can't embrace the bible or vice versa. What absolute bollocks..

Science is not about making religions look absurd, it is about science. If by advancing scientific discovery we make ancient scriptures look less real, that is an accidental by product rather than some sinister plan.

I can believe in Sheffield Wednesday and know, (not believe mark you, actually know) they are the best team ever and no matter where they are in the fizzy pop league, premiership or Sunday pub league, they are still the best.

Yet at an academic level, I am capable of looking at league tables and results and know my faith is tested by reality. The point is, I don't then question the reality. Reality doesn't have any bearing on my faith.

If reality troubles your Christian faith, I can only suggest you are not really faithful. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so defensive. There are many, the vast majority in fact, of Christians, Jews, Muslims, whatever who have a strong faith but don't for one minute see their scriptures as historical fact. It must be hugely insulting to have literalist evangelical people with views borne of ignorance twisting their faith into believing fantasy.

Like I said; so many Christians, never enough nails when you need them.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 04:03 AM

"probably most UK residents accept darwinian ideas but would not know why if they were pushed."

A completely irrelevant point, pete - we're not dealing with a 'popularity contest' here!

Having said that, UK residents probably "accept darwinian ideas" because the alternative means accepting the incoherent ravings of 'poppy-eyed' religious fundamentalists - and the majority of people know how dangerous they can be!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 02:20 AM

he himself said on p8 of origins

Could I make a plea? Not all editions of "Origins" are typeset identically, so 'page 8' isn't ideal. Could you always add in the first few words of the relevant paragraph to ensure people are talking about the same thing?

Thank you for the honesty of that post, pete. As I read it, you have precisely one piece of evidence for YEC, namely the belief that the Bible is literally true. However much you may doubt the evidence against YEC from science etc, that's your only evidence to support it. Somewhat regretfully, that means we had not drifted off topic at all, since the literal interpretation of the Bible is your key evidence. I am not sure Iona would accept that there are "molehills" in the bible we could make mountains out of, but which of the comments we raised do you think are molehills? Surely not my arguments about what the fifth commandment means? That seems pretty central.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 09:36 PM

That was 666.

"Did somebody ring?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 09:17 PM

Hi, Pete.

"the evidence he presents could as well be otherwise interpreted."

True, but it could not otherwise be interpreted as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 08:43 PM

""Highly questionable, Don. They only hanged Evans for ONE of the crimes [not 'the selfsame crimeS; that of Mrs Evans. It is highly probable that Evans was complicit with Christie thus spelt in that one""

I lived in Ladbroke Grove 500 yards from Rillington Place from 1941 till 1958, but I fail to see how proximity would give either one of us greater knowledge.

However, while you are correct in stating that Evans was hanged for just the one murder, that of his daughter, he was also accused of killing his wife but back then the judicial system always kept one crime in reserve to avoid losing a case through the double jeopardy law. There is no credible evidence for his having been complicit, especially as Christie admitted the killing of Beryl Evans (the wife).

Evans accused Christie at the time, but the police did not believe him, and set out to get damaging admissions from a man who today would, by reason of severe learning difficulties, be considered a vulnerable person and treated with much greater care.

It seems that the judiciary no longer agree with you, having awarded a posthumous pardon to Evans years ago.

Now back to the topic.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 04:19 PM

i think it is often a case of who shouts louder.here in the UK IMO it is the atheist/evolutionists who are currently on top as far as the law relating to education is concerned.across the pond i think the picture is different.there is more God awareness and though they will not all be YEC i suspect that evolutionism is not accepted as credible by most of the populace .of course i agree with them.the whole thing starts with a scientific impossibility, but as atheists are committed to a no God philosophy they hope i,m sure,to explain abiogenesis sometime.probably most UK residents accept darwinian ideas but would not know why if they were pushed.i hope to make poeple reconsider by posing questions.
if asked why i am YEC it is because i believe the bible.and despite assertions to the contrary that is not despite the evidence.nothing has been presented that demonstrates darwin to be true,other than what he himself said on p8 of origins;ie-acknowloging that the evidence he presents could as well be otherwise interpreted.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 10:05 AM

While I don't fully agree, John P, there's definitely something in what you say. I remember watching a documentary about a gallery which decided to some work by a prominent artist, that a right wing group wanted to ban because they felt it was pornographic. While the right-wingers eventually lost the case in court, a spokesman afterwards said it didn't matter, because they had won in practice: few if any galleries would be prepared to undertake such a long drawn out and expensive court case in future and would stick to 'safer' exhibitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: John P
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 09:53 AM

Iona and Pete have demonstrated that rational discussion with them is a waste of time. But they have actually won the debate, if you take being taken seriously as a victory. Attempts to engage them on this topic just makes them feel relevant. The first step for a lie (or for willful ignorance), always, is to be taken seriously.

I think they should believe whatever they want to believe. If they present poppycock in a public forum, they should be either ignored or laughed off the stage. There is only one area where we should be concerned about their beliefs:

Iona and Pete, do you think your religious beliefs should be taught in our schools and enacted into our laws?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 09:33 AM

As far as I am concerned Iona and pete have not demonstrated that the contents of the Bible constitutes evidence for anything very much.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 07:50 AM

Oddly, I read it correctly!

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 07:19 AM

[Fortunately for me, accurate typing is not one of the prerequisites! Though of course, it is highly desirable]

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 06:58 AM

what can pete and Iona say to the rest of the population of the planet to convince us their misplaced faith is literal?
Well, there are several prerequites. One is to get a grasp of English and recognise that asserting something is not the same as demonstrating it. Another is recognising that most people are able to spot such sleight-of-hand [if deliberate] or clumsiness [if accidental]. Another is recognising that we are all limited and on a forum such as this, whoever we are the odds are quite good that there are readers smarter or more knowlegable than us - and I certainly include myself as one of the outclassed people on many topics. Another is to understand we are interested in what you think, not what cross-references you can bring. You can argue from what you think, but not from what other people think. Another is to get a handle on what constitutes a logical argument.

Once those have been mastered, we can move onto what constitutes evidence. Then we are ready to begin.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 06:58 AM

And I've just looked up Answers in Genesis on starlight travel time. It claims to refute the argument from distant galaxies by, if I have grasped it properly, one or some of the following:

1. The speed of light has changed since creation.
2. The flow of time varies across space, and there is a cosmic local time in which light is transmitted instantaneously. I couldn't get quite where this was local to - the Sun's light takes 8 minutes to reach us.
3. The Earth is at the bottom of a gravity well, which we would not notice, but which accelerates light approaching us.
4. Because creation was supernatural, there could be supernatural means for light to reach us as if from longer ago than creation.

No experimental evidence was cited for any of these ideas. They did, however, accept that when we observe changes in stars and galaxies these must have originated in the apparent source objects, because it would not fit the character of God to produce such features, which would be art and misleading, rather than facts.

Penny