Alert: PBS Evolution Series
John P. Boatwright
>
> 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.
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
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
>
>
> 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 #1636
Minister, Universal Life Church
Completely pointless personal and work pages:
Http://users.aber.ac.uk/ggs98
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?"
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?
--
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"
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.
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.
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!!!
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?
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
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.
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
> 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
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
Derek
> Derek......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.
Where?
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>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?
The Great Plains (pretty much) was seabed at one time - the Great
Inland Sea, IIRC.
>> 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.
And dating any organic bits at the same layer as the fossil dates the
fossil as well.
>Obviously, if half the C-14 decays in 5,730 years, and half more decays in
>another 5,730 years
We're up to 11,460 years, which is perfectly adequate to date
something to 10,000 years, which disproves a 6,000 year old creation.
>Thus carbon dating says nothing at all about millions of years
Try rereading. Adam said 10,000 years. Other radiodating techniques
DO, however, extend the technique back a few billion years.
>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
And your point? They evolved from land animals.
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>Geological columns are often missing, and misplaced, so how can you hold
>firm to fossils proving evidence of time?
If a particular fossil is accurately dated at one place, it can be
used as a marker at another place. The sabertooth didn't become
extinct at widely different times at different locations, for
instance.
>> 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
How does that prove that there was a world-wide flood? Unless you
know of a particular single layer of shale that exists all over the
world?
>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.
At the same age level? No. So the flood occurred at different times
at different places, but is still a world-wide flood?
>> 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.
If you insist on using fraud as "proof", how can you expect to be
taken seriously?
>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?
Because almost no dead animals become fossilized - it takes special
conditions to keep the bones from being disturbed, yet cause them to
mineralize. And because we still haven't found all the fossils that
exist. (We probably haven't found more than a few percent of them.)
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>I wasn't aware until you mentioned it in an earlier message that this thread had
>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
Sure there is. There are MANY scientists who are Christian and who
accept that evolution occurs. Christians who can't accept evolution
are, for the most part, people who have no knowledge of the sciences
involved, but merely refuse to accept that the bible isn't literally
true.
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>In article <gqjsqt03lljorhbiu...@4ax.com>, Al says...
>>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.
If you're not interested in learning anything, and you're not
interested in a Christian vs. atheist battle, and you're not an
atheist, why are you posting to this thread? That you didn't start
the crosspost isn't an answer.
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
Especially since Bloaty is SO well educated. Two years of high
school, IIRC?
prab...@shamrocksgf.com
> "John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net> wrote in message
> news: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?
> Yep.
> I know what part of the horse's anatomy your imaginary being made you from!
Hey, HEY!!!! cut that OUT! we'll have NO insulting of poor innocent horses
(or mules or jackasses, for that matter)...even a slimemold would result in
a better clone than JPB...
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
proof: god hates Baptists and likes gays... http://morons.org/articles/3/359
-------------------------------
the illustrated bible:
http://www.consumptionjunction.com/crazycrap/view.asp?ID=5403
-------------------------------
http://truthordare.dyndns.org/t-or-d
Now, here's a little game that a lot of us played before a certain
over-rated bleached-blonde singer ever got the idea.
It's simple. It's titillating. It's childish. It's perfect!
And now it's updated for the Net.
-------------------------------
let the spammers put these in their databases....
tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com
ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com ab...@earthlink.com u...@ftc.gov
Rev Dirk Wobbly
news:q3quqtkfaf9p6rhll...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 00:21:20 GMT, eac...@mailSPAM.com (Yang) posted
> in alt.atheism:
>
> >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.
> >
> >You must be new here :-)
>
> Especially since Bloaty is SO well educated. Two years of high
> school, IIRC?
Prolly jes enuf edjekashun to reed the bible, eh? Thatz all ya kneed, rite?
The HECK with them durned tools of SATAN---sciense an filosofee. Oh, an ya
gotta no how to use the CAPS KEE an say HELL a lot!!
Rev Dirk Wobbly
satyr
>Perhaps no concept in science is as misunderstood as "carbon dating."
Certainly you creationists can't seem to figure it out.
> Almost
>everyone thinks carbon dating speaks of millions or billions of years.
"Everyone" being creationists and other scientific illiterates.
> 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.
And that is why carbon dating is only used on recent artifacts like the Shroud
of Turin.
> 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.
And that is why other radiometric dating methods which employ isotopes with much
longer half lives are used for those purposes.
> 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.
That is nonsense. Carbon dating is reliable to at least five times that long.
