Alert: PBS Evolution Series
John Hattan
>September 24-27, PBS stations will be carrying a Paul Allen funded
>series called "Evolution."
>
>Critics charge that the series is poor science, treating theories that
>are highly debated among scientists as established facts and offering
>"just so" stories rather than real science. It's also historically
>inaccurate on a number of significant points.
Please provide the name of a single critic of the series who is *not* a
Biblical Creationist.
Thanks in advance.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.freespeech.org/shatner
Jim (Red)
<past...@prayforamerica.net> wrote:
>September 24-27, PBS stations will be carrying a Paul Allen funded
>series called "Evolution."
>
>Critics charge that the series is poor science, treating theories that
>are highly debated among scientists as established facts and offering
>"just so" stories rather than real science. It's also historically
>inaccurate on a number of significant points.
>
>A 155-page critical guide to the series has been developed by Seattle's
>Discovery Institute. A published version entitled Getting the Facts
>Straight should be on sale (on Amazon and elsewhere) in a few days for a
>modest $7.95 retail, but you can download a free pdf version from:
>
>http://www.pbsevolution.org/
>
>It would be great to read before you watch the PBS series.
>
>According to internal PBS documents, the series is intended to "co-opt"
>(meaning silence) debate about how science is taught in public schools.
>
>It may have exactly the opposite effect. What passes for science in the
>series (for instance, making claims about DNA that were disproved way
>back in 1979), suggests that public schools need more debate about
>evolution in their classrooms rather than less. It's also likely that
>many evolutionists will be unhappy a series that misrepresents the
>current state of evolutionary thought in an effort to score propaganda
>points in a public policy debate.
>
I don't know if you are correct, but in general, it's unfortunate when
either side in this debate botches their argument. The other side
cannot claim a credible victory with respect to the actual issue, in
such situations.
Creationism is presented by theists who believe it as a metaphysical
fact, i.e., one that is true in the face of any apparent evidence to
the contrary, because it is a fact that is at it's bottom,NOT founded
on apparent evidence which can (we all agree) involve error; it is
founded on God's Word which cannot involve error. It's unfortunate
when people buy into the creationist position that the scientific
methodological approach called evolution theory should be argued as
being a scientific metaphysical fact. The notion of scientific
metaphysical fact is incoherent, so the argument is not 'well formed'
from the beginning. Evolution theory is a secular methodology that
proves nothing about the metaphysical. Atheists who cannot accept this
are applying science outside its realm, to support their own
metaphysical beliefs.
Adam Marczyk
news:v9nhqt018582qjelb...@4ax.com...
> September 24-27, PBS stations will be carrying a Paul Allen funded
> series called "Evolution."
>
> Critics charge that the series is poor science, treating theories that
> are highly debated among scientists as established facts and offering
> "just so" stories rather than real science. It's also historically
> inaccurate on a number of significant points.
>
> A 155-page critical guide to the series has been developed by Seattle's
> Discovery Institute. A published version entitled Getting the Facts
> Straight should be on sale (on Amazon and elsewhere) in a few days for a
> modest $7.95 retail, but you can download a free pdf version from:
[snip]
Why should anyone trust the pseudoscience of creationist groups like the
Discovery Institute?
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Patrick McKinnion
<past...@prayforamerica.net> wrote:
> Critics charge that the series is poor science, treating theories that
> are highly debated among scientists as established facts and offering
> "just so" stories rather than real science. It's also historically
> inaccurate on a number of significant points.
Now, the #1 question is - how many of these critics charging that
the series is "poor science" come from the Creation Science Institute,
or any of the other "creationist" groups and organizations?
- Patrick McKinnion
--
"Brought to you by 'Ouchies', the sharp, prickly toy you bathe with...."
------------------
(http://home.earthlink.net/~patgund) ICQ# 5527565
John P. Boatwright
>
> September 24-27, PBS stations will be carrying a Paul Allen funded
> series called "Evolution."
>
> are highly debated among scientists as established facts and offering
> "just so" stories rather than real science. It's also historically
> inaccurate on a number of significant points.
ha ha ha...
Ya, those moths glued on trees were something else.
"YES! We disproved God with these moths here...
... over here on the tree, right there, see?
These moths prove evolution! Lets look at one...
hmmm... seems to be stuck on the tree..."
ha ha ha...
"What the... it's really stuck on the tree...
wings pulled right off, and it's still there...
... huh, well, let's check this one here..."
ha ha ha...
What a pile.
Yep, that's evolution all right.
That GLUE made the moths match the tree color, the
"gluing force of natural selection" 'er maybe it
was the "gluons"???
Sheeze...
The GLUED THE MOTHS ON THE TREE, then took a picture.
That's what they don't mention in the evolution texts,
seems they don't like people finding that stuff out
for some reason...
I wonder why?
What would it matter if people found out that:
>>> THE GLUED THE MOTHS ON THE TREE <<<
Couldn't they just put a note in the text saying such?
eh?
Sure they could... but they don't.
They >>> LIED <<< and schools ate it up.
Evolution is a >>> trash <<< theory, glued on garbage
is what it's based on.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
Kronk
wrote:
>Pastor Tom <past...@prayforamerica.net> wrote:
>
>>September 24-27, PBS stations will be carrying a Paul Allen funded
>>series called "Evolution."
>>
>>Critics charge that the series is poor science, treating theories that
>>are highly debated among scientists as established facts and offering
>>"just so" stories rather than real science. It's also historically
>>inaccurate on a number of significant points.
>
>Please provide the name of a single critic of the series who is *not* a
>Biblical Creationist.
I've started reading through their pdf response. If they are
accurately describing some of the things in the series, particularly
the dramatizations of Darwin's life, I may find myself wincing as I
watch. We'll see.
Kronk
Rev Dirk Wobbly
news:3BA970...@For-God.net...
> Evolution is a >>> trash <<< theory, glued on garbage
> is what it's based on.
You truly are an amazingly ignorant person.
The process of evolution is a fact accepted by the overwhelming majority of
scientists.
Creation science[sic] really is trash science, an attempt to take the xtian
myth of creation and dress it up to look respectable. Didn't work. You don't
take the facts and bend them to fit your book of myths and call it science.
Rev Dirk Wobbly
"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of
person I'm preaching to."
"Bob" in 'Newsweek'
Need Slack?
http://www.subgenius.com/
Greg Shelley
>
> It may have exactly the opposite effect. What passes for science in the
> series (for instance, making claims about DNA that were disproved way
> back in 1979),
what claim is that?
--
Greg #1636
Minister, Universal Life Church
Completely pointless personal and work pages:
Http://users.aber.ac.uk/ggs98
Greg Shelley
>
>
> Creation science[sic] really is trash science, an attempt to take the xtian
> myth of creation and dress it up to look respectable. Didn't work. You don't
> take the facts and bend them to fit your book of myths and call it science.
>
Boaty does. Just look at his website
Greg Gyetko
> "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> wrote in message
> news:3BA970...@For-God.net...
>
> > Evolution is a >>> trash <<< theory, glued on garbage
> > is what it's based on.
>
> You truly are an amazingly ignorant person.
You haven't been here very long if you're still bothering to point out that
he's ignorant.
Greg.
--
"What about the Llama Run?"
Jeff Dee
>
> September 24-27, PBS stations will be carrying a Paul Allen funded
> series called "Evolution."
Thank you for you unintentional advertisement. I've
marked the dates on my calendar where otherwise I might
have missed it.
> Critics charge that the series is poor science, treating theories that
> are highly debated among scientists as established facts and offering
> "just so" stories rather than real science. It's also historically
> inaccurate on a number of significant points.
>
> A 155-page critical guide to the series has been developed by Seattle's
> Discovery Institute.
As if the Discovery Institute were a reliable source of
information! *chuckle*
-Jeff Dee
--
"It is as morally bad not to care whether a thing is true
or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to
care how you got your money as long as you have got it."
-Edmund Way Teale, "Circle of the Seasons", 1950
unig...@io.com * http://www.io.com/unigames/index.html
* * * AA #1355 - Knight of the BAAWA since 10/26/99 * * *
Jim (Red)
<cardin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> wrote in message
>news:3BA970...@For-God.net...
>
>> Evolution is a >>> trash <<< theory, glued on garbage
>> is what it's based on.
>
>You truly are an amazingly ignorant person.
>
>The process of evolution is a fact accepted by the overwhelming majority of
>scientists.
I'm sorry, but that is like saying the divinity of Christ is a fact
accepted by the overwhelming majority of Christians.
Dethstryk
>> > Evolution is a >>> trash <<< theory, glued on garbage
>> > is what it's based on.
>>
>> You truly are an amazingly ignorant person.
>
>You haven't been here very long if you're still bothering to point out
>that he's ignorant.
Sometimes we need the reaffirmation of facts. ;)
--
"Plenty of people did not care for him much, but then there is a huge
difference between disliking somebody -- maybe even disliking them a lot --
and actually shooting them, strangling them, dragging them through the
fields and setting their house on fire. It was a difference which kept the
vast majority of the population alive from day to day."
- Douglas Adams
x-----------------------------x
| Dethstryk aa #1884 |
| jema...@tcainternet.com |
| BAAWA Knit |
| ICQ: 9929528 |
x-----------------------------x
Greg Shelley
Not really. By defintion most Christians accept the divinity of
Christ.
Icarus
> Evolution is a >>> trash <<< theory, glued on garbage
> is what it's based on.
Evolution was accepted as a fact, beyond reasonable doubt, by many
people (including religious ones) even a century ago, before Darwin
wrote The Origin of Species. Darwin was the most famous scientist to
propose a *mechanism* for evolution (descent with modification by means
of natural selection), but even in that, there were other scientists who
had come to virtually the same conclusions before him. So 100 years ago
the evidence was beyond reasonable doubt, and today with vastly more
evidence it's beyond even UNreasonable doubt (i.e. if you doubt it you
are either ignorant of the evidence or incapable of reason).
I suggest you go and read The Origin of Species, then if you're still
not persuaded by the wealth of evidence available even in his day,
explain to us exactly how Darwin got it wrong.
Jeff Graham
Yep; Boatie's ignorance is legendary.
--
Jeffrey L. Graham - a.a.# 1946 - BAAWA Bard
EAC Dept of Hymn Parodies
High Priest of Guinubis
ICQ 55638228
Worship the One True God
http://jeff_9921.tripod.com/templeofguinubis/
For a few good laughs, go to
http://jeff_9921.tripod.com/religioushumour/
Personal replies may be posted to alt.fan.jeffrey-graham (if your server doesn't carry it, ask for it).
eph611
he created the heavens and the earth, or how long it took. Scripturally, there
is some room for evolution and it is possible for some pieces of the
evolutionary theory to be in harmony with scripture. HOWEVER (and this is a BIG
however), the use of the theory of evolution to dismiss the existence of God is
extremely poor judgment, and this is what sends Christians like me into a tizzy.
The reason is simple: evolution cannot attempt to explain the CAUSE of
creation. Any attempt to use evolution to explain away God is stupid because
it's a totally unsupportable argument. Nevertheless, most Christians are going
to dismiss evolution, and rightly so, because it's unimportant to the faith. I
put my faith in Jesus Christ, believe that God did in fact create the heavens
and the earth and everything and everyone on it, and anything else is earthly
science and theories. After Jesus returns for us, we'll certainly get to know
the answers to our many questions!
In article <9od76e$d4...@tech.port.ac.uk>, "Icarus" says...
Jim (Red)
>The Bible says that God was the creator, but it doesn't describe in detail HOW
>he created the heavens and the earth, or how long it took. Scripturally, there
>is some room for evolution and it is possible for some pieces of the
>evolutionary theory to be in harmony with scripture. HOWEVER (and this is a BIG
>however), the use of the theory of evolution to dismiss the existence of God is
>extremely poor judgment, and this is what sends Christians like me into a tizzy.
>The reason is simple: evolution cannot attempt to explain the CAUSE of
>creation. Any attempt to use evolution to explain away God is stupid because
>it's a totally unsupportable argument. Nevertheless, most Christians are going
>to dismiss evolution, and rightly so, because it's unimportant to the faith. I
>put my faith in Jesus Christ, believe that God did in fact create the heavens
>and the earth and everything and everyone on it, and anything else is earthly
>science and theories. After Jesus returns for us, we'll certainly get to know
>the answers to our many questions!
Scientific evidence can be used in an argument against the notion that
the creation story of Genesis 1 - 11 represents historic fact that is
supported by scientific evidence. What most people don't understand is
that it is not necessary that evolution theory or any variant of it be
'true' in order for this to be the case.
You are right that evolution theory is unimportant to faith if the
faith has a way to deal with the difference between what the deity
tells you in via nature and what the deity tells you via scripture.
Rev Dirk Wobbly
news:9ods0...@drn.newsguy.com...
> The Bible says that God was the creator, but it doesn't describe in detail
HOW
> he created the heavens and the earth, or how long it took.
How is what the bible says relevant to the scientific facts? The physical
facts?
> Scripturally, there
> is some room for evolution and it is possible for some >pieces of the
> evolutionary theory to be in harmony with scripture.
That is one reson I don't care about scripture. It is not based on facts.
And evolution does not need to be fitted to scripture. It is completely
valid without the blessed seal of approval.
> HOWEVER (and this is a BIG
> however), the use of the theory of evolution to dismiss the existence of
God is
> extremely poor judgment, and this is what sends Christians like me into a
tizzy.
Actually, it has been the other way around for the most part. Xtians have
attacked evolution for years.
> The reason is simple: evolution cannot attempt to explain the CAUSE of
> creation.
Perhaps you should define cause. The cause of the universe can be deduced
from ongoing processes. It doesn't need some imaginary dude pulling some
strings.
>Any attempt to use evolution to explain away God is stupid because
> it's a totally unsupportable argument.
Well, god can be explaned away pretty well without even resorting to
evolution. In fact, god is an unsupportable argument.
> Nevertheless, most Christians are going
> to dismiss evolution, and rightly so, because it's unimportant to the
faith.
Actually, most xtians believe in evolution. It is the ones who take every
word in the bible literally that have problems.
> I
> put my faith in Jesus Christ, believe that God did in fact create the
heavens
> and the earth and everything and everyone on it, and anything else is
earthly
> science and theories.
You can believe whatever creation myths you like. Zeus, Apollo, Oden,
Shieva. Whatever. Just don't try to have them taught as science in schools.
> After Jesus returns for us, we'll certainly get to know
> the answers to our many questions!
I'm not holding my breath. I'd rather meet Thor. I think he knows how to
party better.
Rev Dirk Wobbly
news:3baa046...@news.inreach.com...
No, because evolution is provable. Divinity of an imaginary/pseudohistorical
figure is not. Evolution is not accepted on faith.
Rev Dirk Wobbly
Derek
"Rev Dirk Wobbly" wrote...
> "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> wrote in message
> news:3BA970...@For-God.net...
> > Evolution is a >>> trash <<< theory, glued on garbage
> > is what it's based on.
> You truly are an amazingly ignorant person.
>
> The process of evolution is a fact accepted by the overwhelming majority
of
> scientists.
The evolution theory is a "farce." and calling someone ignorant doesn't
prove your point. It's amazing how many people buy into it....
eph611
said, let's not get into a Christian vs. atheist battle. You're not going to
prove anything to me and I'm not going to prove anything to you.
In article <bcvq7.82$%f6....@news-west.eli.net>, "Rev says...
Rev Dirk Wobbly
news:zbwq7.6835$9j.16...@news1.telusplanet.net...
>
> "Rev Dirk Wobbly" wrote...
>
> > "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> wrote in message
> > news:3BA970...@For-God.net...
>
> > > Evolution is a >>> trash <<< theory, glued on garbage
> > > is what it's based on.
>
> > You truly are an amazingly ignorant person.
> >
> > The process of evolution is a fact accepted by the overwhelming majority
> of
> > scientists.
>
>
> The evolution theory is a "farce."
Calling something a farce doesn't make it prove your point. You have some
proof to contradict the absolutely massive amount of proof *for* evolution,
I presume. Share some... (oh, and leave your holey book out, it is not proof
of anything).
> and calling someone ignorant doesn't
> prove your point.
My point was that he is ignorant. I think calling him so makes my point.
It's amazing how many people buy into it....
That he is ignorant? Sure, he gives so many examples that it is hard to
consider him otherwise.
Rev Dirk Wobbly
> ---------> I acknowledge your opinions and disagree totally with them.
'Nuff
> said, let's not get into a Christian vs. atheist battle. You're not going
to
> prove anything to me and I'm not going to prove anything to you.
Ok. I do find it rather sad to see people put faith over facts. But there is
room for lots of approaches to life. As long as we're not bombing each
other over them.
Jim (Red)
My point is that the idea that evolution has the support by scientists
is about as persuasive as the idea that the divinity of Christ has the
support of Christians. I agree with you thta the two use different
methodologies, but Christians have no more use of provability than
scientists have of faith.
eph611
>
>"eph611" <eph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9oe89...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> ---------> I acknowledge your opinions and disagree totally with them.
>'Nuff
>> said, let's not get into a Christian vs. atheist battle. You're not going
>to
>> prove anything to me and I'm not going to prove anything to you.
>
>Ok. I do find it rather sad to see people put faith over facts. But there is
>room for lots of approaches to life. As long as we're not bombing each
>other over them.
------->I'm not throwing flames over this, but please consider the Christian
perspective. I find it rather sad to see people summarily dispense of God
because they've sold their souls to science. Science is a wonderful thing, it
is man's interpretation of the natural world that can tell us so much. But
behind it all is the signature of God, and to leave God out of the picture is a
tragedy. There is room for both science and God.
Derek
"Rev Dirk Wobbly" wrote...
> "Derek" <ban...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:zbwq7.6835$9j.16...@news1.telusplanet.net...
> > The evolution theory is a "farce."
>You have some proof to contradict the absolutely massive amount of proof
*for* evolution,
> I presume. Share some... (oh, and leave your holey book out, it is not
proof
> of anything).
I am a Christian, and my viewpoint comes directly from the Bible. You are
wrong to suggest the Bible has nothing in the way of evidence. If I leave
out what scripture reports, and deal strictly with what man's conclusions
are, then what is the point of this discussion? Give your head a shake.You
"discredit" creation, and I say evolution lacks significantly, so asking me
to keep my Holy book out of it, is illogical. I suppose you are an
evolutionist? We can safely assume where your views come from, can't we?
That being said.....Christians don't have to rely purely on faith, although
essential. There is much interesting evidence, and that being weighed with a
theory, ( evolution ), filled with flawes makes it even more credible.
> > The process of evolution is a fact accepted by the overwhelming majority
> of scientists.
Let's discuss this theory of yours. One topic at a time, without a dozen
posters starting a new debate.How about human population. Study of the build
up of human population makes it clear that humans have only existed for a
few thousand years (not millions), even when the maximum likely effects of
war, disease, disaster, and other population-reducing factors are
considered. Remember Noah's flood? How do you explain that?
Adam Marczyk
>
> "Rev Dirk Wobbly" wrote...
>
> > "Derek" <ban...@telus.net> wrote in message
> > news:zbwq7.6835$9j.16...@news1.telusplanet.net...
>
> > > The evolution theory is a "farce."
>
> >You have some proof to contradict the absolutely massive amount of proof
> *for* evolution,
> > I presume. Share some... (oh, and leave your holey book out, it is not
> proof
> > of anything).
>
> I am a Christian, and my viewpoint comes directly from the Bible. You are
> wrong to suggest the Bible has nothing in the way of evidence. If I leave
> out what scripture reports, and deal strictly with what man's conclusions
> are, then what is the point of this discussion? Give your head a shake.You
> "discredit" creation, and I say evolution lacks significantly, so asking
me
> to keep my Holy book out of it, is illogical.
No, it's not. I don't cite the mere existence of the Origin of Species as
proof that evolution happened.
> I suppose you are an
> evolutionist? We can safely assume where your views come from, can't we?
Yes, from the evidence. Where do yours come from?
> That being said.....Christians don't have to rely purely on faith,
although
> essential. There is much interesting evidence, and that being weighed with
a
> theory, ( evolution ), filled with flawes makes it even more credible.
Did you plan to mention any of these flaws, or were you just going to assert
that they exist?
> > > The process of evolution is a fact accepted by the overwhelming
majority
> > of scientists.
>
> Let's discuss this theory of yours. One topic at a time, without a dozen
> posters starting a new debate.How about human population. Study of the
build
> up of human population makes it clear that humans have only existed for a
> few thousand years (not millions),
This isn't that silly creationist exponential population growth model
argument, is it? The one that predicts there were only about a hundred
people alive in Egypt at the time the Great Pyramid was built? Well, go on,
if you must. Let's see some numbers.
> even when the maximum likely effects of
> war, disease, disaster, and other population-reducing factors are
> considered. Remember Noah's flood? How do you explain that?
It didn't happen. The geologic evidence makes it a flat-out impossibility.
What is there to explain?
John P. Boatwright
>
> "Jim (Red)" <us...@nospam.batnet.com> wrote in message
> news:3baa046...@news.inreach.com...
> > On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 06:16:07 GMT, "Rev Dirk Wobbly"
> > <cardin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >"John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> wrote in message
> > >news:3BA970...@For-God.net...
> > >
> > >> Evolution is a >>> trash <<< theory, glued on garbage
> > >> is what it's based on.
> > >
> > >You truly are an amazingly ignorant person.
> > >
> > >The process of evolution is a fact accepted by the overwhelming majority
> of
> > >scientists.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but that is like saying the divinity of Christ is a fact
> > accepted by the overwhelming majority of Christians.
>
It is NOT.
> Divinity of an imaginary/pseudohistorical
> figure is not. Evolution is not accepted on faith.
Evolution has ZERO proof to back up the theory that
NOTHING was the driving force of all life showing up.
There's ZERO proof of evolution doing ANYTHING at all.
God gives the breath of life, and God takes it away.
John P. Boatwright
I suggest you look at multi-variable optimizations and
notice what happens when you have a small pit that they
tend to hang up on.
ha ha ha...
That's evolution... a big STOP sign from a small pit.
Look it up guy, they did it with an FPGA, jammed PILES
of bit patterns into it, and SEARCHED for the outputs
to change ... then SEARCHED more, jamming more bits and
eventually got a function close to what they wanted.
The RANDOM SEARCH THROUGH >>> DEATH <<< yeilded (and
get this, it's extremely important):
======================================
>>> O N E <<< FPGA, NO others worked.
======================================
Even so, the waveforms were TRASH in the ONE, it wouldn't
work over temperature, it was depenent on EXTREMELY tight
windows of delay, edges to get there just in time...
ha ha ha....
That's evolution???
ha ha ha...
If so... and the guy claimed he followed the rules
expected for evolution, it showed that evolution is
a MASSIVE FAILURE as a theory.
NO other FPGAs worked... the one BARELY worked.
They SEARCHED THROUGH DEATH and called that evolution.
It's GARBAGE, evolution is GARBAGE.
That experiment showed that a nearly DEAD man, married
a DEAD woman, and had DEAD kids... and that's evolution,
or so they've claimed in that ONE FPGA barely working
and NO others working based on the code that it "evolved"
to.
ha ha ha...
Evolution is TRASH, it NEVER made anything.
J&S
"eph611" <eph...@hotmail.com> wrote
the use of the theory of evolution to dismiss the existence of God is
> extremely poor judgment, and this is what sends Christians like me into a
tizzy.
Ummm, evolution makes no claims as to the begining of life, thats the scince
of abiogenesis. And its a young one at that. Perhaps you should post over on
talk.origins , they'll help you out.
Silas
Dave & Tami Chaffee
> In article <3Myq7.108$%f6....@news-west.eli.net>, "Rev says...
> >
> >"eph611" <eph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:9oe89...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >> ---------> I acknowledge your opinions and disagree totally with them.
> >'Nuff
> >> said, let's not get into a Christian vs. atheist battle. You're not
going
> >to
> >> prove anything to me and I'm not going to prove anything to you.
> >
> >Ok. I do find it rather sad to see people put faith over facts. But there
is
> >room for lots of approaches to life. As long as we're not bombing each
> >other over them.
>
> ------->I'm not throwing flames over this, but please consider the
Christian
> perspective. I find it rather sad to see people summarily dispense of God
> because they've sold their souls to science. Science is a wonderful thing,
it
> is man's interpretation of the natural world that can tell us so much.
Yes I agree - science is way cool.
> But
> behind it all is the signature of God, and to leave God out of the picture
is a
> tragedy. There is room for both science and God.
Well, you've switched gears into philosophy and faith and you're free to see
any signature you desire. And there is enough room for both, as concepts
don't take much space in the noodle. :)
Science is naturalistic. You and others are free to chant "because God say
so" after the statement of a scientific theory. (But that is a religious
view and doesn't belong in a science classroom.) You speak like there is
just one God, but many don't share that view. Also, the various strains of
Christianity - even with the same Bible version - see God differently (as
does every individual).
A bigger tragedy in my opinion are extremists who would seek to impose a
particular religion on other people via the government.
> >
> >Rev Dirk Wobbly
Cheers,
Dave
M Merced
> God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Wrong, everybody knows that King Kong died for our sins.
American Liberal
>The Bible says that God was the creator, but it doesn't describe in detail HOW
>he created the heavens and the earth, or how long it took. Scripturally, there
>is some room for evolution and it is possible for some pieces of the
>evolutionary theory to be in harmony with scripture.
Oh ... that's nice ... that your religious beliefs allow for the possibility
of reality.
HOWEVER (and this is a
> BIG
>however), the use of the theory of evolution to dismiss the existence of God is
>extremely poor judgment, and this is what sends Christians like me into a
> tizzy.
The TOE has nothing to do with the existence, or non existence, of god.
You can go into whatever tizzy you decide, but since there is NO valid
evidence to support he existence of ANY god ... all you have is belief!
>The reason is simple: evolution cannot attempt to explain the CAUSE of
>creation.
Evolution was never intent on explaining anyting other than the means.
There is NOTHING that shows ANY evidence of there being a REASON .. or
"cause".
Any attempt to use evolution to explain away God is stupid because
>it's a totally unsupportable argument.
Yes... as is any argument trying to show thta there IS a god.
Nevertheless, most Christians are going
>to dismiss evolution, and rightly so, because it's unimportant to the faith.
??????
Would you also, as easily, dismiss medicine, history, mathematics, astronomy,
literature, poetry, art .. etc.?
People are no more going to "dismiss" evolution than they are any other REAL
body of knowledge!
I
>put my faith in Jesus Christ, believe that God did in fact create the heavens
>and the earth and everything and everyone on it, and anything else is earthly
>science and theories.
You can BELIEVE anything you want!
Whether your beliefs have anything to do with reality is arguable.
After Jesus returns for us, we'll certainly get to know
>the answers to our many questions!
That remains to be seen ...
Derek
"Adam Marczyk" wrote..
> Derek <ban...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:XNzq7.7188$9j.17...@news1.telusplanet.net...
> to keep my Holy book out of it, is illogical.
> No, it's not. I don't cite the mere existence of the Origin of Species as
> proof that evolution happened.
If your excluding God's word to establish your views on how the universe was
formed, then "yes" you are using man's ideology. That is your basis on which
you attempt to explain your views.
> > I suppose you are an
> > evolutionist? We can safely assume where your views come from, can't we?
> Yes, from the evidence. Where do yours come from?
You are an evolutionist. Your evidence comes exclusively from man. My
evidence combines the Bible, with man's discoveries. Much more powerful, and
conclusive!
> > Let's discuss this theory of yours. One topic at a time, without a dozen
> > posters starting a new debate.How about human population. Study of the
> > build up of human population makes it clear that humans have only
existed for a
> > few thousand years (not millions),
> This isn't that silly creationist exponential population growth model
> argument, is it? The one that predicts there were only about a hundred
> people alive in Egypt at the time the Great Pyramid was built? Well, go
on,
> if you must. Let's see some numbers.
"The United Nations, an accepted
authority on population levels and trends, estimates that the world
population reached 5.3 billion in 1990, and is increasing annually by more
than 90 million persons. The rate of increase, 1.7 percent per year, has
fallen below the peak rate of 2 percent per year attained by 1970. " If
Noah's children, ( at the time of the flood ), had 3 children per couple, by
the time the parents were 35
years, and assuming a life span of 70 years, then after 140 years 6 people
would have become 15 people - an average population increase rate of about
1.8% per year (and rising). However, if the flood
did not occur a few thousand years ago, and humanoids have been around for
10's, or 100's of thousands of years, how large should we expect the world's
population to be? You notice that this model does show that the population
percentages are similiar, reasonable, and not far reaching. It also asks the
question, if man has been around for millions of years why isn't our
population larger? Reverse our population numbers by % and you will see that
it goes back around approx.4 thousand years. Okay..now we do this, and we
find....say for your sake 10,000 people, ( which is wrong, but using for
argument sake ), do you mean to tell me that it took 20, 30, or a hundred
thousand years or so, for man to develop into a population of 10,000 and
then in the last 3-4 thousand years, decide to explode to 5 billion people!
Why? It doesn't make sense?
> > even when the maximum likely effects of
> > war, disease, disaster, and other population-reducing factors are
> > considered. Remember Noah's flood? How do you explain that?
> It didn't happen. The geologic evidence makes it a flat-out impossibility.
> What is there to explain?
This is where you are very wrong. All non-believers will think of the flood,
and say, " this could not have happened? A flood! No way! Over the whole
earth...ya right!" But it did happen, and there is evidence. Unfortunately
some people can not get over the extremity of the account, and as a result,
their minds are "shut tight." Let's look at some interesting suggestions;
The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest
(from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with
seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals. Sedimentary rock is found all
over the world. Ocean fossils are found at high altitudes on all five
continents.Sedimentary rock is formed in water. Bent rock layers, fossil
graveyards, and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a Flood.
What rational explanation do you have for sedimentary rock, ( cause by
water ), and seashells to be found at the top of Mt. Everest? Don't tell me
these shells are millions of years old, because they are not. With all due
respect, I'd be interested to know your take on that.
Jos Flachs
<na...@For-God.net> wrote:
>ha ha ha...
>
>That's evolution... a big STOP sign from a small pit.
> ======================================
> >>> O N E <<< FPGA, NO others worked.
> ======================================
>ha ha ha...
>
>Evolution is TRASH, it NEVER made anything.
>
>God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Hi Mr. Boatwright,
It's NICE to see you are back. Did you >>> ENJOY <<< your holiday?
<:+)
==========================================================
Jos Flachs in: Krungthep Mahanakhon Bovorn Rattanakorsin Mahinthara
Ayutthaya Mahadilokpop Noparat Ratchathani Burirom
Udom Ratchanivej Mahasathan Amornpiman Avatarnsathit
Sakkathattiya A-visnukarmpasit
also known as: Bangkok, Thailand
==========================================================
Alex
>
> > Yes, from the evidence. Where do yours come from?
>
> You are an evolutionist. Your evidence comes exclusively from man. My
> evidence combines the Bible, with man's discoveries. Much more powerful,
and
> conclusive!
Actually evidence doesn't come from man - it comes from nature and/or the
earth.
> "The United Nations, an accepted
> authority on population levels and trends, estimates that the world
> population reached 5.3 billion in 1990, and is increasing annually by more
> than 90 million persons. The rate of increase, 1.7 percent per year, has
> fallen below the peak rate of 2 percent per year attained by 1970. " If
> Noah's children, ( at the time of the flood ), had 3 children per couple,
by
> the time the parents were 35
<snip>
Answer Adam's question: How many people were alive during the time when the
Egyptian pyramids were built?
> This is where you are very wrong. All non-believers will think of the
flood,
> and say, " this could not have happened? A flood! No way! Over the whole
> earth...ya right!" But it did happen, and there is evidence. Unfortunately
> some people can not get over the extremity of the account, and as a
result,
> their minds are "shut tight." Let's look at some interesting suggestions;
> The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest
> (from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with
> seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals. Sedimentary rock is found all
> over the world. Ocean fossils are found at high altitudes on all five
> continents.Sedimentary rock is formed in water. Bent rock layers, fossil
> graveyards, and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a Flood.
> What rational explanation do you have for sedimentary rock, ( cause by
> water ), and seashells to be found at the top of Mt. Everest? Don't tell
me
> these shells are millions of years old, because they are not. [Who's mind
is "shut tight" now?]
Sedimentary rock found in unlikely places was probably placed there by a
glacier at the end of the last ice age.
Ocean fossils at high altitudes are easily explained. Hint: the surface of
the earth moves! The mountains weren't there forever. Some get made by
volcano-type processes and others get "squished" into being because the
tectonic plates press up against each other and push them up (think of two
squares of carpet being pushed together and making a little hill).
eph611
says...
anti-Christian community has latched onto evolution as one of their platforms to
prove the Bible wrong. I don't need to be sent off to some other newsgroup
because you don't want to hear my point. Evolution is a THEORY, and nothing
more. The Biblical account of how life originated is, even from a scientific
viewpoint, much more plausible.
Iffy
" The Biblical account of how life originated is, even from a scientific
> viewpoint, much more plausible.
ROTFLMAO
eph611
>
>
>Derek <ban...@telus.net> wrote in message
>news:36Cq7.7633$9j.18...@news1.telusplanet.net...
>>
>
>> > Yes, from the evidence. Where do yours come from?
>>
>> You are an evolutionist. Your evidence comes exclusively from man. My
>> evidence combines the Bible, with man's discoveries. Much more powerful,
>and
>> conclusive!
>
>Actually evidence doesn't come from man - it comes from nature and/or the
>earth.
That's the physical world - "man".
Not likely at all. For one thing, it doesn't explain the fossils and shells.
Secondly, the sedimentary rock formations and the ocean deposits at high
altitudes exist on every continent.
Malum Regnat
placed.
Malum Regnat
|
| "Adam Marczyk" wrote..
|
| > Derek <ban...@telus.net> wrote in message
| > news:XNzq7.7188$9j.17...@news1.telusplanet.net...
|
| > to keep my Holy book out of it, is illogical.
|
| > No, it's not. I don't cite the mere existence of the Origin of Species
as
| > proof that evolution happened.
|
| If your excluding God's word to establish your views on how the universe
was
| formed, then "yes" you are using man's ideology. That is your basis on
which
| you attempt to explain your views.
|
The Ghost In The Machine
<na...@For-God.net>
wrote
on Thu, 20 Sep 2001 22:35:36 -0700
<3BAAD1...@For-God.net>:
>Rev Dirk Wobbly wrote:
>>
>> "Jim (Red)" <us...@nospam.batnet.com> wrote in message
>> news:3baa046...@news.inreach.com...
>> > On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 06:16:07 GMT, "Rev Dirk Wobbly"
>> > <cardin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >"John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> wrote in message
>> > >news:3BA970...@For-God.net...
>> > >
>> > >> Evolution is a >>> trash <<< theory, glued on garbage
>> > >> is what it's based on.
>> > >
>> > >You truly are an amazingly ignorant person.
>> > >
>> > >The process of evolution is a fact accepted by the overwhelming
>> > >majority of scientists.
>> >
>> > I'm sorry, but that is like saying the divinity of Christ is a fact
>> > accepted by the overwhelming majority of Christians.
>>
>> No, because evolution is provabl.
>
>It is NOT.
Boaty's right here; all we can do is show strong evidence for
evolution. *Very* strong evidence.
But it's not proof, in the mathematical sense. Then again,
mathematicians don't rule the world. :-) (Lessee, if I were
world dictator...)
>
>> Divinity of an imaginary/pseudohistorical
>> figure is not. Evolution is not accepted on faith.
>
>Evolution has ZERO proof to back up the theory that
>NOTHING was the driving force of all life showing up.
>
>There's ZERO proof of evolution doing ANYTHING at all.
Evolution doesn't "do" anything. It's a process description.
For example, we are currently dealing with a fair number of
biological nasties in hospitals (staphylococcus, if memory serves)
that are resistant to our current crop of antibiotics. I'll
leave it to you to figure out why, but it involves one of
the prerequisites for evolution of a population of
organisms.
Another interesting example would be certain pepper moths
in Great Britain at about the time of the Industrial Revolution.
That one's a little more ambiguous -- I'd have to see how they
were able to disprove the theory that airborne soot soiled their
wings, for example -- but it's arguably the first time anyone
noticed that species can change.
If you're thinking that evolution does things such as changing
bats into birds, however, you're slighly off base. Only God
and the Bible can confuse the two...erm, I mean, change one
into the other. :-) And I haven't seen too much evidence for
God. (I can see quite a bit of evidence for the Bible -- as opposed
to *in* the Bible -- however; the Gideons in particular still seem to
like to ensure that the Word is spread in every hotel room. Of
course, I also see a lot of evidence for such things as Joan Collins
bestsellers, "kiss and tell" books from Washington insiders,
Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, and other such science fiction,
and newspapers.)
I'll leave you with www.talkorigins.org, which deals with various
issues on evolution, world creation, and a few other things,
and talk.origins, which gets into some very hairy debates at times
(since we're cousins of apes, that's entirely appropriate :-) ).
>
>God gives the breath of life, and God takes it away.
So OK...what is someone doing when he's performing cardio-
pulmonary resuscitation -- also known in some areas as
"the breath of life"?
>
>God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
>
>Proof God described the planet density profile
>BEFORE science did:
>http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
>(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
>
>Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
And remember, it's a perfect mirror. Even though it's badly warped. :-)
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 71d:17h:13m actually running Linux.
No electrons were harmed during this message.
John Adams
<<snip>>
> ------->I'm not throwing flames over this, but please consider the Christian
> perspective.
I was previously a Roman Catholic, I've considered the Christian
perspective in some detail.
> I find it rather sad to see people summarily dispense of God
> because they've sold their souls to science.
What does this mean? how do you "sell your soul to science?" You sign
a contract in blood with Stephen Hawking and he gives you "A Brief
History of Time?" What do you think he does with all those souls?
Assuming you're right, why does that make you sad? If some modern
Prometheus actually sold his soul to give science to mankind, I would
regard him as humanity'greatest hero and rejoice!
> Science is a wonderful thing,
Yes it is.
> it is man's interpretation of the natural world that can tell us so much.
Science creates models of an objective reality.
> But behind it all is the signature of God,
... which you can demonstrate, right? There goes another Nobel Prize
...
> and to leave God out of the picture is a
> tragedy
Why? What does the concept of God give us that we can't get anywhere
else?
> There is room for both science and God.
Sure, there's room for science and Santa Claus, too. That doesn't mean
we should embrace dubious ideas.
At best, faith is a complete waste of time, usually it's a rip off,
and at worst it will kill you. I don't think that's something we
should pass on to our children.
Carl M.
>
> "Adam Marczyk" wrote..
>
> > Derek <ban...@telus.net> wrote in message
> > news:XNzq7.7188$9j.17...@news1.telusplanet.net...
>
> > to keep my Holy book out of it, is illogical.
>
> > No, it's not. I don't cite the mere existence of the Origin of Species as
> > proof that evolution happened.
>
> If your excluding God's word to establish your views on how the universe was
> formed, then "yes" you are using man's ideology. That is your basis on which
> you attempt to explain your views.
"Creation" itself. Your god wouldn't hide its actions would it?
[snip]
> > Yes, from the evidence. Where do yours come from?
>
> You are an evolutionist. Your evidence comes exclusively from man. My
> evidence combines the Bible, with man's discoveries. Much more powerful, and
> conclusive!
See below
>
> > > Let's discuss this theory of yours. One topic at a time, without a dozen
> > > posters starting a new debate.How about human population. Study of the
> > > build up of human population makes it clear that humans have only
> existed for a
> > > few thousand years (not millions),
>
> > This isn't that silly creationist exponential population growth model
> > argument, is it? The one that predicts there were only about a hundred
> > people alive in Egypt at the time the Great Pyramid was built? Well, go
> on,
> > if you must. Let's see some numbers.
>
> "The United Nations, an accepted
> authority on population levels and trends, estimates that the world
> population reached 5.3 billion in 1990, and is increasing annually by more
> than 90 million persons. The rate of increase, 1.7 percent per year, has
> fallen below the peak rate of 2 percent per year attained by 1970. " If
> Noah's children, ( at the time of the flood ), had 3 children per couple, by
> the time the parents were 35
> years, and assuming a life span of 70 years, then after 140 years 6 people
> would have become 15 people - an average population increase rate of about
> 1.8% per year (and rising).
Your error here is you have taken recent population growth levels and
projected them back. The problem is this contradicts available evidence of
population growth over recorded history.
> However, if the flood
> did not occur a few thousand years ago, and humanoids have been around for
> 10's, or 100's of thousands of years, how large should we expect the world's
> population to be?