Problem is that there are not many suitable specimens that old. Because it tests
the actual once-living material of the sample, it is relatively easy to get a
testable sample as long as something is still there. Alas, not much organic
matter lasts 20,000 years.
For older geological samples, techniques employing isotopes of Argon, Lead,
Uranium and other elements are accurate out to at least several hundred million
years.
>Thus carbon dating says nothing at all about millions of years, and often
But your disingenuous argument speaks volumes about your credibility.
>lacks accuracy even with historical specimens, denying as it does the truth
>of the great Flood.
I see. If it disagrees with the Bible it is wrong by definition, requiring only
a specious explanation of why it is wrong.
> In reality, its measured disequilibrium points to just
>such a world-altering event, not many years ago.
Only to those who insist that the event happened regardless of evidence.
Derek
> 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.
Why are you using .04% from the time of 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?
Look...you can twist, and bend numbers all you want in a way that please
you. That's fine. You completely ignore this model below which are facts
from recent studies done this century:
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
Now...I'm sure if I posted these numbers above in support of creation, you
would take your calculator out, and twist them until they suited evolution.
It doesn't take a genius to look at them, and realize that 3900 years ago
there could be 8 people on earth. I merely stated that the model I posted
suggests it was possible. I will yet give you another one. Have you got your
calculater ready? http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-021.htm
> 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.
Do I dare say it is labeled a fossil anomaly? Probably not, I may be
infringing on all the evolutionists. Look...I've scoured the net, and my
books, and I can find only "one" reference to this particular claim that you
make, that has any detail at all. Only one! On the entire internet! You've
latched on to this one topic, and I have a strong suspicion you are aware
that there is not an abundance of information regarding the Haymond Beds.
These "beds" consisting of 15,000 alternating layers of sand and shale,"
that you think convincingly proves your case, does not! Just because I don't
have acces YET, to information in order to challenge your claim, does not
prove "convincingly" your case. I'm skeptical of that study. I can't trust
it, until I look at it further, and here's why:
Evolutional Hoaxes
Nebraska Man: How many skeletons do you think were found of Nebraska Man?
100? 50? 25? 10? How about one complete skeleton? How about half a skeleton?
Maybe 1/10 of a skeleton? Hold on, Nebraska man was reconstructed from a
single tooth! What is even more amazing--the tooth turned out to be a pig's
tooth! How could anyone be so gullible as to believe a man could be
reconstructed from a tooth? Yet many people placed their faith in Nebraska
man until the hoax was exposed.
Java Man: How many skeletons do you think were found of Java Man? 100? 50?
25? 10? How about one complete skeleton? How about half a skeleton? Java Man
was reconstructed from a skullcap, thighbone, and 2 molar teeth. Dr. Eugene
DuBois found the thighbone 50 feet away from the skullcap, but assumed it
was the same individual. After discovering human skulls at the same level
near his Java Man discovery, he hid the skulls under the floorboards of his
bedroom for 26 years. Before his death DuBois confessed that he had not
found the missing link and admitted that Java Man was probably a giant
gibbon.
Piltdown Man: In 1912 Charles Dawson reconstructed Piltdown Man out of a
jaw, 2 molar teeth, and a piece of skull. In 1953 the hoax was exposed. The
jawbone turned out to be that of a modern orangutan, the teeth had been
filed down and the bones artificially colored to deceive the public. For
over 40 years evolutionists promoted his findings as fact. The British
Museum has documented other discoveries by Dawson as being fakes. Imagine if
you lived during that time, placing your faith in evolution based upon
Dawson's findings. Wouldn't you be a little upset when you discovered the
truth?
Orce Man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as
the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later
officials admitted the skull fragment was not human, but probably came from
a 4-month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year
old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail
drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. ("Skull fragment
may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)
Boule's Neanderthal Man: Reconstructed in 1915. Marcellin Boule wrongly
arranged the foot bones so that the big toe diverged from the other toes to
look like an opposing thumb. The knee joint was misplaced to give a
bent-knee look. The spine was misshapen so it couldn't stand upright and the
head was placed in an unbalanced position too far forward.
Boule's model of Neanderthal man was placed on display in the Field Museum
of Natural History in Chicago for 44 years before the mistakes were
discovered! After the mistakes were disclosed, they kept it on display for
another 20 years until they created a new Neanderthal model. What did they
do with the old inaccurate model? Instead of throwing it in the garbage can
where it belonged, they moved it to the second floor of the museum and
displayed a new sign, "An Alternate View of Neanderthal." But it wasn't an
alternate view. It was a wrong view.