As large as available resources could support. This is the exact same
reason the world isn't drowning in rabbits.
[snip]
> The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest
> (from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with
> seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals. Sedimentary rock is found all
> over the world. Ocean fossils are found at high altitudes on all five
> continents.Sedimentary rock is formed in water.
The reason Mt Everest is made of sedimentary rock is because it, and the
entire indian continent IIRC was once sea bed. Pushing into Asia caused
the uplift.
Also sedimentary rocks do not always form in water. Desert deposits can
achieve similar results.
> Bent rock layers,
Are formed by slow compression. Floods don't leave smoothly bent deposits.
> fossil
> graveyards,
Don't support a global flood. The areas of "graveyards" AFAIK are found in
ancient lakes and other localized favorable fossilization conditions.
> and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a Flood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate.html
> What rational explanation do you have for sedimentary rock, ( cause by
> water ), and seashells to be found at the top of Mt. Everest?
Continental drift etc. You can measure it if you want (you will need a
laser or two)
> Don't tell me
> these shells are millions of years old, because they are not. With all due
> respect, I'd be interested to know your take on that.
Draw conclusion from the evidence. Not evidence from conclusions.
--
** Remove obvious spam block from the email address
Carl M.
[snip]
> >
> Evolution itself may make no such claims, but evolutionists do - and the
> anti-Christian community has latched onto evolution as one of their platforms to
> prove the Bible wrong.
Speaking personally I have never used evolution theory to disprove ye olde
Bible. The fact that ye olde book o'blood doesn't match the available
evidence is enough to show it is just another collection of mythological
texts. No better or worse than any other.
Everyday physics and chemistry also disprove the Bible. For example,
remember the water to wine trick? How does one change H2O into a fermented
sugar solution? This would require some kind of nuclear synthesis. I
would not want to be too close when that trick is done. And the most
famous trick of defying the surface tension of water. Wow!
> I don't need to be sent off to some other newsgroup
> because you don't want to hear my point. Evolution is a THEORY, and nothing
> more.
Observation - facts - evolution which occurs within the space of human
lifetimes has been observed. The traces of long term evolution - fossil
record, pseudo genes, nest hierarchies etc - have also been observed.
Theory - explanation of relationships and causes of observations. All
theories remain theories. Whenever you go to a doctor you may be relying
on germ theory. Go for a walk and your are using the theory of gravity.
Theories only differ in the amount of supporting evidence. Evolution
theory is well supported.
29 Evidences for Macroevolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> The Biblical account of how life originated is, even from a scientific
> viewpoint, much more plausible.
What is your mechanism, falsification, and prediction of future
observations?
Jeff Dee
(snip)
> >> I'm sorry, but that is like saying the divinity of Christ is a fact
> >> accepted by the overwhelming majority of Christians.
> >
> >No, because evolution is provable. Divinity of an imaginary/pseudohistorical
> >figure is not. Evolution is not accepted on faith.
>
> My point is that the idea that evolution has the support by scientists
> is about as persuasive as the idea that the divinity of Christ has the
> support of Christians. I agree with you thta the two use different
> methodologies, but Christians have no more use of provability than
> scientists have of faith.
Agreed. That's why science is sensible and Christianity
is senseless.
-Jeff Dee
--
"It is as morally bad not to care whether a thing is true
or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to
care how you got your money as long as you have got it."
-Edmund Way Teale, "Circle of the Seasons", 1950
unig...@io.com * http://www.io.com/unigames/index.html
* * * AA #1355 - Knight of the BAAWA since 10/26/99 * * *
Adam Marczyk
>
> "Adam Marczyk" wrote..
>
> > Derek <ban...@telus.net> wrote in message
> > news:XNzq7.7188$9j.17...@news1.telusplanet.net...
>
> > to keep my Holy book out of it, is illogical.
>
> > No, it's not. I don't cite the mere existence of the Origin of Species
as
> > proof that evolution happened.
>
> If your excluding God's word to establish your views on how the universe
was
> formed, then "yes" you are using man's ideology. That is your basis on
which
> you attempt to explain your views.
I think you skipped a few steps. First you have to establish that the Bible
is God's word. Second, you have to explain why it should take precedence
over the actual evidence. The world is supposedly God's creation too, you
know.
> > > I suppose you are an
> > > evolutionist? We can safely assume where your views come from, can't
we?
>
> > Yes, from the evidence. Where do yours come from?
>
> You are an evolutionist. Your evidence comes exclusively from man. My
> evidence combines the Bible, with man's discoveries. Much more powerful,
and
> conclusive!
The Bible is also exclusively from man. You have not established otherwise.
> > > Let's discuss this theory of yours. One topic at a time, without a
dozen
> > > posters starting a new debate.How about human population. Study of the
> > > build up of human population makes it clear that humans have only
> existed for a
> > > few thousand years (not millions),
>
> > This isn't that silly creationist exponential population growth model
> > argument, is it? The one that predicts there were only about a hundred
> > people alive in Egypt at the time the Great Pyramid was built? Well, go
> on,
> > if you must. Let's see some numbers.
>
> "The United Nations, an accepted
> authority on population levels and trends, estimates that the world
> population reached 5.3 billion in 1990, and is increasing annually by more
> than 90 million persons. The rate of increase, 1.7 percent per year, has
> fallen below the peak rate of 2 percent per year attained by 1970. "
Okay, here's your error, and it's the same hopelessly naive error
creationist calculations always make. You're uniformly extrapolating a trend
without any justification. A 1.7 percent increase per year is huge, and it's
only modern agricultural techniques that make it possible. For most of human
history, when we were nomadic hunter-gatherers, the rate of net population
growth was zero. Not 1 percent, not .001 percent, zero. That 1.7 percent
increase is only an artifact of modern times and cannot be applied to the
entire span of human history. You might as well go to the beach, note that
the tides are going down by a few feet an hour, and from this conclude that
the planet can't possibly be more than a few weeks old, else there wouldn't
be any oceans left.
> If
> Noah's children, ( at the time of the flood ), had 3 children per couple,
by
> the time the parents were 35
> years, and assuming a life span of 70 years, then after 140 years 6 people
> would have become 15 people - an average population increase rate of about
> 1.8% per year (and rising). However, if the flood
> did not occur a few thousand years ago, and humanoids have been around for
> 10's, or 100's of thousands of years, how large should we expect the
world's
> population to be? You notice that this model does show that the population
> percentages are similiar, reasonable, and not far reaching. It also asks
the
> question, if man has been around for millions of years why isn't our
> population larger? Reverse our population numbers by % and you will see
that
> it goes back around approx.4 thousand years. Okay..now we do this, and we
> find....say for your sake 10,000 people, ( which is wrong, but using for
> argument sake ), do you mean to tell me that it took 20, 30, or a hundred
> thousand years or so, for man to develop into a population of 10,000 and
> then in the last 3-4 thousand years, decide to explode to 5 billion
people!
> Why? It doesn't make sense?
We'll see whose model makes sense, but I need a few more numbers. Tell me,
in your chronology, what year did the Exodus happen?
> > > even when the maximum likely effects of
> > > war, disease, disaster, and other population-reducing factors are
> > > considered. Remember Noah's flood? How do you explain that?
>
> > It didn't happen. The geologic evidence makes it a flat-out
impossibility.
> > What is there to explain?
>
> This is where you are very wrong. All non-believers will think of the
flood,
> and say, " this could not have happened? A flood! No way! Over the whole
> earth...ya right!" But it did happen, and there is evidence. Unfortunately
> some people can not get over the extremity of the account, and as a
result,
> their minds are "shut tight." Let's look at some interesting suggestions;
> The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest
> (from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with
> seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals. Sedimentary rock is found all
> over the world. Ocean fossils are found at high altitudes on all five
> continents.Sedimentary rock is formed in water. Bent rock layers, fossil
> graveyards, and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a Flood.
> What rational explanation do you have for sedimentary rock, ( cause by
> water ), and seashells to be found at the top of Mt. Everest? Don't tell
me
> these shells are millions of years old, because they are not. With all due
> respect, I'd be interested to know your take on that.
It's called plate tectonics. Mt. Everest and the Himalayas are being formed
by the collision of the Indian and Asian plates. Sedimentary rocks that were
once at sea level have been pushed up. Simple, no?
Now, let's hear *your* explanation for this geologic feature:
Shale is lithified (i.e., fossilized) mud. Turbidites are rapidly deposited
strata of sedimentary rock. In some places in the north central U.S., there
are up to 15,000 alternating layers of turbidites and shale. Some of the
shale layers have entire colonies of burrowing animals fossilized in them.
How, pray tell, did a global flood produce that?
Adam Marczyk
> In article <BPAq7.2628$W83.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "J&S"
> says...
> >
> >
> >"eph611" <eph...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> >the use of the theory of evolution to dismiss the existence of God is
> >> extremely poor judgment, and this is what sends Christians like me into
a
> >tizzy.
> >
> >Ummm, evolution makes no claims as to the begining of life, thats the
scince
> >of abiogenesis. And its a young one at that. Perhaps you should post over
on
> >talk.origins , they'll help you out.
> >Silas
> >
> Evolution itself may make no such claims, but evolutionists do - and the
> anti-Christian community has latched onto evolution as one of their
platforms to
> prove the Bible wrong
If they do, it's only because the creationists have made it possible. If
they didn't go around saying that Christianity is meaningless if evolution
is true, atheists wouldn't either.
> I don't need to be sent off to some other newsgroup
> because you don't want to hear my point. Evolution is a THEORY, and
nothing
> more.
And creationism is not even a theory.
> The Biblical account of how life originated is, even from a scientific
> viewpoint, much more plausible.
Right. Because while we all have experience with fully-formed, mature
organisms spontaneously springing into being out of nothingness in a poof of
smoke, in clear violation of as many laws of physics as you care to name, no
one has any first-hand experience of the ability of living things to change
over time (hint: dog breeds).
LarryDew
> The Biblical account of how life originated is, even from a scientific
> viewpoint, much more plausible.
A woman being made from the rib of a man is scientific? LOL!!!
American Liberal
>
>"Adam Marczyk" wrote..
>
>> Derek <ban...@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:XNzq7.7188$9j.17...@news1.telusplanet.net...
>
>> to keep my Holy book out of it, is illogical.
>
>> No, it's not. I don't cite the mere existence of the Origin of Species as
>> proof that evolution happened.
>
>If your excluding God's word to establish your views on how the universe was
>formed, then "yes" you are using man's ideology. That is your basis on which
>you attempt to explain your views.
Of course.
To include ANY factually unsupported god belief wold be exactly the same as
including Peter Pan in Science.
>
>> > I suppose you are an
>> > evolutionist? We can safely assume where your views come from, can't we?
>
>> Yes, from the evidence. Where do yours come from?
>
>You are an evolutionist. Your evidence comes exclusively from man. My
>evidence combines the Bible, with man's discoveries. Much more powerful, and
>conclusive!
The bible cannot be conclusive, because it has no real, valid or supportable
evidence!
When you add reality (that suported wityh valid vidence) to belief (that not
supported), the sum total of the REAL subtance you end up with stioll = ONLY
reality.
Because it is taking the CURRENT rate of change, and adduming that this rate
has been the exact same for all time ... it HASN'T!
It is the equivalen to saying:
If I can drnk a class (1/4 quart) of water, in five minutes - I will have
consumed 1 gallon of water every 80 minutes, and 6570 gallons over a year.
While it is completely rational to assume I can drink .25 quarts in one
sitting, it is totally insane to suggest I WILL keep up that consistent pace
for one whole year!
Look at the population records for past year, and you wil see that the RATE of
change has NOT ben constant; it has been increasing geometrically.
>
>> > even when the maximum likely effects of
>> > war, disease, disaster, and other population-reducing factors are
>> > considered. Remember Noah's flood? How do you explain that?
>
>> It didn't happen. The geologic evidence makes it a flat-out impossibility.
>> What is there to explain?
>
>This is where you are very wrong. All non-believers will think of the flood,
>and say, " this could not have happened? A flood! No way! Over the whole
>earth...ya right!" But it did happen, and there is evidence.
Not only is there NO evidence to support a global flood, the reisa no
scientifically way to explain HOW a flood could have happened - and ALL valid
evidence shows that there WAS NO FLOOD!
Unfortunately
>some people can not get over the extremity of the account, and as a result,
>their minds are "shut tight."
Minds are open to valid evidence .. you have NONE!
Your's is closed to reality!
Let's look at some interesting suggestions;
>The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest
>(from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with
>seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals. Sedimentary rock is found all
>over the world. Ocean fossils are found at high altitudes on all five
>continents.
Ocean fossils, if there were a global flood, should be found EVERYWHERE ...
they are not!
Mountains created by Plate Tectonics WOULD have the shells dispersed the way
they are sen now.
There ARE shells on mountains that were formed by plate techtonics, (the range
that includes everest) there are NO shell on mountains that were formed by
volcanic action!
Sedimentary rock is NOT found all over the world, when it IS found, it is
found in layers .. indicating not one Global flood, but a localized seasonal
flooding.
You really should quit pretending that preachers make good statisticians or
geologists!
Sedimentary rock is formed in water. Bent rock layers, fossil
>graveyards, and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a Flood.
>What rational explanation do you have for sedimentary rock, ( cause by
>water ), and seashells to be found at the top of Mt. Everest? Don't tell me
>these shells are millions of years old, because they are not. With all due
>respect, I'd be interested to know your take on that.
They are, also, millions of years old.
Valid, provable and reapeatable scientific testing has shown that.
Which makes it a lot more acceptable than your mere, childish "ti snot!"
American Liberal
>In article <pfFq7.3082$5b4.1...@wagner.videotron.net>, "Alex" says...
>>
>>
>>Derek <ban...@telus.net> wrote in message
>>news:36Cq7.7633$9j.18...@news1.telusplanet.net...
>>>
>>
>>> > Yes, from the evidence. Where do yours come from?
>>>
>>> You are an evolutionist. Your evidence comes exclusively from man. My
>>> evidence combines the Bible, with man's discoveries. Much more powerful,
>>and
>>> conclusive!
>>
>>Actually evidence doesn't come from man - it comes from nature and/or the
>>earth.
>
>That's the physical world - "man".
Word play!
There is a physical, reality and evidenced based world .. of which, both man
and nature exist. Man did not create the evidence.
There is a "belief" world, where your god exists.
there is NO evidence to support that this belief is, in any way, connected to
the world of physical reality.
Man can ONLY validate that which has supportive evidence - the "real" world.
Since your "believe" world has no real evidence, it cannot even be considered
as valid in reality.
Plate techtonics explains that.
Did you just selectively ignore that anwer?
They may exist on every continent, but the DO NOT exist on EVERY PLACE on
earth . which would be the case if there WERE a global flood!
There is NO sedimentary rock in Iceland, nor in Hawaii.
American Liberal
>In article <BPAq7.2628$W83.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "J&S"
>says...
>>
>>
>>"eph611" <eph...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>>the use of the theory of evolution to dismiss the existence of God is
>>> extremely poor judgment, and this is what sends Christians like me into a
>>tizzy.
>>
>>Ummm, evolution makes no claims as to the begining of life, thats the scince
>>of abiogenesis. And its a young one at that. Perhaps you should post over on
>>talk.origins , they'll help you out.
>>Silas
>>
>Evolution itself may make no such claims, but evolutionists do -
A vast number of evolutionsts are Christian!
They would NEVER use science to dispute their own beliefs.
and the
>anti-Christian community has latched onto evolution as one of their platforms
> to prove the Bible wrong.
A little manic paranoia here, mixed in with the lies!
Neither evolutionists nor those defending science are "anti-christian".
The ARE, however, tryng to fight the IGNORANCE of extremist creationism:
those who not only bellow that there absolutly IS a christian god (with NO
suppoting evidence) -
that this Chriatian god will and does rule ALL men's lives (the way THEY say
god rules) (with no supporting evidence) -
that ONLY a literal reading of the bible is acceptabe (with no supporing
biblical evidence) -
that all science, unless it agrees with that extremist literal interpretation,
is wrong,
and that ALL of this fanatical religios based fantasy should be taught in
schools as though it were valid science!
I don't need to be sent off to some other newsgroup
>because you don't want to hear my point.
You have no point. You only have the insanity of the same old anti-science,
irrational and illogical babbling of an ignorant, uneducated creationist
fanatic!
Evolution is a THEORY, and nothing
>more. The Biblical account of how life originated is, even from a scientific
>viewpoint, much more plausible.
Bwahahahaaaaaaa....
Obviously you have NO concept of what the term "Scientific Theory" means!
You bible has SHIT as far as scientific evidence!
A scientific viewpoint requires EVIDENCE .. YOU HAVE NONE!
William
>In article <3Myq7.108$%f6....@news-west.eli.net>, "Rev says...
>
>>Ok. I do find it rather sad to see people put faith over facts. But there is
>>room for lots of approaches to life. As long as we're not bombing each
>>other over them.
>
>------->I'm not throwing flames over this, but please consider the Christian
>perspective. I find it rather sad to see people summarily dispense of God
>because they've sold their souls to science. Science is a wonderful thing, it
>is man's interpretation of the natural world that can tell us so much. But
>behind it all is the signature of God, and to leave God out of the picture is a
>tragedy. There is room for both science and God.
There's room for both science and any number of gods, angels and
spirits. Science, however, acknowledges this but takes no account of
them. If it took account of one it would have to take account of them
all. But since doing this would add nothing to the explanatory value
of science it ignores them - fortunately.
William
J&S
> In article <BPAq7.2628$W83.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "J&S"
> says...
> >
> >
> >"eph611" <eph...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> >the use of the theory of evolution to dismiss the existence of God is
> >> extremely poor judgment, and this is what sends Christians like me into
a
> >tizzy.
> >
> >Ummm, evolution makes no claims as to the begining of life, thats the
scince
> >of abiogenesis. And its a young one at that. Perhaps you should post over
on
> >talk.origins , they'll help you out.
> >Silas
> >
> Evolution itself may make no such claims, but evolutionists do - and the
> anti-Christian community has latched onto evolution as one of their
platforms to
> prove the Bible wrong. I don't need to be sent off to some other
newsgroup
> because you don't want to hear my point. Evolution is a THEORY, and
nothing
> more.
Gravity is a theory dipwad, so is aerodynamics, feel free challenge either
of them by jumping off building.
Silas
Paul Duca
"John P. Boatwright" wrote:
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
So? I don't want to spend eternity in Christian Heaven hungry,
hurting, abused by a wrathful God and a vengeful Jesus, my only comfort found
in raping my wife and teenage daughter.
(I mean, John Boatwright enjoys this every day of his earthly existence, but
it don't do bupkiss for me).
Paul
Bud
"M Merced" <mol...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:1lBq7.3175$WW.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> > God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
>
> Wrong, everybody knows that King Kong died for our sins.
>
Derek
Derek wrote..
>If your excluding God's word to establish your views on how the universe
>was formed, then "yes" you are using man's ideology. That is your basis on
>which you attempt to explain your views.
I think you skipped a few steps. First you have to establish that the Bible
is God's word. Second, you have to explain why it should take precedence
over the actual evidence.
We can safely assume that I believe that the Bible is God's word, and you
are following man's word. We are dicussing the timeline of the buildup of
civilization for now, and I say their were 8 people left after Noahs flood,
and you say there was no flood. I'm using the facts of my Bible, ( Christian
viewpoint ), and you are using the evolution stance. Through this
discussion, I'm sure we will be able to establish that the Bible is God's
word. We should stick to the topic at hand :-)
> The Bible is also exclusively from man. You have not established
otherwise.
Written by man. Inspired by God. Stay with the topic...population
buildup...flood....remember?
> "The United Nations, an accepted
> authority on population levels and trends, estimates that the world
> population reached 5.3 billion in 1990, and is increasing annually by more
> than 90 million persons. The rate of increase, 1.7 percent per year, has
> fallen below the peak rate of 2 percent per year attained by 1970. "" If
> Noah's children, ( at the time of the flood ), had 3 children per couple,
by
> the time the parents were 35 years, and assuming a life span of 70 years,
then after 140 years 6 people
> would have become 15 people - an average population increase rate of about
1.8% per year (and rising).
Okay, here's your error, and it's the same hopelessly naive error
creationist calculations always make. You're uniformly extrapolating a trend
without any justification.
Let's not so easily rush to call others naive now. I will show you that
population buildup go back only a few thousand years. Here is a snip of an
evolutionist perception of world population trends; For 99% of man's
history, there is essentially no growth. In the last 1% of our history,
human population has exhibited exponential growth, starting at approximately
year zero. http://folk.uio.no/andrewsl/whp/history.html
Population
increases in the last 100 years Year Population
1900 1.7 billion
1950 2.5 billion
1975 4.0 billion
1990 5.3 billion
1996 5.6 billion
In 1900 there were approx, ( studies vary ), 1.7 billion people on earth.
Think...think real hard...can you imagine 8 people on earth around 4000
years earlier? C'mon...you can do it....
> For most of human history, when we were nomadic hunter-gatherers, the rate
of net population growth was zero.
Noma...nomad....nomadic what?
> That 1.7 percent increase is only an artifact of modern times and cannot
be applied to the entire span of human history.
I could agree with you here. Population trends could easily fluctuate over
approx. the last 4 thousand years, and percentages could vary. The study I
showed was only suggesting the numbers could work, but irregardless, we
don't need these numbers to understand it is very possible.
>Okay..now we do this, and we
> find....say for your sake 10,000 people, ( which is wrong, but using for
> argument sake ), do you mean to tell me that it took 20, 30, or a hundred
> thousand years or so, for man to develop into a population of 10,000 and
> then in the last 3-4 thousand years, decide to explode to 5 billion
> people! Why? It doesn't make sense?
>We'll see whose model makes sense, but I need a few more numbers. Tell me,
> in your chronology, what year did the Exodus happen?
The time of Exodus is generally thought to be around the time of 1275 -1235
B.C, but the actual time, date, hr, is not known I believe. We have a
general estimation from the events. I am content with the findings from
Biblical scholars though.
> What rational explanation do you have for sedimentary rock, ( cause by
> water ), and seashells to be found at the top of Mt. Everest? Don't tell
me
> these shells are millions of years old, because they are not. With all due
> respect, I'd be interested to know your take on that.
> It's called plate tectonics. Mt. Everest and the Himalayas are being
formed
> by the collision of the Indian and Asian plates. Sedimentary rocks that
were
> once at sea level have been pushed up. Simple, no?
> Now, let's hear *your* explanation for this geologic feature:
> Shale is lithified (i.e., fossilized) mud. Turbidites are rapidly
deposited
> strata of sedimentary rock. In some places in the north central U.S.,
there
> are up to 15,000 alternating layers of turbidites and shale. Some of the
> shale layers have entire colonies of burrowing animals fossilized in them.
> How, pray tell, did a global flood produce that?
You've picked a difficult topic...lol....but the report you found this
information, does not dispute evidence of a flood, it actually supports it!
It tends to say that a localized flood may have been evident, but it misses
the mark completely. He reports;
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/geo.htm
The Haymond beds consist of 15,000 alternating layers of sand and shale. The
sands have several characteristic sedimentary features which are found on
turbidite deposits. Turbidites are deep water deposits in which each sand
layer is deposited in a brief period of time, by a submarine 'landslide" (I
am trying to avoid jargon here) and the shale covering it is deposited over
a long period of time.
Read what he says....."sand layer is deposited in a brief period of time."
You ask how animals could could form colonies of burrows in turbites, and
shale? The shale found in Haymonds study is above the sand layer. Shale and
turbites are what is known as a cyclothem. A cyclothem is a series of beds
deposited during a sedimentary cycle of the type that prevailed in what is
called the Pennsylvanian Period. Non-marine sediments containing bituminous
coal commonly occur in the lower half of a cyclothem, marine sediments in
the upper half. Put another way, a cyclothem is made up of many thin layers
of different sedimentary rock types such as shale, limestone, sandstone,
siltstone, and one layer of coal. "Marine sediment in the upper half."
http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/documents/Cyclothems/Cyclothems.html
Properties of cyclothems are better explained in terms of catastrophic
sedimentation rather than the slow and gradual buildup of sediment from
encroaching, shallow seas explained by uniformitarianism. To summarize the
evidence for this, cyclothems:
1. are worldwide in distribution.
2. exhibit "age" transcendence
3. are characterized by shallowness of the depositions
4. have vertical gradations and intertonguing of the layers
On the other hand, ( found in study above ),Woodmorappe says that the
coal-bearing cyclothems formed during the recessional stages of the Flood.
We suggest the possibility that the worldwide Flood produced similar results
worldwide. For instance, cyclothems have been traced over 400 miles along
outcrops, and possibly as much as 1000 miles because members of cyclothems
in different basins seem to correlate, although this cannot be proven.
"Nevertheless," says Woodmorappe, cyclothems in North American and Europe,
from Texas to the Donetz coal basin in Russia are extremely similar." From
our perspective, all coal-bearing cyclothems were deposited at the end stage
of the Flood as the Flood waters receded. Thus, the cyclothems of the
eastern states could be contemporary with the cyclothems of the Philippines
and the Rocky Mountain States.
If in fact these burrows are legitimate, why could this shale that is
mentioned not be created during, and when the flood waters were receding?
Once the flood had ended, it would expose the shale, and allow burrowing
animals to do this. Shale is hardened clay...caused by water. This question
you ask would be considered one of the "big guns," in evolutional thinking,
but it really isn't. Your study supports a flood! "The Haymond beds consist
of 15,000 alternating layers of sand and shale," Where did all that sand
come from? Think about it! You find a small glitch that is poorly understood
for now, and you bounce on it. It's not enough evidence to disclaim a
worldwide flood.
My turn....how do you explain these findings?
""Bones of Whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake
Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than
500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area,
about 600 feet above sea level..." 31
J. Juls
Jim (Red) <us...@nospam.batnet.com> wrote in message
news:3baa046...@news.inreach.com...
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 06:16:07 GMT, "Rev Dirk Wobbly"
> <cardin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
majority of
> >scientists.
>
> I'm sorry, but that is like saying the divinity of Christ is a fact
> accepted by the overwhelming majority of Christians.
Sorta, but plenty of scientists *are* Christians and still accept
evolution. No, I can't figure out why! But it's true.
jjuls
J. Juls
> The Bible says that God was the creator, but it doesn't describe in
detail HOW
> he created the heavens and the earth, or how long it took.
Yeah, I bought that crapola when I was about 10 and George Burns told it
to John Denver. "Oh, well, my days are a different length from your
days." Whatever.
jjuls
Adam Marczyk
makes the discussion much easier to follow.
Derek <ban...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:7tar7.12832$L47.2...@news0.telusplanet.net...
> > "Adam Marczyk" wrote..
>
> Derek wrote..
>
> >If your excluding God's word to establish your views on how the universe
> >was formed, then "yes" you are using man's ideology. That is your basis
on
> >which you attempt to explain your views.
>
>
> I think you skipped a few steps. First you have to establish that the
Bible
> is God's word. Second, you have to explain why it should take precedence
> over the actual evidence.
>
> We can safely assume that I believe that the Bible is God's word, and you
> are following man's word. We are dicussing the timeline of the buildup of
> civilization for now, and I say their were 8 people left after Noahs
flood,
> and you say there was no flood. I'm using the facts of my Bible,
Christian
> viewpoint ), and you are using the evolution stance. Through this
> discussion, I'm sure we will be able to establish that the Bible is God's
> word. We should stick to the topic at hand :-)
Okay, but then you can't claim that the Bible is God's word ahead of time.
Let's stick to the facts of the physical world for now.
[snip]
No. It'd be practically impossible to establish a healthy population from
only 8 individuals - there just isn't enough genetic diversity. The term
"founder effect" becomes relevant rather quickly.
> > For most of human history, when we were nomadic hunter-gatherers, the
rate
> of net population growth was zero.
>
> Noma...nomad....nomadic what?
Nomadic hunter-gatherers. Before the formation of nation-states, when
everyone lived out in the forest.
> > That 1.7 percent increase is only an artifact of modern times and cannot
> be applied to the entire span of human history.
>
> I could agree with you here. Population trends could easily fluctuate over
> approx. the last 4 thousand years, and percentages could vary. The study I
> showed was only suggesting the numbers could work, but irregardless, we
> don't need these numbers to understand it is very possible.
>
> >Okay..now we do this, and we
> > find....say for your sake 10,000 people, ( which is wrong, but using for
> > argument sake ), do you mean to tell me that it took 20, 30, or a
hundred
> > thousand years or so, for man to develop into a population of 10,000 and
> > then in the last 3-4 thousand years, decide to explode to 5 billion
> > people! Why? It doesn't make sense?
>
> >We'll see whose model makes sense, but I need a few more numbers. Tell
me,
> > in your chronology, what year did the Exodus happen?
>
> The time of Exodus is generally thought to be around the time of
1275 -1235
> B.C, but the actual time, date, hr, is not known I believe. We have a
> general estimation from the events. I am content with the findings from
> Biblical scholars though.
Okay, let's do some calculations here.
The formula for exponential population growth is, I believe, the following:
P = Po * (1 + r)^t where P is the current population, Po is the initial
population, r is the percentage rate of population growth expressed as a
decimal and t is the number of years elapsed. Let's use the standard Ussher
young-earth chronology and assume that the Noachian flood occurred in 2350
BC. Then, according to your numbers, today's population should be the
following:
P = 8 * (1 + 0.017)^(2350+2000) = 5.61 * 10^32 people (approximately)
That's about 5 hundred trillion billion billion people. I think you need to
rethink your numbers a bit.
[snip]
> > Now, let's hear *your* explanation for this geologic feature:
>
> > Shale is lithified (i.e., fossilized) mud. Turbidites are rapidly
> deposited
> > strata of sedimentary rock. In some places in the north central U.S.,
> there
> > are up to 15,000 alternating layers of turbidites and shale. Some of the
> > shale layers have entire colonies of burrowing animals fossilized in
them.
> > How, pray tell, did a global flood produce that?
>
> You've picked a difficult topic...lol....but the report you found this
> information, does not dispute evidence of a flood, it actually supports
it!
How so?
> It tends to say that a localized flood may have been evident, but it
misses
> the mark completely. He reports;
>
> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/geo.htm
>
> The Haymond beds consist of 15,000 alternating layers of sand and shale.
The
> sands have several characteristic sedimentary features which are found on
> turbidite deposits. Turbidites are deep water deposits in which each sand
> layer is deposited in a brief period of time, by a submarine 'landslide"
(I
> am trying to avoid jargon here) and the shale covering it is deposited
over
> a long period of time.
Yes, exactly. How did a global flood intersperse layers of fast-forming
turbidites with layers of slow-forming shale? The text you quote below does
not explain this, and more, it doesn't explain how entire colonies of
burrowing animals could possibly have become fossilized in the shale. If the
flood had happened, we'd expect to see one thick layer of turbidites
overlaid by one thick layer of shale with no fossils, not thousands of
interleaved thin layers containing fossils.
Would these be the burrowing animals that all drowned in the flood? And why
did they take up residence *only* in the shales and not the interleaved
turbidites?
> Shale is hardened clay...caused by water. This question
> you ask would be considered one of the "big guns," in evolutional
thinking,
> but it really isn't. Your study supports a flood! "The Haymond beds
consist
> of 15,000 alternating layers of sand and shale," Where did all that sand
> come from?
Erosion from mountains, deposition by local floods, storms and volcanoes,
the usual.
> Think about it! You find a small glitch that is poorly understood
> for now, and you bounce on it. It's not enough evidence to disclaim a
> worldwide flood.
This isn't a "small glitch", it's a feature that a global flood model cannot
possibly explain.
> My turn....how do you explain these findings?
>
> ""Bones of Whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake
> Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than
> 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area,
> about 600 feet above sea level..." 31
What's the 31 refer to? Got a source for this?
Anyway, this one's easy too. Continental drift and uplifting again. The
areas that are now land may once have been sea, and vice versa.
Here's one for you:
The geological record contains, in various places and various strata, the
following fossilized features:
-Raindrop imprints.
-Animal burrows.
-Animal footprints.
-Mud cracks.
-River channels.
-In-place (i.e., upright) trees.
-Meteor craters.
-Cave systems.
-In-place coral reefs.
How in the world were these features preserved in the midst of a
catastrophic global flood? A deluge strong enough to produce massive canyons
and level the planet down to bedrock couldn't scour away footprints or
uproot a few lousy trees?
American Liberal
>> "Adam Marczyk" wrote..
>
>Derek wrote..
>
>>If your excluding God's word to establish your views on how the universe
>>was formed, then "yes" you are using man's ideology. That is your basis on
>>which you attempt to explain your views.
>
>
>I think you skipped a few steps. First you have to establish that the Bible
>is God's word. Second, you have to explain why it should take precedence
>over the actual evidence.
>
>We can safely assume that I believe that the Bible is God's word, and you
>are following man's word. We are dicussing the timeline of the buildup of
>civilization for now, and I say their were 8 people left after Noahs flood,
>and you say there was no flood. I'm using the facts of my Bible, ( Christian
>viewpoint ), and you are using the evolution stance.
As far as facts, and the flood, are concerned your bible is nothing more than
a fable filled comic book!
Just because it is in the bible, does NOT make it a fact!
It would take imagination, because that would be far removed from reality!
The growth of population is NOT, and never has been, a linear change!
>
>> For most of human history, when we were nomadic hunter-gatherers, the rate
>of net population growth was zero.
>
>Noma...nomad....nomadic what?
If you don't understand such SIMPLE terms, how can you hope to impress anyone
with CLAIMED statistics?
>
>> That 1.7 percent increase is only an artifact of modern times and cannot
>be applied to the entire span of human history.
>
>I could agree with you here. Population trends could easily fluctuate over
>approx. the last 4 thousand years, and percentages could vary. The study I
>showed was only suggesting the numbers could work, but irregardless, we
>don't need these numbers to understand it is very possible.
The study you showed, indicted nothing!
What is "possible", and what really happened are two separate things.
It is "possible" that we were all created "last thursday" with only flase,
implanted memories and false evidence to support a more ancient timeline!
>
>>Okay..now we do this, and we
>> find....say for your sake 10,000 people, ( which is wrong, but using for
>> argument sake ), do you mean to tell me that it took 20, 30, or a hundred
>> thousand years or so, for man to develop into a population of 10,000 and
>> then in the last 3-4 thousand years, decide to explode to 5 billion
>> people! Why? It doesn't make sense?
>
>>We'll see whose model makes sense, but I need a few more numbers. Tell me,
>> in your chronology, what year did the Exodus happen?
>
>
>The time of Exodus is generally thought to be around the time of 1275 -1235
>B.C, but the actual time, date, hr, is not known I believe. We have a
>general estimation from the events. I am content with the findings from
>Biblical scholars though.
Why is there no evidence of the Exodus?
Why is there no evidence of ANY large Jewish population in Egypt?
Why is there NO mention of Exodus in Egyptian hsitory.
>
>
>> What rational explanation do you have for sedimentary rock, ( cause by
>> water ), and seashells to be found at the top of Mt. Everest? Don't tell
>me
>> these shells are millions of years old, because they are not. With all due
>> respect, I'd be interested to know your take on that.
>
>> It's called plate tectonics. Mt. Everest and the Himalayas are being
>formed
>> by the collision of the Indian and Asian plates. Sedimentary rocks that
>were
>> once at sea level have been pushed up. Simple, no?
>
>> Now, let's hear *your* explanation for this geologic feature:
>
>> Shale is lithified (i.e., fossilized) mud. Turbidites are rapidly
>deposited
>> strata of sedimentary rock. In some places in the north central U.S.,
>there
>> are up to 15,000 alternating layers of turbidites and shale. Some of the
>> shale layers have entire colonies of burrowing animals fossilized in them.
>> How, pray tell, did a global flood produce that?
>
>
>You've picked a difficult topic...lol....but the report you found this
>information, does not dispute evidence of a flood, it actually supports it!
How?
It's saying there is NO evidence of a world wide flood!
There is not ONE layer - which one would get from a massive flood, but dozens
upon dozens of thin laayers.
That REALITY says there was NO flood!
Bwahahhaaaaaa ......
In order to be layered, one layer would have to have something (time) to make
it distinct from other laywers.
Sediment layed down by ONE flood does NOT produce a thousand layers ... only
ONE!
>We suggest the possibility that the worldwide Flood produced similar results
>worldwide. For instance, cyclothems have been traced over 400 miles along
>outcrops, and possibly as much as 1000 miles because members of cyclothems
>in different basins seem to correlate, although this cannot be proven.
>"Nevertheless," says Woodmorappe, cyclothems in North American and Europe,
>from Texas to the Donetz coal basin in Russia are extremely similar." From
>our perspective, all coal-bearing cyclothems were deposited at the end stage
>of the Flood as the Flood waters receded. Thus, the cyclothems of the
>eastern states could be contemporary with the cyclothems of the Philippines
>and the Rocky Mountain States.
Then WHY aren't ALL the dead animals fossilized IN THE SAME LAYER?
They ALL would have been deposited AT THE SAME TIME!
They all would have been fossilized at the same time!
The would NOT be layered in accordance with the T.O.E., but be a jumbled mess,
with earlier life forms MIXED with human fossils!
THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED!
>
>If in fact these burrows are legitimate, why could this shale that is
>mentioned not be created during, and when the flood waters were receding?
TIME!
The whole flood event lasted approximately a year.
NOT enough time to fossilize anaything!
>Once the flood had ended, it would expose the shale, and allow burrowing
>animals to do this. Shale is hardened clay...caused by water. This question
>you ask would be considered one of the "big guns," in evolutional thinking,
>but it really isn't. Your study supports a flood! "The Haymond beds consist
>of 15,000 alternating layers of sand and shale," Where did all that sand
>come from?
A global flood would NOT produce alternating layers of sand and shale!
>Think about it!
Why? You obviously aren't!
You find a small glitch that is poorly understood
>for now, and you bounce on it. It's not enough evidence to disclaim a
>worldwide flood.
It most certainly is enough ... but, since you're so engrossed in your fairy
tale .. no amount of reality will ever be enough to shake you from your
fantasy!
>
>
>My turn....how do you explain these findings?
>
>""Bones of Whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake
>Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than
>500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area,
>about 600 feet above sea level..." 31
Explained before - plate techtonics!
--
Religion is no more good, or less evil, than the people who practice it.
American Liberal
The reason is that Genesis is a fable, written by ancient shepheds, to TRY to
explain (without any scientific knowledge or evidence) how we got here.
Scientists, who happen to be Christian, understand that this is just a fable
.. and their "Christian" answer to how IS abiogenesis, evolution and the Big
Bang.
Only fanatical fools (a minority of Christians) assert Genesis is
scientifically accurate.
John P. Boatwright
ha ha ha...
A sheep being made from another sheep's single cell is scientific?
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Derek
> Okay, but then you can't claim that the Bible is God's word ahead of time.
> Let's stick to the facts of the physical world for now.
Sorry if the message is cluttered. I'll try and clean it up a bit. Let me
know if it happens again :) You make me chuckle.....lol.....with all due
respect, I am sticking to the facts. All you evolutionists feel there is no
physical evidence for creation. I'm not quoting scripture. There is a huge
amount of evidence for a young earth, and "many" questions you all don't
have answers for. Irregardless, it's quite a challenge putting the pieces
together!
> The formula for exponential population growth is, I believe, the
following:
>
> P = Po * (1 + r)^t where P is the current population, Po is the initial
> population, r is the percentage rate of population growth expressed as a
> decimal and t is the number of years elapsed. Let's use the standard
Ussher
> young-earth chronology and assume that the Noachian flood occurred in 2350
> BC. Then, according to your numbers, today's population should be the
> following:
>
> P = 8 * (1 + 0.017)^(2350+2000) = 5.61 * 10^32 people (approximately)
>
> That's about 5 hundred trillion billion billion people. I think you need
to
> rethink your numbers a bit.
Hundred trillion, billion, what? I don't think so. My figures were accurate,
and were easily understandable. It doesn't take a professor in algebra to
look at the numbers below, and understand that 4000 years ago, there were
only a handful of people on earth. I could find more evidence to back me on
that. There was approx. a 4 billion increase in from 1900 to 1996! What
about the 3900 years previous? In 100 years our population rose 4 billion
people. Considering the pre-modern times, population may of rose at a slower
pace, and a gain of 1.7 billion people could easily be possible in 3900
years.
> > Population
> > increases in the last 100 years Year Population
> > 1900 1.7 billion
> > 1950 2.5 billion
> > 1975 4.0 billion
> > 1990 5.3 billion
> > 1996 5.6 billion
> Yes, exactly. How did a global flood intersperse layers of fast-forming
> turbidites with layers of slow-forming shale? The text you quote below
does
> not explain this, and more, it doesn't explain how entire colonies of
> burrowing animals could possibly have become fossilized in the shale. If
the
> flood had happened, we'd expect to see one thick layer of turbidites
> overlaid by one thick layer of shale with no fossils, not thousands of
> interleaved thin layers containing fossils.
Your theory of geological columns representing fact as to how old the earth
is, is wrong. Geological columns are often missing, and misplaced. Just
because shale is buried underneath sandstone, and they found fossils of
burrowing animals in it, doesn't prove anything. Maybe there were areas on
earth that shale was exposed after the flood? Maybe this happened in central
U.S. where you say this was discovered. Your still not convincing, because
shale is formed by water, and it's found all over the U.S. and the world.
Read below:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-137.htm
Misconception No. 3. The strata systems of the geologic column are worldwide
in their occurrence with each strata system being present below any point on
the earth's surface.
Data from continents and ocean basins show that the ten systems are poorly
represented on a global scale: approximately 77% of the earth's surface area
on land and under the sea has seven or more (70% or more) of the strata
systems missing beneath; 94% of the earth's surface has three or more
systems missing beneath; and an estimated 99.6% has at least one missing
system.2 Only a few locations on earth (about 0.4% of its area) have been
described with the succession of the ten systems beneath (west Nepal, west
Bolivia, and central Poland). Even where the ten systems may be present,
geologists recognize individual systems to be incomplete. The entire
geologic column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in the
diagrams drawn by geologists!
Hundreds of locations are known where the order of the systems identified by
geologists does not match the order of the geologic column. Strata systems
are believed in some places to be inverted, repeated, or inserted where they
do not belong.
> Would these be the burrowing animals that all drowned in the flood? And
why
> did they take up residence *only* in the shales and not the interleaved
> turbidites?
Maybe these animals burrowed after the flood? Maybe the burrows had already
been formed? Maybe they aren't burrows at all? I'm waiting for more
investigation into this by the creationist community. There's been more than
one fraud attemted by evolutionists in the past, ( no offence ).
In "An Anthology of Matters Significant to Creationism and Diluviology:
Report 2" (Creation Research Society Quarterly, 18(4) 201-23, 239; March
1982), I also provide 200 examples of fossils occurring in "wrong" rock
strata, according to evolution, and show that there usually is no evidence
to support the usual evolutionary rationalization that these are situations
where fossils from older rock were washed out and redeposited in younger
strata.
> > ""Bones of Whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake
> > Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more
than
> > 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area,
> > about 600 feet above sea level..." 31
>
> What's the 31 refer to? Got a source for this?
Do I really have to look for it? Believe me.....
> Anyway, this one's easy too. Continental drift and uplifting again. The
> areas that are now land may once have been sea, and vice versa.
Easy? You have the water part right....area that is now land, was once under
water! Yes! Now were getting somewhere! Your explanation that continental
uplifting causes skeletons of whales 500ft above sea level in Vermont needs
some working on though.
> Here's one for you:
>
> The geological record contains, in various places and various strata, the
> following fossilized features:
>
> -Raindrop imprints.
> -Animal burrows.
> -Animal footprints.
> -Mud cracks.
> -River channels.
> -In-place (i.e., upright) trees.
> -Meteor craters.
> -Cave systems.
> -In-place coral reefs.
>
> How in the world were these features preserved in the midst of a
> catastrophic global flood? A deluge strong enough to produce massive
canyons
> and level the planet down to bedrock couldn't scour away footprints or
> uproot a few lousy trees?
The geological record again.......okay.....a recent event left "upright"
trees in the U.S. read below:
Mount St. Helens And Catastrophism
The landslide generated waves on Spirit Lake stripped the forests from the
slopes adjacent to the lake and created an enormous log mat, made up of
millions of prone floating trunks that occupy about two square miles of the
lake surface. These logs float freely as the wind blows them, and the
decreasing size of the log mat indicates that the trees are gradually
sinking to the lake floor. Careful observation of the floating log mat
indicates that many trees float in upright position, with a root ball
submerging the root end of the trunk, while the opposite end floats out of
the water. Hundreds of upright floated and deposited logs have been grounded
in shallow water along the shore of the lake. These trees, if buried in
sediment, would appear to have been a forest which grew in place over
hundreds of years, which is the standard geological interpretation for the
upright petrified "forests" at Yellowstone National Park.Extrapolating from
the area of lake floor surveyed to the entire lake bottom, we estimate more
than 19,000 upright stumps existed on the floor of the lake in August 1985.
The average height of an upright deposited stump is 20 feet. Sonar records
and scuba investigations verified that many of the upright deposited trees
have root masses radiating away from the bases of the trunks. Furthermore,
the trees are randomly spaced, not clumped together, over the bottom of the
lake, again having the appearance of being an in situ forest. Scuba
investigation of the upright deposited trunks shows that some are already
solidly buried by sedimentation, with more than three feet of sediment
around their bases, while others have no sediment around their bases. This
proved that the upright trees were deposited at different times, with their
roots buried at different levels. If found buried in the stratigraphic
record, these trees might be interpreted as multiple forests which grew on
different levels over periods of thousands of years. The Spirit Lake upright
deposited stumps, therefore, have considerable implications for interpreting
"petrified forests" in the stratigraphic record.
Greg Shelley
such person, a biology postgrad) but if you reject Christ's divinity,
that pretty much rules you out of being a Christian by most
definitions
--
Greg #1636
Minister, Universal Life Church
Completely pointless personal and work pages:
Http://users.aber.ac.uk/ggs98
georgann
> I think you skipped a few steps.
georgann:
On this subject I think YOU skipped a few steps.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
³all your mystery are belong to Christ²
http://www.lexington-on-line.com/Creation_Intro.html
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
Elroy Willis
> J. Juls wrote:
>> Jim (Red) <us...@nospam.batnet.com> wrote in message
>>> Rev Dirk Wobbly <cardin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The process of evolution is a fact accepted by the overwhelming
>>>> majority of scientists.
>>> I'm sorry, but that is like saying the divinity of Christ is a fact
>>> accepted by the overwhelming majority of Christians.
>> Sorta, but plenty of scientists *are* Christians and still accept
>> evolution. No, I can't figure out why! But it's true.
> Plus, you can reject evolution and still be a scientist (I know one
> such person, a biology postgrad) but if you reject Christ's divinity,
> that pretty much rules you out of being a Christian by most
> definitions
What about Spong?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
John Hattan
>Greg Shelley <gg...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>> Plus, you can reject evolution and still be a scientist (I know one
>> such person, a biology postgrad) but if you reject Christ's divinity,
>> that pretty much rules you out of being a Christian by most
>> definitions
>
>What about Spong?
Must. . .resist!
NNNNNGGHHHHH!
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.freespeech.org/shatner
John Hattan
>Derek:
>> I think you skipped a few steps.
>
>georgann:
>On this subject I think YOU skipped a few steps.
Please tell us what books you've read about evolutionary biology,
Georgann.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> Greg Shelley <gg...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Plus, you can reject evolution and still be a scientist (I know one
>>> such person, a biology postgrad) but if you reject Christ's divinity,
>>> that pretty much rules you out of being a Christian by most
>>> definitions
>> What about Spong?
> Must. . .resist!
> NNNNNGGHHHHH!
Resistance is futile!
SPONG SPONG SPONG!
John Hattan
>John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>> Greg Shelley <gg...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>>>> Plus, you can reject evolution and still be a scientist (I know one
>>>> such person, a biology postgrad) but if you reject Christ's divinity,
>>>> that pretty much rules you out of being a Christian by most
>>>> definitions
>
>>> What about Spong?
>
>> Must. . .resist!
>
>> NNNNNGGHHHHH!
>
>Resistance is futile!
>
>SPONG SPONG SPONG!
SPONG!
SPONG! SPONG! SPONG!
[John passes out]
Adam Marczyk
> "Adam Marczyk"
>
> > Okay, but then you can't claim that the Bible is God's word ahead of
time.
> > Let's stick to the facts of the physical world for now.
>
> Sorry if the message is cluttered. I'll try and clean it up a bit. Let me
> know if it happens again :) You make me chuckle.....lol.....with all due
> respect, I am sticking to the facts. All you evolutionists feel there is
no
> physical evidence for creation. I'm not quoting scripture. There is a huge
> amount of evidence for a young earth, and "many" questions you all don't
> have answers for. Irregardless, it's quite a challenge putting the pieces
> together!
There is no evidence whatsoever for a young earth. All the arguments
advanced by young-earth creationists involve demonstrably false claims or
simple errors, including the very common one you yourself promote below of
uniformly extrapolating a trend beyond the boundaries of applicability.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/matson-vs-hovind.html
You did not respond to my argument. "I don't think so, my figures were
accurate" doesn't cut it. Are my calculations flawed? If so, show where. If
not, you're just blindly denying. Your prediction of a constant 1.7%
population growth rate for 4000 years of human history predicts we should
have a ludicrously huge population, considerably more human biomass than
there is material in the earth. (The earth weighs around 5.97 * 10^24
kilograms. Your numbers predict that there should be more humans alive than
kilograms of matter in the planet, by several orders of magnitude.) If I'm
wrong, show me where I'm wrong.
> > > Population
> > > increases in the last 100 years Year Population
> > > 1900 1.7 billion
> > > 1950 2.5 billion
> > > 1975 4.0 billion
> > > 1990 5.3 billion
> > > 1996 5.6 billion
>
> > Yes, exactly. How did a global flood intersperse layers of fast-forming
> > turbidites with layers of slow-forming shale? The text you quote below
> does
> > not explain this, and more, it doesn't explain how entire colonies of
> > burrowing animals could possibly have become fossilized in the shale. If
> the
> > flood had happened, we'd expect to see one thick layer of turbidites
> > overlaid by one thick layer of shale with no fossils, not thousands of
> > interleaved thin layers containing fossils.
>
> Your theory of geological columns representing fact as to how old the
earth
> is, is wrong. Geological columns are often missing, and misplaced. Just
> because shale is buried underneath sandstone, and they found fossils of
> burrowing animals in it, doesn't prove anything.
"It doesn't prove anything" is pure blind denial and handwaving. The global
flood simply cannot explain the features I described above. If the burrowing
animals moved in before the flood, their tunnels should run through the
turbidites as well as the shale. They don't. And nothing you cited comes
close to explaining how a catastrophic flood could produce delicate
depositional patterns of fast-forming layers interspersed with slow-forming
layers. The only possible explanation for this is a series of continual,
slow depositions over geologic time.
> Maybe there were areas on
> earth that shale was exposed after the flood? Maybe this happened in
central
> U.S. where you say this was discovered. Your still not convincing, because
> shale is formed by water, and it's found all over the U.S. and the world.
And the fact that shale is formed in water proves there was a global flood?
Uh-huh.
> Read below:
>
> http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-137.htm
>
> Misconception No. 3. The strata systems of the geologic column are
worldwide
> in their occurrence with each strata system being present below any point
on
> the earth's surface.
> Data from continents and ocean basins show that the ten systems are poorly
> represented on a global scale: approximately 77% of the earth's surface
area
> on land and under the sea has seven or more (70% or more) of the strata
> systems missing beneath; 94% of the earth's surface has three or more
> systems missing beneath; and an estimated 99.6% has at least one missing
> system.2 Only a few locations on earth (about 0.4% of its area) have been
> described with the succession of the ten systems beneath (west Nepal, west
> Bolivia, and central Poland). Even where the ten systems may be present,
> geologists recognize individual systems to be incomplete. The entire
> geologic column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in the
> diagrams drawn by geologists!
No, the entire geologic column is built up by correlating rock strata around
the world through the use of index fossils and radiometric dating. The claim
that there is no place on earth where the entire column exists in one place
is simply wrong.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
> Hundreds of locations are known where the order of the systems identified
by
> geologists does not match the order of the geologic column. Strata systems
> are believed in some places to be inverted, repeated, or inserted where
they
> do not belong.
Not "believed", recognized by evidence. Creationists would like us to
believe that whenever unusual formations are encountered, geologists just
say "oops, must be an inversion" and move on. Nothing could be further from
the truth. In reality, that conclusion is only drawn when additional
geologic evidence supports the occurrence of whatever tectonic process is
believed to have occurred.
> > Would these be the burrowing animals that all drowned in the flood? And
> why
> > did they take up residence *only* in the shales and not the interleaved
> > turbidites?
>
> Maybe these animals burrowed after the flood?
Then their burrows would run through the turbidites as well as the shales.
> Maybe the burrows had already been formed?
Formed when? During the flood? It couldn't be before, since you yourself are
arguing that the flood deposited these layers.
> Maybe they aren't burrows at all?
There are complete colonies of fossilized animals in them. I don't know what
else you think they could be.
> I'm waiting for more
> investigation into this by the creationist community. There's been more
than
> one fraud attemted by evolutionists in the past, ( no offence ).
And, of course, the last resort, simple accusations of fraud. I thought you
said the global flood could explain this evidence easily. Why now do you
resort to ad hominem attacks and denial that the evidence even exists?
Several of the creationist sources you previously cited in an attempt to
explain this evidence do not deny it's there. In fact, you yourself
originally asserted that this evidence supports a global flood model. Why
the sudden change of gear? Are you perhaps beginning to realize that this is
more problematic for your model than you thought?
> In "An Anthology of Matters Significant to Creationism and Diluviology:
> Report 2" (Creation Research Society Quarterly, 18(4) 201-23, 239; March
> 1982), I also provide 200 examples of fossils occurring in "wrong" rock
> strata, according to evolution, and show that there usually is no evidence
> to support the usual evolutionary rationalization that these are
situations
> where fossils from older rock were washed out and redeposited in younger
> strata.
Let's see some examples, then.
> > > ""Bones of Whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of
Lake
> > > Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more
> than
> > > 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec
area,
> > > about 600 feet above sea level..." 31
> >
> > What's the 31 refer to? Got a source for this?
>
> Do I really have to look for it? Believe me.....
I would appreciate it.
> > Anyway, this one's easy too. Continental drift and uplifting again. The
> > areas that are now land may once have been sea, and vice versa.
>
> Easy? You have the water part right....area that is now land, was once
under
> water! Yes! Now were getting somewhere! Your explanation that continental
> uplifting causes skeletons of whales 500ft above sea level in Vermont
needs
> some working on though.
Why is that? Do you have evidence that this is not the case, or are you just
denying again?
First of all, even if we accept this explanation, it only explains *one* of
the features on the list. How in the world are there preserved raindrop
imprints, preserved footprints and preserved mud cracks? Was this
catastrophic global deluge not powerful enough to scour them away? Did they
not soften during a year under water? Nothing you cited even attempts to
explain these things.
Second of all, you make the naive suggestion that there is no way to tell
the difference between a fossilized tree that really did grow in its current
position and a fossilized tree that was merely deposited upright. This is
not so. One of the simplest ways to tell the difference is to see if the
tree's roots penetrate into layers of paleosoil (fossilized soil) in the
vicinity.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/polystrate_trees.html
American Liberal
>"Adam Marczyk"
>
>> Okay, but then you can't claim that the Bible is God's word ahead of time.
>> Let's stick to the facts of the physical world for now.
>
>Sorry if the message is cluttered. I'll try and clean it up a bit. Let me
>know if it happens again :) You make me chuckle.....lol.....with all due
>respect, I am sticking to the facts. All you evolutionists feel there is no
>physical evidence for creation. I'm not quoting scripture. There is a huge
>amount of evidence for a young earth, and "many" questions you all don't
>have answers for. Irregardless, it's quite a challenge putting the pieces
>together!
There is NO evidence for a young Earth!
All the arguments youcan glean from your fanatical religious bellowers have
ALL been presented, many times over, and ALL been refuted by the REAL facts.
i.e. ALL arguments have been shown to be LIES!
>
>> The formula for exponential population growth is, I believe, the
>following:
>>
>> P = Po * (1 + r)^t where P is the current population, Po is the initial
>> population, r is the percentage rate of population growth expressed as a
>> decimal and t is the number of years elapsed. Let's use the standard
>Ussher
>> young-earth chronology and assume that the Noachian flood occurred in 2350
>> BC. Then, according to your numbers, today's population should be the
>> following:
>>
>> P = 8 * (1 + 0.017)^(2350+2000) = 5.61 * 10^32 people (approximately)
>>
>> That's about 5 hundred trillion billion billion people. I think you need
>to
>> rethink your numbers a bit.
>
>Hundred trillion, billion, what? I don't think so. My figures were accurate,
>and were easily understandable. It doesn't take a professor in algebra to
>look at the numbers below, and understand that 4000 years ago, there were
>only a handful of people on earth. I could find more evidence to back me on
>that. There was approx. a 4 billion increase in from 1900 to 1996! What
>about the 3900 years previous? In 100 years our population rose 4 billion
>people. Considering the pre-modern times, population may of rose at a slower
>pace, and a gain of 1.7 billion people could easily be possible in 3900
>years.
You finaly get it, and then lose it again!
The population ROSE SLOWER before modern times .... that's reality!
"A gain .......... COULD BE POSSIBLE". is mere unsupported fantasy!
NOT PROOF!
>
>> > Population
>> > increases in the last 100 years Year Population
>> > 1900 1.7 billion
>> > 1950 2.5 billion
>> > 1975 4.0 billion
>> > 1990 5.3 billion
>> > 1996 5.6 billion
>
>> Yes, exactly. How did a global flood intersperse layers of fast-forming
>> turbidites with layers of slow-forming shale? The text you quote below
>does
>> not explain this, and more, it doesn't explain how entire colonies of
>> burrowing animals could possibly have become fossilized in the shale. If
>the
>> flood had happened, we'd expect to see one thick layer of turbidites
>> overlaid by one thick layer of shale with no fossils, not thousands of
>> interleaved thin layers containing fossils.
>
>Your theory of geological columns representing fact as to how old the earth
>is, is wrong. Geological columns are often missing, and misplaced.
It is not "his" theory - it is evidence BACKED BY COUNTLESS SCIENTiSTS.
Some columns are inclomplete, But they overlap to give a COMPLETE picture!
ALL columns are NOT incomplete!
Your bull shit, the ability to ignore reality, the fraud of ignoring FACTUAL
rebuttals, and the ability to repeat outrageous claims that have been PROVEN
false are unbelievable!
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>The Bible says that God was the creator, but it doesn't describe in detail HOW
>he created the heavens and the earth, or how long it took.
It says 6 days.
>the use of the theory of evolution to dismiss the existence of God
We dismiss the CLAIMS of the existence of your god, not because of
evolution (none of the theories are ever used in conjunction with
dismissing your god), but because there's no objective evidence that
your claimed god actually exists.
>The reason is simple: evolution cannot attempt to explain the CAUSE of
>creation.
Neither can nuclear physics explain the creation of milk. Evolution
doesn't claim to explain how the universe came to be.
>Any attempt to use evolution to explain away God is stupid because
>it's a totally unsupportable argument.
As is the argument that your god exists.
>Nevertheless, most Christians are going
>to dismiss evolution, and rightly so, because it's unimportant to the faith.
It's not unimportant, however, to the faithful. Any Christian who
contracts an illness for which there's no antibiotic is staring
evolution in the face.
> I put my faith in Jesus Christ
So you don't consult doctors, I take it?
>After Jesus returns for us, we'll certainly get to know
>the answers to our many questions!
That's begging the question.
--
Those not willing to fight for freedom don't deserve freedom.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, not peace talks with a madman.
NEVER FORGET THE WTC AND THE PENTAGON!
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>---------> I acknowledge your opinions and disagree totally with them. 'Nuff
>said, let's not get into a Christian vs. atheist battle.
So why are you posting to alt.atheism? Surely not to learn anything.
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>------->I'm not throwing flames over this, but please consider the Christian
>perspective. I find it rather sad to see people summarily dispense of God
>because they've sold their souls to science.
How about because you theists have consistently failed to present any
objective evidence of this god whom you claim exists?
> Science is a wonderful thing, it
>is man's interpretation of the natural world that can tell us so much. But
>behind it all is the signature of God
Objective evidence?
>There is room for both science and God.
True. Science as a model of how reality works and god as a hope that
we never have to face ultimate reality - if you need that hope.
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>In article <BPAq7.2628$W83.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "J&S"
>says...
>>"eph611" <eph...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>the use of the theory of evolution to dismiss the existence of God is
>>> extremely poor judgment, and this is what sends Christians like me into a
>>tizzy.
>>Ummm, evolution makes no claims as to the begining of life, thats the scince
>>of abiogenesis. And its a young one at that. Perhaps you should post over on
>>talk.origins , they'll help you out.
>Evolution itself may make no such claims, but evolutionists do
Some who accept evolution do, not many. So do some Christians - so is
Christianity the belief in abiogenesis?
>and the anti-Christian community has latched onto evolution as one of their platforms to
>prove the Bible wrong.
It DOES prove that some of the claims in the bible are wrong.
>Evolution is a THEORY
Evolution is a fact. Various theories of evolution are theories.
Assertions of god are mere unsupported assertions.
>The Biblical account of how life originated is, even from a scientific
>viewpoint, much more plausible.
That evolution can't cross species boundaries, but that all life
evolved from the few creatures Noah had on the ark in a few thousand
years? Due to a world-wide flood of which not a single sign remains?
You call that plausible? I call it self-contradictory.
(If everyone alive today descended from a single man and 3 women,
there'd be genetic evidence of that claim. The actual evidence is
that we all descended from ONE woman.)
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>Not likely at all. For one thing, it doesn't explain the fossils and shells.
>Secondly, the sedimentary rock formations and the ocean deposits at high
>altitudes exist on every continent.
Ever hear of subduction? If not, learn what it is, *then* tell us how
the only way seashells could be found at the top of Everest is by a
world-wide flood.
Elf Sternberg
us...@nospam.batnet.com (Jim (Red)) writes:
>The notion of scientific metaphysical fact is incoherent, so the
>argument is not 'well formed' from the beginning. Evolution theory is a
>secular methodology that proves nothing about the
>metaphysical. Atheists who cannot accept this are applying science
>outside its realm, to support their own metaphysical beliefs.
The concept of a 'scientific metaphysical fact' is incoherent
only if one approaches it a-priori from the assumption that there may be
some validity in the supernaturalist position. The problem I have with
this approach is that, as I understand it, there are two mutually
exclusive positions that cover the range of fundamental concepts we have
about the universe: it is either a naturalist universe, or a
supernaturalist universe. That is, it either arises from strictly
natural causes with no "metaphysic" necessary, or it is wholly the
result of processes that can only be adressed by metaphysics.
But the concept of a supernaturalist universe which is
"sufficiently naturalistic" for deterministic and stochaistic processes
to be codifiable, unifiable, and useful strikes me as the most unlikely
of all possibilities, a true 747 in the junkyard. If it is the universe
in which we exist, it's positively diabolical in its set-up, the
ultimate pratfall, as bad a joke on our existence as the one played by
foisting on us all these different religions.
The most parsimonious explanation is that there is no
supernatural. This is not an extension of one's acceptance of
scientific conclusions, but an acceptance of science and knowledge
working _at all_. If Phillip Johnson wants a wedge, he's found one--
but it's not the one he was looking for. Instead, he's stumbled upon
the weakness of the supernaturalist position, because in assuming that
the naturalist position is robust and reliable, he's damned his cause
even before he's started.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystical cynical idealist
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
Dvorak Keyboards: Frgp ucpoy ncb. ru e.u.bo.v
Adam Marczyk
Adam Marczyk <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:3badf...@bingnews.binghamton.edu...
[snip]
> > > > ""Bones of Whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of
Lake
> > > > Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more
than
> > > > 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec
area,
> > > > about 600 feet above sea level..." 31
> > >
> > > What's the 31 refer to? Got a source for this?
> >
> > Do I really have to look for it? Believe me.....
>
> I would appreciate it.
>
> > > Anyway, this one's easy too. Continental drift and uplifting again.
The
> > > areas that are now land may once have been sea, and vice versa.
> >
> > Easy? You have the water part right....area that is now land, was once
> under
> > water! Yes! Now were getting somewhere! Your explanation that
continental
> > uplifting causes skeletons of whales 500ft above sea level in Vermont
> needs
> > some working on though.
I looked this up, and on second thought, you're right. The whale skeleton in
Vermont wasn't raised above sea level by continental drift; it was raised
above sea level by isostatic rebound after the last Ice Age. Essentially,
the weight of a moving glacier compresses the bedrock, and when the glacier
retreats, the surface "rebounds" (over geologic time intervals, of course),
rising back up, which caused the shallow sea where the whale died to drain
off. Only the fossil was left behind. And, of course, don't forget that
radiocarbon dating has established the age of the specimen to a minimum of
10,000 years - far too long for a young-earth/global flood model.
http://www.uvm.edu/whale//HowPreserved.html
[snip]
eph611
>
>On 20 Sep 2001 19:22:49 -0700, eph611 <eph...@hotmail.com> posted in
>alt.atheism:
>
>>---------> I acknowledge your opinions and disagree totally with them. 'Nuff
>>said, let's not get into a Christian vs. atheist battle.
>
>So why are you posting to alt.atheism? Surely not to learn anything.
---->If you want to know who started the crossposting in this thread, you'll
have to look back before I responded.
eph611
been cross-posted to alt.atheism. I did NOT create the cross-postings.
Furthermore, I have no interest in banging my head against the wall arguing with
atheists and will excuse myself from this thread. I disagree with your position
on evolution, but then again our disagreements will run much deeper than that as
you are an atheist. There is simply NO way for an atheist and a Christian
believer to see eye-to-eye on issues such as evolution vs. creationism, so I
suggest we save the bandwidth.
In article <iaksqtkf0ls3i2d41...@4ax.com>, Al says...
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>"Rev Dirk Wobbly" wrote...
>> "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> wrote in message
>> news:3BA970...@For-God.net...
>> > Evolution is a >>> trash <<< theory, glued on garbage
>> > is what it's based on.
>> You truly are an amazingly ignorant person.
>> The process of evolution is a fact accepted by the overwhelming majority of
>> scientists.
>The evolution theory is a "farce."
Which one is it to which you refer? You ARE aware that there are MANY
theories about the fact of evolution?
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>"Rev Dirk Wobbly" wrote...
>> "Derek" <ban...@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:zbwq7.6835$9j.16...@news1.telusplanet.net...
>> > The evolution theory is a "farce."
>>You have some proof to contradict the absolutely massive amount of proof *for* evolution,
>> I presume. Share some... (oh, and leave your holey book out, it is not proof
>> of anything).
>I am a Christian, and my viewpoint comes directly from the Bible. You are
>wrong to suggest the Bible has nothing in the way of evidence. If I leave
>out what scripture reports, and deal strictly with what man's conclusions
>are, then what is the point of this discussion?
The discussion is about reality and, in reality, evolution has been
observed to occur, so how can what a book says have any effect on
that?
> Give your head a shake.You
>"discredit" creation, and I say evolution lacks significantly
The fact that evolution doesn't have all the answers you want it to
have doesn't disprove anything.
>I suppose you are an
>evolutionist? We can safely assume where your views come from, can't we?
From reality, in which evolution has been observed to occur.
>That being said.....Christians don't have to rely purely on faith, although
>essential. There is much interesting evidence, and that being weighed with a
>theory, ( evolution ), filled with flawes makes it even more credible.
And the fact of evolution? How are you going to address that?
>> > The process of evolution is a fact accepted by the overwhelming majority
>> of scientists.
>Let's discuss this theory of yours.
No, let's discuss the fact of evolution, since that's what's being
discussed, and since you don't even specify WHICH theory of evolution
you want to turn this discussion to.
> One topic at a time, without a dozen
>posters starting a new debate.How about human population. Study of the build
>up of human population makes it clear that humans have only existed for a
>few thousand years (not millions), even when the maximum likely effects of
>war, disease, disaster, and other population-reducing factors are
>considered.
Extra-biblical objective evidence?
> Remember Noah's flood? How do you explain that?
It never happened. There's no extra-biblical objective evidence that
it did and lots of extra-biblical objective evidence that it both
didn't and couldn't.
Yang
<cardin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> wrote in message
>news:3BA970...@For-God.net...
>
>> Evolution is a >>> trash <<< theory, glued on garbage
>> is what it's based on.
>
>You truly are an amazingly ignorant person.
You must be new here :-)
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>"Adam Marczyk" wrote..
>> Derek <ban...@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:XNzq7.7188$9j.17...@news1.telusplanet.net...
>> to keep my Holy book out of it, is illogical.
>> No, it's not. I don't cite the mere existence of the Origin of Species as
>> proof that evolution happened.
>If your excluding God's word to establish your views on how the universe was
>formed, then "yes" you are using man's ideology. That is your basis on which
>you attempt to explain your views.
If your god exists objectively, what he did would leave objective
evidence that he did it. And that is?
>> > I suppose you are an
>> > evolutionist? We can safely assume where your views come from, can't we?
>> Yes, from the evidence. Where do yours come from?
>You are an evolutionist. Your evidence comes exclusively from man.
No, it comes from evidence. IOW, it comes from objective reality.
> My evidence combines the Bible, with man's discoveries.
And your objective evidence that the claims in the bible are correct
is?
> Much more powerful, and conclusive!
Not unless you can objectively prove that the claims in the bible are
correct.
>"The United Nations, an accepted
>authority on population levels and trends, estimates that the world
>population reached 5.3 billion in 1990
[snippage]
>Why? It doesn't make sense?
No, because you're assuming a constant rate of growth, and we know
that's not the case.
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>> "Adam Marczyk" wrote..
>Derek wrote..
>>If your excluding God's word to establish your views on how the universe
>>was formed, then "yes" you are using man's ideology. That is your basis on
>>which you attempt to explain your views.
>I think you skipped a few steps. First you have to establish that the Bible
>is God's word. Second, you have to explain why it should take precedence
>over the actual evidence.
>We can safely assume that I believe that the Bible is God's word
But that doesn't establish that it is, only that you believe it is.
> and you
>are following man's word. We are dicussing the timeline of the buildup of
>civilization for now, and I say their were 8 people left after Noahs flood,
>and you say there was no flood. I'm using the facts of my Bible, ( Christian
>viewpoint ), and you are using the evolution stance. Through this
>discussion, I'm sure we will be able to establish that the Bible is God's
>word. We should stick to the topic at hand :-)
>> The Bible is also exclusively from man. You have not established otherwise.
>Written by man. Inspired by God.
Your belief, not established fact.
> Stay with the topic...population buildup...flood....remember?
Stay with the topic ... the bible being your god's word ... remember?
>My turn....how do you explain these findings?
>""Bones of Whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake
>Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than
>500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area,
>about 600 feet above sea level..." 31
Study "folding" and "subduction", among other subjects.
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>"Adam Marczyk"
>> Okay, but then you can't claim that the Bible is God's word ahead of time.
>> Let's stick to the facts of the physical world for now.
>Sorry if the message is cluttered. I'll try and clean it up a bit. Let me
>know if it happens again :) You make me chuckle.....lol.....with all due
>respect, I am sticking to the facts. All you evolutionists feel there is no
>physical evidence for creation. I'm not quoting scripture. There is a huge
>amount of evidence for a young earth
None that you've posted.
> and "many" questions you all don't have answers for.
Which is only evidence of lack of answers, not evidence of creation or
a young earth.
>Considering the pre-modern times, population may of rose at a slower
>pace, and a gain of 1.7 billion people could easily be possible in 3900
>years.
Your assertion. Objective evidence?
>> > 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area,
>> > about 600 feet above sea level..." 31
>> Anyway, this one's easy too. Continental drift and uplifting again. The
>> areas that are now land may once have been sea, and vice versa.
>Easy? You have the water part right....area that is now land, was once under
>water! Yes! Now were getting somewhere! Your explanation that continental
>uplifting causes skeletons of whales 500ft above sea level in Vermont needs
>some working on though.
If geologic activity can raise a mountain to 30,000 feet, why can't it
raise one 500 feet?
>> Here's one for you:
>>
>> The geological record contains, in various places and various strata, the
>
>> following fossilized features:
>>
>> -Raindrop imprints.
>> -Animal burrows.
>> -Animal footprints.
>> -Mud cracks.
>> -River channels.
>> -In-place (i.e., upright) trees.
>> -Meteor craters.
>> -Cave systems.
>> -In-place coral reefs.
>>
>> How in the world were these features preserved in the midst of a
>> catastrophic global flood? A deluge strong enough to produce massive canyons
>> and level the planet down to bedrock couldn't scour away footprints or
>> uproot a few lousy trees?
>The geological record again.......okay.....a recent event left "upright"
>trees in the U.S. read below:
>Mount St. Helens And Catastrophism
Mt. St. Helens wasn't worldwide, nor was it a flood.
Rev Dirk Wobbly
message news:slrn9qmhgl...@lexideb.athghost7038suus.net...
> In talk.atheism, John P. Boatwright
> <na...@For-God.net>
> wrote
> on Thu, 20 Sep 2001 22:35:36 -0700
> <3BAAD1...@For-God.net>:> >> news:3baa046...@news.inreach.com...
> >> > >majority of scientists.
> >> >
> >> > accepted by the overwhelming majority of Christians.
> >>
> >> No, because evolution is provabl.
> >
> >It is NOT.
>
> Boaty's right here; all we can do is show strong evidence for
> evolution. *Very* strong evidence.
Unfortunately, boatman's post hasn't shown up on my server. So I'll try to
respont to both him and you here and hopefully not screw up to badly!
>
> But it's not proof, in the mathematical sense.
Nothing outside of mathmatics is provable, in the mathematical sense
(perhaps propositional logic, but the two are closely related). That is why
I don't *use* the mathematical sense of proof for other things, I use a less
stringent sense of the word proof. But I take your point.
Then again,
> mathematicians don't rule the world. :-) (Lessee, if I were
> world dictator...)
>
> >
> >> Divinity of an imaginary/pseudohistorical
> >> figure is not. Evolution is not accepted on faith.
> >
> >Evolution has ZERO proof to back up the theory that
> >NOTHING was the driving force of all life showing >>up.
I've yet to hear *anyone* say that there was no force of any kind driving
the evolution of this planet or the cosmos from it's beginnings. Certainly
there is energy or it would not have taken place. But there is zero proof
of intervention by imaginary beings or alien intelligence.
> >
> >There's ZERO proof of evolution doing ANYTHING >>at all.
Perhaps you need to get out a little. Take a wee peak at the mountain of
literature documenting the process of evolution bothin the past and
currently occuring right now. Ghost has provided some great examples below,
I don't see any need for further elaboration on my part.
Rev Dirk
>
> Evolution doesn't "do" anything. It's a process description.
>
> For example, we are currently dealing with a fair number of
> biological nasties in hospitals (staphylococcus, if memory serves)
> that are resistant to our current crop of antibiotics. I'll
> leave it to you to figure out why, but it involves one of
> the prerequisites for evolution of a population of
> organisms.
>
> Another interesting example would be certain pepper moths
> in Great Britain at about the time of the Industrial Revolution.
> That one's a little more ambiguous -- I'd have to see how they
> were able to disprove the theory that airborne soot soiled their
> wings, for example -- but it's arguably the first time anyone
> noticed that species can change.
>
> If you're thinking that evolution does things such as changing
> bats into birds, however, you're slighly off base. Only God
> and the Bible can confuse the two...erm, I mean, change one
> into the other. :-) And I haven't seen too much evidence for
> God. (I can see quite a bit of evidence for the Bible -- as opposed
> to *in* the Bible -- however; the Gideons in particular still seem to
> like to ensure that the Word is spread in every hotel room. Of
> course, I also see a lot of evidence for such things as Joan Collins
> bestsellers, "kiss and tell" books from Washington insiders,
> Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, and other such science fiction,
> and newspapers.)
>
> I'll leave you with www.talkorigins.org, which deals with various
> issues on evolution, world creation, and a few other things,
> and talk.origins, which gets into some very hairy debates at times
> (since we're cousins of apes, that's entirely appropriate :-) ).
>
> >
> >God gives the breath of life, and God takes it away.
>
> So OK...what is someone doing when he's performing cardio-
> pulmonary resuscitation -- also known in some areas as
> "the breath of life"?
>
> >
> >God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
> >
> >Proof God described the planet density profile
> >BEFORE science did:
> >http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
> >(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
> >
> >Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
>
> And remember, it's a perfect mirror. Even though it's badly warped. :-)
>
> --
> ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random misquote here
> EAC code #191 71d:17h:13m actually running Linux.
> No electrons were harmed during this message.
Rev Dirk Wobbly
news:9ofbc...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <BPAq7.2628$W83.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "> .
>Evolution is a THEORY, and nothing
> more.
That puts it several major steps above creation theory[sic].
> The Biblical account of how life originated is, even from >a scientific
> viewpoint, much more plausible.
There is no scientific plausibility for the bibles account.
Rev Dirk Wobbly
"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of
person I'm preaching to."
"Bob" in 'Newsweek'
Need Slack?
http://www.subgenius.com/
>
Rev Dirk Wobbly
> > > viewpoint, much more plausible.
> >
>
> ha ha ha...
>
> A sheep being made from another sheep's single cell is scientific?
Yep.
I know what part of the horse's anatomy your imaginary being made you from!
Rev Dirk
David Buckna
> Pastor Tom <past...@prayforamerica.net> wrote in message
> news:v9nhqt018582qjelb...@4ax.com...
> > September 24-27, PBS stations will be carrying a Paul Allen funded
> > series called "Evolution."
> >
> > Critics charge that the series is poor science, treating theories that
> > are highly debated among scientists as established facts and offering
> > "just so" stories rather than real science. It's also historically
> > inaccurate on a number of significant points.
> >
> > A 155-page critical guide to the series has been developed by Seattle's
> > Discovery Institute. A published version entitled Getting the Facts
> > Straight should be on sale (on Amazon and elsewhere) in a few days for a
> > modest $7.95 retail, but you can download a free pdf version from:
>
> [snip]
>
> Why should anyone trust the pseudoscience of creationist groups like the
> Discovery Institute?
"Evolution" series on PBS television [Sept. 24-27]
Getting the Facts Straight:
A Viewer's Guide to PBS's Evolution
http://www.reviewevolution.com
Viewer's Guide available in downloadable PDF file format (378kb)
http://www.arn.org/docs/pbsevolution/vguide.pdf
http://www.arn.org/pbs_evolution0901.htm
TV REVIEW
PBS series on evolution tiptoes over tough issues, ignores others
By Pamela R. Winnick, Post-Gazette Staff Writer
THE POST-GAZETTE (Pittsburgh, PA)
Sunday, September 23, 2001
The PBS series "Evolution" opens with Darwin's great epiphany. Just back
from his five-year voyage aboard the H.M.S. Beagle, Charles Darwin suddenly
realizes that the 13 varieties of finches he'd brought back from the
Galapagos Islands derived from a common ancestor, a type of finch found off
the Pacific coast of South America.
Each of the 13 varieties of the original finch has a highly characteristic
beak shape, depending upon the type of food it has encountered in its
habitat. Some eat insects, some eat seeds; the size and the shape of their
beaks enable them to best catch their prey and thus survive.
Thus does Darwin arrive at the theory of "natural selection," infuriating
the Bible-thumping Victorians who insist that God, and not chance, created
life and all its forms.
Darwin's great discovery -- his "dangerous idea" -- is this: Life is created
not by God, as set forth in the Bible, but by a process known as natural
selection. As species reproduce, some of their offspring benefit from
mutations which give them -- as was the case with the finches -- a
competitive edge in the quest for survival. Because they beat out their
competitors, the mutated forms eventually predominate; over time, this
results in entirely new species.
As tediously re-enacted in the first episode -- dubbed "Darwin's Dangerous
Idea" -- Victorian England did not take kindly to Darwin's theory, which he
held off disclosing to the general public until 1859, when he published
"Origin of Species." As a Bible-thumping colleague tells him, God alone
creates and designs the different species of animal as well as man himself.
"It's like confessing to a murder," Darwin told a friend.
In yet another tedious re-enactment, we're shown the eventual demise of
Darwin's own religious faith. Having flunked out of medical school, he had
flirted briefly with joining the clergy -- but eventually he loses all
belief in God.
We witness this when Darwin's daughter dies at age 10. Others in the
grieving family go to church, but Darwin lingers behind and -- in what is
supposed to be a portentous moment -- cannot bring himself to follow the
others into church. What causes his atheism? Did it spring from his own
theories? Or from the sheer cruelty of life?
It took 21 years for Darwin to write "Origin of Species," suggesting that he
suffered profound inner turmoil at the implications of his theory and its
eventual reception by the public. A genuinely dramatic rendering of Darwin's
life would have portrayed this struggle. Instead, we're subjected to
banalities and melodrama.
Once having undertaken to show us Darwin's life, the producers had the
obligation to give us the whole truth -- a very dangerous terrain into which
few care to tread.
But why will no one speak of Darwin's vicious racism, so amply set out in
his book "The Descent of Man," in which he plainly states that blacks are
inferior to whites? Why not also tell us about the influence he exerted,
however unintentionally, on the eugenics movement and on Marx and Hitler?
In yet another act of cowardice, the series tiptoes over the serious
religious and philosophical issues posed by Darwinism, not to mention the
serious people --scientists included -- who continue to challenge his
theories.
In one segment, we're compelled to watch a well-known Darwinist take Holy
Communion in the Catholic church, assuring us by word and deed that God
could have chosen to create us through the process of natural selection.
I'm no creationist, but as a reasonably intelligent person, I think that if
there is a God, and if he's really in charge, he would not have left our
creation to a mere toss of the genetic dice. Conversely, if God decreed that
natural selection would lead to the creation of man, then the process wasn't
random at all.
I didn't really expect any answers to these time-honored questions, but how
wonderful it might have been to hear them thrashed about and revel in the
continued mysteries of life.
The final segment of the series "What about God?" pretends to do this. Here
we see a group of guitar-strumming students insisting the world was created
in six days.
What an omission.
The series, which runs for four nights tomorrow through Thursday, completely
ignores the Intelligent Design movement, which began about a decade ago when
serious scientists -- many with doctorates from prestigious universities --
began to tackle evolution on scientific grounds. Among them is Michael Behe,
a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University who has set out to prove
that even at the cellular level, life is too complex to come about through
natural selection. Behe is hardly alone among scientists who have scientific
problems with evolution. But you'd never know this from watching this
series.
If the producers were too afraid to tackle the tough issues, then they
should have stuck to science and omitted religion and the melodramas of
Darwin's life.
Indeed, when it finally gets around to science, the series gets pretty good.
Among my favorites are accounts of contemporary scientists digging among the
fossils --some right here in Pennsylvania -- painstakingly trying to find
the bones of species that have since become extinct. Their endeavors are
important as well as interesting, as they seek to find the pieces of the
puzzle that Darwin himself (as he admitted) couldn't complete proving,
through the fossil evidence, the actual linkage between man and the
ancestors we share with the chimpanzees and apes.
Wednesday's episode, "Why Sex?," likely also will be of enormous interest --
scientific and otherwise -- to viewers as we watch the elaborate and
sometimes comical mating games played by different animals and the role
sexuality plays in all human endeavors.
More than 140 years after publication of "Origin of Species," the theory of
evolution remains under attack. In a report released last year by the Thomas
B. Fordham Foundation, 19 states are cited as being seriously remiss in how
they teach evolution to students in their public schools. Many states
decline to mandate the teaching of evolution at all; others place
disclaimers on biology textbooks, advising students that not everything they
read in them is true.
We no longer live in Victorian times, yet surveys suggest that a majority of
Americans do not accept evolution as the explanation for life.
I wish that PBS, dealing with a controversy that simply will not go away,
had had the guts to do more than preach to the choir.
-
Named as a 2001 fellow by the Phillips Foundation, Pamela R. Winnick is
currently on a leave of absence to write about the controversy over the
teaching of evolution in the public schools.
***
Evolution for the masses
by Jonathan Wells
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
9/23/01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMERICA is the most scientifically advanced nation on Earth, yet a majority
of its citizens reject Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Gallup polls
have shown that about 45 percent of Americans believe God created living
things in their present form a few thousand years ago; about 40 percent
believe that things evolved over a long time with God's guidance; while only
a little more than 10 percent accept Darwin's theory that things evolved
through unguided natural selection and random variations.
Darwinists, of course, deplore this situation. To correct it, they will
broadcast an eight-hour miniseries on public television from Sept. 24-27.
The miniseries is entitled "Evolution," and its guiding vision is to convey
"the importance of evolution" to the American people.
According to its producers, the miniseries "presents facts and the
accumulated results of scientific inquiry; which means understanding the
underlying evidence behind claims of fact and proposed theories, and
reporting on those areas where the science is sound. In keeping with solid
science journalism we examine empirically testable explanations for 'what
happened,' but don't speak to the ultimate cause of 'who done it' — the
religious realm."
Yet the "underlying evidence" turns out to be surprisingly thin.
Evolution has lots of interesting stories about scientists studying minor
changes within existing species, but domestic breeders have been observing
those for centuries. What made Darwin's theory revolutionary was his claim
that similar changes could produce new species and new kinds of organisms.
Viewers will not see any evidence for this in "Evolution."
In fact, the miniseries distorts scientific evidence to make it look
like support for Darwin's theory. A physician claims he sees HIV evolving
into new species in a matter of hours — yet the claim is false. We are told
that apelike creatures that lived a million years ago were our ancestors —
yet Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature, wrote in 1999 that this "is
not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that
carries the same validity as a bedtime story." We are shown a mutant fruit
fly with an extra pair of wings that is supposed to be evidence for the role
of genes in evolution — yet (as the discerning viewer will see) the extra
wings are immobile. The fly is actually a deformed cripple, an evolutionary
dead end.
Not only does "Evolution" fail to present solid evidence for Darwin's
theory, but it also presents uncritically some of the theory's more
disreputable manifestations. Evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller tells
us that cultural achievements such as Handel's "Messiah" are products of our
ancestors' sexual urges — yet even most Darwinists consider this
pseudoscience. American Museum of Natural History anthropologist Ian
Tattersall, for one, has criticized Mr. Miller's speculations for being "a
product of the storyteller's art, not of science."
In place of evidence and sound science, "Evolution" relies on a parade
of carefully chosen experts who assure us Darwin was right and God had
nothing to do with it.
In fact, "Evolution" has quite a lot to say about God and religion.
From start to finish, its message is that only ignorant biblical
fundamentalists criticize Darwinian evolution. Yet most of Darwin's critics
in the 19th century were other scientists, and the number of modern
scientists who criticize Darwinism is growing. Lehigh University biochemist
Michael Behe, for example, has documented the "failure of Darwin's theory on
the molecular level."
There are also many religious people who doubt Darwinism even though
they are not biblical fundamentalists. Renowned religion scholar Huston
Smith has written that Darwinism as "supported more by atheistic
philosophical assumptions than by scientific evidence" and blames it for
eroding the "faith in transcendence" that is basic to all the world's
religions.
Instead of presenting us with a balanced picture of its controversial
subject, "Evolution" completely ignores critics such as Messrs. Smith, Behe,
Tattersall and Gee. It distorts the evidence for Darwin's theory, it
glorifies unsound science, and it promotes a biased view of "the religious
realm." Instead of being an educational documentary, it is a work of
pro-Darwin propaganda that is out of place on public television.
If "Evolution" fails to persuade the masses that Darwinism is true,
perhaps it's because Americans have more sense than Darwinists think they
have.
NOTE: Seattle's Discovery Institute has produced a Viewer's Guide with a
detailed critique of the PBS series. It is available for free download at
www.reviewevolution.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Wells has a Berkeley Ph.D. in biology. He is currently a senior
fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle and the author of "Icons of
Evolution" (Regnery, 2000).
www.washtimes.com
Copyright © 2001 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Ghost In The Machine
<na...@For-God.net>
wrote
on Sat, 22 Sep 2001 22:02:37 -0700
<3BAD6C...@For-God.net>:
>LarryDew wrote:
>>
>> eph611 <eph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > The Biblical account of how life originated is, even from a scientific
>> > viewpoint, much more plausible.
>>
>> A woman being made from the rib of a man is scientific? LOL!!!
>
>ha ha ha...
>
>A sheep being made from another sheep's single cell is scientific?
Of course, there is a wee bit of a difference between the two;
the cloned sheep was made by man. However, there is the possibilty
that we're merely duplicating God's work -- assuming God is
involved in this at all, as opposed to billions of years
of evolution.
As for the plausibility of the Bible -- I look with suspicion
on Gen. 1:11, among many others. The first plants on this Earth
were probably algae and ferns.
[.sigsnip]
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 72d:01h:42m actually running Linux.
Does this message really exist? Where?
Derek
> You did not respond to my argument. "I don't think so, my figures were
> accurate" doesn't cut it. Are my calculations flawed? If so, show where.
If
> not, you're just blindly denying. Your prediction of a constant 1.7%
> population growth rate for 4000 years of human history predicts we should
> have a ludicrously huge population, considerably more human biomass than
> there is material in the earth. (The earth weighs around 5.97 * 10^24
> kilograms. Your numbers predict that there should be more humans alive
than
> kilograms of matter in the planet, by several orders of magnitude.) If I'm
> wrong, show me where I'm wrong.
Okay...the sudy I posted was "one" possible explanation, but it was taken
out of context, and this was my fault. I was using a 1.7% comparison for
todays population growth, compared to the early years when Noah, and his
extended family were having children. The 1.7% was not meant to carry on
through the years. I have to clarify that, as you are correct if we use that
percentage. We would have too many people. This is the study I took that
from, that points out clearly what I failed to do.
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~sjdando/worldpop.htm
You seem to be quite handy with numbers. Take a quick glance at the studies
below, and maybe this will clear things up for you in greater detail.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-021.htm
http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html
> "It doesn't prove anything" is pure blind denial and handwaving. The
global
> flood simply cannot explain the features I described above. If the
burrowing
> animals moved in before the flood, their tunnels should run through the
> turbidites as well as the shale. They don't. And nothing you cited comes
> close to explaining how a catastrophic flood could produce delicate
> depositional patterns of fast-forming layers interspersed with
slow-forming
> layers. The only possible explanation for this is a series of continual,
> slow depositions over geologic time.
Geological columns are often missing, and misplaced, so how can you hold
firm to fossils proving evidence of time?
> And the fact that shale is formed in water proves there was a global
flood?
> Uh-huh.
shale noun [U]
a type of soft grey rock, usually formed from hardened clay, which breaks
easily into thin layers
shale [shayl ] noun
rock of dark sediment and clay: a dark fine-grained sedimentary rock
composed of layers of compressed clay, silt, or mud
The increasing recognition of catastrophic deposits has been accompanied by
recognition of other geological phenomena that may or may not be
catastrophic, but show fascinating "worldwide uniformity". Ager (1981) in
his book The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record describes features of
specific parts of the geologic column that are found over very large
geographic areas or even worldwide. For example, at the base of the Cambrian
there is a basal quartzite that is found "virtually everywhere", typically
followed by orthoquartzite, then glauconitic sandstones, and then marine
"shales" and thin limestones. http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr17_01.htm
Shale is caused by water, and found all over the earth. Flood
> > In "An Anthology of Matters Significant to Creationism and Diluviology:
> > Report 2" (Creation Research Society Quarterly, 18(4) 201-23, 239; March
> > 1982), I also provide 200 examples of fossils occurring in "wrong" rock
> > strata, according to evolution, and show that there usually is no
evidence
> > to support the usual evolutionary rationalization that these are
> situations
> > where fossils from older rock were washed out and redeposited in younger
> > strata.
> Let's see some examples then..
Out-of-Place Fossils
Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary
order.a For example, in Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were
found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs.b Dinosaur and humanlike
footprints have been found together in Turkmeniac and in Arizona.d
Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized
side-by-side in the same rock.e Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and many
other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in
phosphate beds in South Carolina.f Coal beds contain round, black lumps
called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly
evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed.g In the Grand
Canyon, in Venezuela, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from
flowering plants are found in Cambrianh and Precambriani rocks-rocks
deposited before life supposedly evolved. A leading authority on the Grand
Canyon even published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks
that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more
than a hundred million years.j Other hoofprints are alongside 1,000 dinosaur
footprints in Virginia.k
http://www.indirect.com/www/wbrown/onlinebook/scc/lifescience1.html
Petrified trees in Arizona's petrified forest contain fossilized nests of
bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are supposedly 220 million
years old, while bees (and flowering plants which bees require) supposedly
evolved almost a hundred million years later.l Pollinating insects and
fossil flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from
flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowers supposedly evolved.m Most
evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict
with the evolutionary time scale
This is from the Petrified Forest Site, and they quote: "This high dry
tableland was once a vast floodplain crossed by many streams. To the south,
tall, stately pine-like trees grew along the headwaters. Crocodile-like
reptiles; giant, fish-eating amphibians; and small dinosaurs lived among a
variety of ferns, cycads, and other plants and animals that are known only
as fossils today. The tall trees - Araucarioxylon, Woodworthia and
Schilderia - fell and were washed by swollen streams into the floodplain.
There they were covered...." Wow! How did they know all that? It's almost
convincing. Right in line with evolutional thinking. Amazing!
http://azuswebworks.com/az/painteddesert/
Your turn....answer this:
Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your
theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why
don't we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in
the fossil record, or both?
Derek
> > > > > ""Bones of Whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north
of
> Lake
> > > > > Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont,
more
> than
> > > > > 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec
> area,
> > > > > about 600 feet above sea level..." >
> I looked this up, and on second thought, you're right. The whale skeleton
in
> Vermont wasn't raised above sea level by continental drift; it was raised
> above sea level by isostatic rebound after the last Ice Age.
How could these whale fossils be in such perfect condition if massive rocks
were being forced, and pulled away? Wouldn't that disturb the fossil?
> Essentially,
> the weight of a moving glacier compresses the bedrock, and when the
glacier
> retreats, the surface "rebounds" (over geologic time intervals, of
course),
> rising back up, which caused the shallow sea where the whale died to drain
> off.
I thought you said we weren't under water? Are you suggesting there was a
small sea over parts of the U.S at one time?
> Only the fossil was left behind. And, of course, don't forget that
> radiocarbon dating has established the age of the specimen to a minimum of
> 10,000 years - far too long for a young-earth/global flood model.
>
> http://www.uvm.edu/whale//HowPreserved.html
Perhaps no concept in science is as misunderstood as "carbon dating." Almost
everyone thinks carbon dating speaks of millions or billions of years. But,
carbon dating can't be used to date either rocks or fossils. It is only
useful for once-living things which still contain carbon, like flesh or bone
or wood. Rocks and fossils, consisting only of inorganic minerals, cannot be
dated by this scheme.
Obviously, if half the C-14 decays in 5,730 years, and half more decays in
another 5,730 years, by ten half-lives (57,300 years) there would be
essentially no C-14 left. Thus, no one even considers using carbon dating
for dates in this range. In theory, it might be useful to archaeology, but
not to geology or paleontology. Furthermore, the assumptions on which it is
based and the conditions which must be satisfied are questionable, and in
practice, no one trusts it beyond about 3,000 or 4,000 years, and then only
if it can be checked by some historical means.
Thus carbon dating says nothing at all about millions of years, and often
lacks accuracy even with historical specimens, denying as it does the truth
of the great Flood. In reality, its measured disequilibrium points to just
such a world-altering event, not many years ago.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-115b.htm
Did glacier compressing bedrock cause the fossils to be exposed in the cases
of the whale 440ft. above sea level north of Lake Ontario? The one found
600ft. above sea level in the Montreal-Quebec area? Don't forget the one in
Diatomite, Lompoc, California.
http://www.icr.org/research/as/drsnelling6.html
For years, evolutionists have claimed that whales evolved from something
like a wolf. But when they analyzed the DNA, whale DNA was closer to hippo
DNA than wolf DNA. http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v3i11f.htm
yardh...@home.com
To all that are interested;
We are all related by no farther apart then 32nd cousin.
Misty,
Adam Marczyk wrote:
>
> If your newsreader is capable of it, please set it up to quote properly. It
> makes the discussion much easier to follow.
>
> Derek <ban...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:7tar7.12832$L47.2...@news0.telusplanet.net...
> > > "Adam Marczyk" wrote..
> >
> > Derek wrote..
> >
> > >If your excluding God's word to establish your views on how the universe
> > >was formed, then "yes" you are using man's ideology. That is your basis
> on
> > >which you attempt to explain your views.
> >
> >
> > I think you skipped a few steps. First you have to establish that the
> Bible
> > is God's word. Second, you have to explain why it should take precedence
> > over the actual evidence.
> >
> > We can safely assume that I believe that the Bible is God's word, and you
> > are following man's word. We are dicussing the timeline of the buildup of
> > civilization for now, and I say their were 8 people left after Noahs
> flood,
> > and you say there was no flood. I'm using the facts of my Bible,
> Christian
> > viewpoint ), and you are using the evolution stance. Through this
> > discussion, I'm sure we will be able to establish that the Bible is God's
> > word. We should stick to the topic at hand :-)
>
> Okay, but then you can't claim that the Bible is God's word ahead of time.
> Let's stick to the facts of the physical world for now.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > "The United Nations, an accepted
> > > authority on population levels and trends, estimates that the world
> > > population reached 5.3 billion in 1990, and is increasing annually by
> more
> > > than 90 million persons. The rate of increase, 1.7 percent per year, has
> > > fallen below the peak rate of 2 percent per year attained by 1970. "" If
> > > Noah's children, ( at the time of the flood ), had 3 children per
> couple,
> > by
> > > the time the parents were 35 years, and assuming a life span of 70
> years,
> > then after 140 years 6 people
> > > would have become 15 people - an average population increase rate of
> about
> > 1.8% per year (and rising).
> >
> > Okay, here's your error, and it's the same hopelessly naive error
> > creationist calculations always make. You're uniformly extrapolating a
> trend
> > without any justification.
> >
> > Let's not so easily rush to call others naive now. I will show you that
> > population buildup go back only a few thousand years. Here is a snip of an
> > evolutionist perception of world population trends; For 99% of man's
> > history, there is essentially no growth. In the last 1% of our history,
> > human population has exhibited exponential growth, starting at
> approximately
> > year zero. http://folk.uio.no/andrewsl/whp/history.html
> >
> > Population
> > increases in the last 100 years Year Population
> > 1900 1.7 billion
> > 1950 2.5 billion
> > 1975 4.0 billion
> > 1990 5.3 billion
> > 1996 5.6 billion
> >
> > In 1900 there were approx, ( studies vary ), 1.7 billion people on earth.
> > Think...think real hard...can you imagine 8 people on earth around 4000
> > years earlier? C'mon...you can do it....
>
> No. It'd be practically impossible to establish a healthy population from
> only 8 individuals - there just isn't enough genetic diversity. The term
> "founder effect" becomes relevant rather quickly.
>
> > > For most of human history, when we were nomadic hunter-gatherers, the
> rate
> > of net population growth was zero.
> >
> > Noma...nomad....nomadic what?
>
> Nomadic hunter-gatherers. Before the formation of nation-states, when
> everyone lived out in the forest.
>
> > > That 1.7 percent increase is only an artifact of modern times and cannot
> > be applied to the entire span of human history.
> >
> > I could agree with you here. Population trends could easily fluctuate over
> > approx. the last 4 thousand years, and percentages could vary. The study I
> > showed was only suggesting the numbers could work, but irregardless, we
> > don't need these numbers to understand it is very possible.
> >
> > >Okay..now we do this, and we
> > > find....say for your sake 10,000 people, ( which is wrong, but using for
> > > argument sake ), do you mean to tell me that it took 20, 30, or a
> hundred
> > > thousand years or so, for man to develop into a population of 10,000 and
> > > then in the last 3-4 thousand years, decide to explode to 5 billion
> > > people! Why? It doesn't make sense?
> >
> > >We'll see whose model makes sense, but I need a few more numbers. Tell
> me,
> > > in your chronology, what year did the Exodus happen?
> >
> > The time of Exodus is generally thought to be around the time of
> 1275 -1235
> > B.C, but the actual time, date, hr, is not known I believe. We have a
> > general estimation from the events. I am content with the findings from
> > Biblical scholars though.
>
> Okay, let's do some calculations here.
>
> The formula for exponential population growth is, I believe, the following:
>
> P = Po * (1 + r)^t where P is the current population, Po is the initial
> population, r is the percentage rate of population growth expressed as a
> decimal and t is the number of years elapsed. Let's use the standard Ussher
> young-earth chronology and assume that the Noachian flood occurred in 2350
> BC. Then, according to your numbers, today's population should be the
> following:
>
> P = 8 * (1 + 0.017)^(2350+2000) = 5.61 * 10^32 people (approximately)
>
> That's about 5 hundred trillion billion billion people. I think you need to
> rethink your numbers a bit.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Now, let's hear *your* explanation for this geologic feature:
> >
> > > Shale is lithified (i.e., fossilized) mud. Turbidites are rapidly
> > deposited
> > > strata of sedimentary rock. In some places in the north central U.S.,
> > there
> > > are up to 15,000 alternating layers of turbidites and shale. Some of the
> > > shale layers have entire colonies of burrowing animals fossilized in
> them.
> > > How, pray tell, did a global flood produce that?
> >
> > You've picked a difficult topic...lol....but the report you found this
> > information, does not dispute evidence of a flood, it actually supports
> it!
>
> How so?
>
> > It tends to say that a localized flood may have been evident, but it
> misses
> > the mark completely. He reports;
> >
> > http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/geo.htm
> >
> > The Haymond beds consist of 15,000 alternating layers of sand and shale.
> The
> > sands have several characteristic sedimentary features which are found on
> > turbidite deposits. Turbidites are deep water deposits in which each sand
> > layer is deposited in a brief period of time, by a submarine 'landslide"
> (I
> > am trying to avoid jargon here) and the shale covering it is deposited
> over
> > a long period of time.
>
> Yes, exactly. How did a global flood intersperse layers of fast-forming
> turbidites with layers of slow-forming shale? The text you quote below does
> not explain this, and more, it doesn't explain how entire colonies of
> burrowing animals could possibly have become fossilized in the shale. If the
> flood had happened, we'd expect to see one thick layer of turbidites
> overlaid by one thick layer of shale with no fossils, not thousands of
> interleaved thin layers containing fossils.
>
> > Read what he says....."sand layer is deposited in a brief period of time."
> > You ask how animals could could form colonies of burrows in turbites, and
> > shale? The shale found in Haymonds study is above the sand layer. Shale
> and
> > turbites are what is known as a cyclothem. A cyclothem is a series of beds
> > deposited during a sedimentary cycle of the type that prevailed in what is
> > called the Pennsylvanian Period. Non-marine sediments containing
> bituminous
> > coal commonly occur in the lower half of a cyclothem, marine sediments in
> > the upper half. Put another way, a cyclothem is made up of many thin
> layers
> > of different sedimentary rock types such as shale, limestone, sandstone,
> > siltstone, and one layer of coal. "Marine sediment in the upper half."
> >
> > http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/documents/Cyclothems/Cyclothems.html
> > Properties of cyclothems are better explained in terms of catastrophic
> > sedimentation rather than the slow and gradual buildup of sediment from
> > encroaching, shallow seas explained by uniformitarianism. To summarize the
> > evidence for this, cyclothems:
> > 1. are worldwide in distribution.
> >
> > 2. exhibit "age" transcendence
> >
> > 3. are characterized by shallowness of the depositions
> >
> > 4. have vertical gradations and intertonguing of the layers
> >
> > On the other hand, ( found in study above ),Woodmorappe says that the
> > coal-bearing cyclothems formed during the recessional stages of the Flood.
> > We suggest the possibility that the worldwide Flood produced similar
> results
> > worldwide. For instance, cyclothems have been traced over 400 miles along
> > outcrops, and possibly as much as 1000 miles because members of cyclothems
> > in different basins seem to correlate, although this cannot be proven.
> > "Nevertheless," says Woodmorappe, cyclothems in North American and Europe,
> > from Texas to the Donetz coal basin in Russia are extremely similar." From
> > our perspective, all coal-bearing cyclothems were deposited at the end
> stage
> > of the Flood as the Flood waters receded. Thus, the cyclothems of the
> > eastern states could be contemporary with the cyclothems of the
> Philippines
> > and the Rocky Mountain States.
> >
> > If in fact these burrows are legitimate, why could this shale that is
> > mentioned not be created during, and when the flood waters were receding?
> > Once the flood had ended, it would expose the shale, and allow burrowing
> > animals to do this.
>
> Would these be the burrowing animals that all drowned in the flood? And why
> did they take up residence *only* in the shales and not the interleaved
> turbidites?
>
> > Shale is hardened clay...caused by water. This question
> > you ask would be considered one of the "big guns," in evolutional
> thinking,
> > but it really isn't. Your study supports a flood! "The Haymond beds
> consist
> > of 15,000 alternating layers of sand and shale," Where did all that sand
> > come from?
>
> Erosion from mountains, deposition by local floods, storms and volcanoes,
> the usual.
>
> > Think about it! You find a small glitch that is poorly understood
> > for now, and you bounce on it. It's not enough evidence to disclaim a
> > worldwide flood.
>
> This isn't a "small glitch", it's a feature that a global flood model cannot
> possibly explain.
>
> > My turn....how do you explain these findings?
> >
> > ""Bones of Whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake
> > Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than
> > 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area,
> > about 600 feet above sea level..." 31
>
> What's the 31 refer to? Got a source for this?
>
> Anyway, this one's easy too. Continental drift and uplifting again. The
> areas that are now land may once have been sea, and vice versa.
>
> Here's one for you:
>
> The geological record contains, in various places and various strata, the
> following fossilized features:
>
> -Raindrop imprints.
> -Animal burrows.
> -Animal footprints.
> -Mud cracks.
> -River channels.
> -In-place (i.e., upright) trees.
> -Meteor craters.
> -Cave systems.
> -In-place coral reefs.
>
> How in the world were these features preserved in the midst of a
> catastrophic global flood? A deluge strong enough to produce massive canyons
> and level the planet down to bedrock couldn't scour away footprints or
> uproot a few lousy trees?
>
Adam Marczyk
> "Adam Marczyk" wrote...
>
> > > > > > ""Bones of Whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north
> of
> > Lake
> > > > > > Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont,
> more
> > than
> > > > > > 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the
Montreal-Quebec
> > area,
> > > > > > about 600 feet above sea level..." >
>
> > I looked this up, and on second thought, you're right. The whale
skeleton
> in
> > Vermont wasn't raised above sea level by continental drift; it was
raised
> > above sea level by isostatic rebound after the last Ice Age.
>
> How could these whale fossils be in such perfect condition if massive
rocks
> were being forced, and pulled away? Wouldn't that disturb the fossil?
No, for much the same reason everyone doesn't lose their balance and fall
over every time the continents move. Now let me turn the question back on
you: how could the whale fossil be in such perfect condition if it was
deposited there by an enormous catastrophic flood? Wouldn't that tear the
bones apart at the very least?
> > Essentially,
> > the weight of a moving glacier compresses the bedrock, and when the
> glacier
> > retreats, the surface "rebounds" (over geologic time intervals, of
> course),
> > rising back up, which caused the shallow sea where the whale died to
drain
> > off.
>
> I thought you said we weren't under water? Are you suggesting there was a
> small sea over parts of the U.S at one time?
Of course. Some areas that are now land were once sea, and vice versa;
that's what continental drift is all about. The evidence for this is easy to
recognize. For example, geologists do know that the Channeled Scablands in
Washington were once flooded by a huge (but local) deluge, based on evidence
such as giant ripple marks left as the waters drained off. But if the flood
had been global in extent, such evidence should be found all over the
planet, and it isn't.
> > Only the fossil was left behind. And, of course, don't forget that
> > radiocarbon dating has established the age of the specimen to a minimum
of
> > 10,000 years - far too long for a young-earth/global flood model.
> >
> > http://www.uvm.edu/whale//HowPreserved.html
>
> Perhaps no concept in science is as misunderstood as "carbon dating."
Almost
> everyone thinks carbon dating speaks of millions or billions of years.
But,
> carbon dating can't be used to date either rocks or fossils. It is only
> useful for once-living things which still contain carbon, like flesh or
bone
> or wood. Rocks and fossils, consisting only of inorganic minerals, cannot
be
> dated by this scheme.
This is true. However, I'd have to check my sources, but I do believe it's
possible to carbon-date things that have not entirely mineralized.
> Obviously, if half the C-14 decays in 5,730 years, and half more decays in
> another 5,730 years, by ten half-lives (57,300 years) there would be
> essentially no C-14 left. Thus, no one even considers using carbon dating
> for dates in this range. In theory, it might be useful to archaeology, but
> not to geology or paleontology. Furthermore, the assumptions on which it
is
> based and the conditions which must be satisfied are questionable, and in
> practice, no one trusts it beyond about 3,000 or 4,000 years, and then
only
> if it can be checked by some historical means.
And there are historical means by which it can be checked, such as
dendrochronology, lake bed varves and glacial ice cores. All agree, and all
conclusively rule out the young-earth model.
> Thus carbon dating says nothing at all about millions of years, and often
> lacks accuracy even with historical specimens, denying as it does the
truth
> of the great Flood.
Uh-huh. Carbon dating must be wrong because it disproves the global flood
model. That's creationist logic for you.
> In reality, its measured disequilibrium points to just
> such a world-altering event, not many years ago.
> http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-115b.htm
>
> Did glacier compressing bedrock cause the fossils to be exposed in the
cases
> of the whale 440ft. above sea level north of Lake Ontario? The one found
> 600ft. above sea level in the Montreal-Quebec area? Don't forget the one
in
> Diatomite, Lompoc, California.
> http://www.icr.org/research/as/drsnelling6.html
>
> For years, evolutionists have claimed that whales evolved from something
> like a wolf. But when they analyzed the DNA, whale DNA was closer to hippo
> DNA than wolf DNA. http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v3i11f.htm
Yes, there was a debate about that for some time; molecular evidence
indicated whales were a branch of the artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates like
horses, giraffes and hippos), while fossil evidence seemed to say whales
were descended from the mesonychids, primitive wolf-like carnivores. That
debate is now over. New fossils have been found that conclusively show the
ancestors of whales were mesonychids and not artiodactyls (and the two
groups are very similar anyway). The fossils and the genes now point to the
same conclusion.
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/nikaido.html details the fossil
evidence - just try to explain that nested hierarchy with creationism, btw.
;)
http://www.sciencenews.org/20010922/fob1.asp discusses the new
transitionals.
Adam Marczyk
> "Adam Marczyk" wrote..
>
> > You did not respond to my argument. "I don't think so, my figures were
> > accurate" doesn't cut it. Are my calculations flawed? If so, show where.
> If
> > not, you're just blindly denying. Your prediction of a constant 1.7%
> > population growth rate for 4000 years of human history predicts we
should
> > have a ludicrously huge population, considerably more human biomass than
> > there is material in the earth. (The earth weighs around 5.97 * 10^24
> > kilograms. Your numbers predict that there should be more humans alive
> than
> > kilograms of matter in the planet, by several orders of magnitude.) If
I'm
> > wrong, show me where I'm wrong.
>
> Okay...the sudy I posted was "one" possible explanation, but it was taken
> out of context, and this was my fault. I was using a 1.7% comparison for
> todays population growth, compared to the early years when Noah, and his
> extended family were having children. The 1.7% was not meant to carry on
> through the years. I have to clarify that, as you are correct if we use
that
> percentage. We would have too many people. This is the study I took that
> from, that points out clearly what I failed to do.
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~sjdando/worldpop.htm
That page says this:
"If Noah's family did exist 4400 years ago then the average population
increase has only been about 0.47% per year."
Okay, let's rerun our calculations with that rate of increase. This time,
let's try to establish the population at the time of the Exodus.
P = Po * (1 + r)^t
Po = 8
r = 0.0047
t = 1115 (from 2350 B.C. to 1235 B.C. - I'm using the later date to be
generous)
8 * (1 + 0.0047)^1115 = 1492 people.
That's 1,500 people alive *in the entire world* at the time the Exodus
supposedly happened. Your very own Bible flatly contradicts this, informing
us in Exodus 12:37 that 600,000 men alone, not counting women and children,
escaped from Egypt.
Care to rethink your numbers again?
[snip]
> > "It doesn't prove anything" is pure blind denial and handwaving. The
> global
> > flood simply cannot explain the features I described above. If the
> burrowing
> > animals moved in before the flood, their tunnels should run through the
> > turbidites as well as the shale. They don't. And nothing you cited comes
> > close to explaining how a catastrophic flood could produce delicate
> > depositional patterns of fast-forming layers interspersed with
> slow-forming
> > layers. The only possible explanation for this is a series of continual,
> > slow depositions over geologic time.
>
> Geological columns are often missing, and misplaced, so how can you hold
> firm to fossils proving evidence of time?
As explained above. The Haymond beds simply could not have been formed in a
short period of time. It defies all logic and common sense. The only
possible explanation is to assume some shale was gradually deposited,
animals moved in, established burrows and died (possibly in the same
catastrophic event that deposited the turbidites), then a new layer of shale
was deposited on top of that, and then the cycle repeats -- thousands of
times. No global flood model can possibly explain this evidence; only the
mainstream geological model can.
> > And the fact that shale is formed in water proves there was a global
> flood?
> > Uh-huh.
>
> shale noun [U]
> a type of soft grey rock, usually formed from hardened clay, which breaks
> easily into thin layers
>
> shale [shayl ] noun
> rock of dark sediment and clay: a dark fine-grained sedimentary rock
> composed of layers of compressed clay, silt, or mud
>
> The increasing recognition of catastrophic deposits has been accompanied
by
> recognition of other geological phenomena that may or may not be
> catastrophic, but show fascinating "worldwide uniformity". Ager (1981) in
> his book The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record describes features of
> specific parts of the geologic column that are found over very large
> geographic areas or even worldwide. For example, at the base of the
Cambrian
> there is a basal quartzite that is found "virtually everywhere", typically
> followed by orthoquartzite, then glauconitic sandstones, and then marine
> "shales" and thin limestones. http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr17_01.htm
> Shale is caused by water, and found all over the earth. Flood
Nowhere did I deny shale was formed in water. But you just went from "some
rocks are formed by water" to "the planet's entire surface was once under
water." That's a completely unsupportable leap of logic. I repeat, if a
global flood had happened, it would have left unmistakable evidence. BTW,
quartzite is a metamorphic rock. It's not formed by water, but by extreme
heat and pressure.
Here's something else you didn't consider. Limestone, it is true, is another
rock that is formed by water. However, the formation of limestone releases
heat - 11,290 joules per gram, to be precise. It is conservatively estimated
that in the geologic record there is 5 * 10^23 grams of limestone. If only
10% of this was formed in the flood, it would release on the order of 5.6 *
10^26 joules of heat. Any idea how much that is? Hint: It would vaporize all
the flood waters and turn the planet into an enormous pressure cooker. Noah
and his menagerie would have been boiled alive.
Hah! You're quoting Walt Brown? Not to be too vicious, but that guy lies
through his teeth. I've encountered that list in the past, and every single
item on it is either a blatant distortion or a flat-out falsehood. Allow me
to repost something I wrote on talk.origins a while back:
<quote>
I was intrigued by this list -- it looks like the creationists' best attempt
yet and, I'll admit, at first glance it looks difficult to challenge.
However, I maintained my skepticism upon hearing it came from Walt Brown's
website. This is the guy who claimed that two parts of the same frozen
mammoth gave dates tens of thousands of years discrepant according to C-14
dating, a claim that was later shown to be entirely untrue -- the two parts
in question came from different mammoths. And my skepticism grew when I
noted that most of the citations are either ridiculously out of date (some
date back to the 1800s!) or in incredibly obscure-sounding journals and
publications (Moscow Truth?). Since I don't have access to my university
library over summer break to check out the citations from Science, I got in
touch with one of the people cited on the list via e-mail: Stephen T.
Hasiotis of the University of Indiana, who is cited as the source for a
claim that "Petrified trees in Arizona's petrified forest contain fossilized
nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are supposedly
220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants which bees require)
supposedly evolved almost a hundred million years later."
This is what he said: "No problem for writing and asking about my research.
*Unfortunately, no one has spoken to me about my research and the quote for
personal communication is surely wrong.* [my emphasis] I may have spoken
with people not knowing there intent to make my work out to support
creationism, but I really have no idea. I have never said the the
"evolutionists' chronologies are wrong". I do know that the research I have
been doing sheds new light on the origins
of bees and wasps, but this says nothing about Creationism. Science is
constantly updating its knowledge about geologic, biologic, and evolutionary
events and ages--its sort of a book report written at one time, and then at
another, and another. My research points to evidence to support the early
emergence of bees (*not honey bees* [my emphasis again], but sweat bees) and
wasps (solitary and gregarious). My other research on crayfish fossils
turned up new evidence that shows crayfish were around 220 million years ago
in what is now North America--older work from the 1800's-1980's showed them
to be here only to about 55 million years ago (e.g., Hasiotis, 1993, 1999,
2000; Hasiotis and Mitchell, 1993; Hasiotis et al., 1993; Hasiotis and
Demko, 1996; 1998). As a Greek Orthodox, my opinion of Creationism and
Creation Scientists is rather dim. They focus not on the original
scriptures (hebrew, aramaic [sp?], and greek), but on some poor, incorrect,
and literal english interpretation. The purpose of Christ was for salvation
and a better way of life lead through good examples, not Bishop Usher's
counts of generations from old stories in the old testament, which by the
way was meant to prefigure the coming of Christ, not to tell us exactly how
things were done. Any Jewish rabbi worth his weight in salt can tell you
that! If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me anytime.
Cheers, Steve"
That seems to settle it. The person who's cited as the source of that
material denies ever having said it. In fact, he denies ever speaking to
Walt Brown. That claim is, plain and simple, a lie. I see no reason why any
of Brown's other claims should be given any greater credence.
</quote>
> This is from the Petrified Forest Site, and they quote: "This high dry
> tableland was once a vast floodplain crossed by many streams. To the
south,
> tall, stately pine-like trees grew along the headwaters. Crocodile-like
> reptiles; giant, fish-eating amphibians; and small dinosaurs lived among a
> variety of ferns, cycads, and other plants and animals that are known only
> as fossils today. The tall trees - Araucarioxylon, Woodworthia and
> Schilderia - fell and were washed by swollen streams into the floodplain.
> There they were covered...." Wow! How did they know all that? It's almost
> convincing. Right in line with evolutional thinking. Amazing!
> http://azuswebworks.com/az/painteddesert/
Did you have a point here or were you just expressing personal incredulity?
> Your turn....answer this:
>
> Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if
your
> theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why
> don't we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or
in
> the fossil record, or both?
Well, first off, let me note that you still have not attempted to explain
how the fossil record could contain such features as petrified footprints,
raindrop imprints and mud cracks if it was deposited by a global flood. I'll
leave that one open as my continuing challenge to you. How does the deluge
model explain that evidence?
Anyway, here's my answer to that:
The statement that "there should be billions of transitional fossils" is a
blatant misrepresentation. There are not "billions" of transitional fossils
for the same reason there are not "billions" of any kind of fossil: namely,
very few organisms fossilize. A few fossils deposited in a single strata
might represent millions of years of evolution. If every (or even most) of
the organisms that had ever lived fossilized, we would be up to our knees in
fossils. Nevertheless, there is not, as this question implies, a very small
number of fossils that may or may not be transitional. There are many
excellent, very complete and indisputably transitional series for many
modern organisms, including the whale series, the horse series, the
feathered theropod dinosaurs that trace the emergence of birds from
reptiles, the therapsid series that demonstrates in astounding fine-grained
detail the evolution of mammals from reptiles, and, yes, the hominid series
that shows the evolution of modern humans from primitive hominid ancestors.
What there is not, because of the imperfection of the fossil record, is a
transitional series leading up to *every* modern organism, but only
creationists would demand such an impossibly high standard of proof. No
scientist expects to find transitional series for every living creature, but
the ones we do have are extremely strong evidence in evolution's favor.
Particularly when these fossil series can be correlated with other evidence,
such as genetic nested hierarchies, vestigial structures, and homologous
structures shared among extant species.
Jason
forgive the intrusion, this is quite an interesting dicussion. But I
have a comment/observation:
Derek, are you attempting to prove the validiy of Creationism, or to prove that
it's merely possible? It seems that Adam will point out something that is
suggested by historic scientific data, only to have you point out that said
data is not 100% accurate. Obviously, with a subject like geology, it's never
100% because we never have all the information.
Furthermore, your link to the page about the population growth merely says
"Hence it's easily possible for the world population to have reached what it is
today within 4 thousand years." All it proves is that there were people on
earth 4400 years ago :)
anything is possible, and that seems to be all you're saying about creationism.
--
Jason