Date:
06/14/00
Subject:
The Archaeraptor Hoax
Update
In the November, 1999 issue of National Geographic the long awaited proof of
the dinosuar to bird connection, a fossil named archaeraptor, a feathered
dinosaur, was announced. Using great art work the claimed connection was
made to look very believable. All was great until January, 2000 when the
news broke that the archaeraptor was a hoax. A faker in China had pinned a
reptile's tail onto a fossil bird. National Geographic was so desparate for
any kind of evidence of a dinosaur to bird connection they didn't bother to
listen to evolutionists who expressed doubts about the validity of the
fossil. Evolutionist Storrs Olson, fossil bird expert from the Smithsonian
Institute, in an open letter to National Geographic excoriated them for
resorting to "sensationalistic, unsubstantiated tabloid journalism. He wrote
'National Geographic is not receiving competent consultation in certain
scientific matters. There is not one undisputed example of a dinosaur with
feathers. None. The public deserves to know this.'"
National Geographic promoted with great fanfare this "proof" of the dinosaur
to bird connection. You can be certain they will not take the same effort in
announcing that it was a hoax. This is just the latest in a long series of
hoaxes from the brontosaurus, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man and more that are
enthusiastically promoted as "proof" of evolution, then as quickly ignored
when shown to be frauds. Evolutionists promote this kind of "junk science"
in their desparation to find any kind of evidence for their religion of
evolution. The evidence is against them, biological and fossil, so with the
use of clever stories and great artwork they seek to convince the public of
a lie.
> 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.
This is what I said:
Snip
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
Snip
Shale is caused by water, and found all over the earth. Flood
Not quite what you claim.
> BTW,
> quartzite is a metamorphic rock. It's not formed by water, but by extreme
> heat and pressure.
You are wrong. Read the definition of quartzite, and metamorphism below.....
Main Entry: quartz.ite
Pronunciation: 'kwort-"sIt
Function: noun
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary
Date: circa 1847
: a compact granular rock composed of quartz and derived from sandstone by
metamorphism
- quartz.it.ic /kwort-'si-tik/ adjective
Main Entry: meta搶or搆hism
Pronunciation: -'mor-"fi-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1845
: a change in the constitution of rock; specifically : a pronounced change
effected by pressure, heat, and water that results in a more compact and
more highly crystalline condition
> > 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?
> Anyway, here's my answer to that:
>
> The statement that "there should be billions of transitional fossils" is a
> blatant misrepresentation.
Wrong. Estimation by some evolutionists state the earth to be 4.6 billion
years old. If you had 100 animals alive on earth for each 1 year of those 1
billion years, you would have 100 billion animal fossils. Where the
transitional forms?
>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.
Show me convincing evidence proving one species progressing into another.
> If every (or even most) of
> the organisms that had ever lived fossilized, we would be up to our knees
in
> fossils.
Your right....we aren't in up to our knees in fossils. We live on a young
earth, approx. 6000 years.
> Nevertheless, there is not, as this question implies, a very small
> number of fossils that may or may not be transitional.
You incorrectly quote me again. I said "questionable" transitions.
> 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.
Show me them. Does theropod resemble the archaeraptor hoax? The so-called
feathered dinasour falsely reported by National Geographic? ( 06/14/00 )
> 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.
This is one of the biggest obstacles evolutionists face! Don't blame it on
creationists.....other people want to see as well.
>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.
Where?
> 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.
Let's take a peak at the theory of vistigal structures, and homologous
structures below.
HOMOLOGIES, or COMPARATIVE ANATOMY
Evolutionists say that similarities in design (similar bone structure of
mammal's legs, bird's wings, etc.) show common ancestry. Creationists say
that these show the hand of a common creator. This argument carries almost
equal weight for both sides. It's a matter of choice. In any case, if there
were any truth in homologous structures showing common ancestry, those
homologies should be controlled by homologous genes, and micro-biologists
have found that this is not the case. The argument from homology is thus
fatally flawed.
VESTIGIAL ORGANS
At one time it was argued that the 150 or so organs thought to be vestigial
(that is, once useful for a previous stage of evolution, but now no longer
needed), indicated life had evolved from more primitive forms. For example,
our tonsils, appendixes, "tailbones," etc. were once thought to be useless
for humans. But there are now less than a dozen such organs for which the
function is not known. It's now concluded "there's no such thing as
vestigial organs." But we still see them sometimes mentioned in textbooks.
I'm not convinced yet. Nice try though :-)
Greg Shelley
>
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 06:01:21 GMT, "Derek" <ban...@telus.net> posted in
> alt.atheism:
>
>
> >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
>
> And your point? They evolved from land animals.
Fossils of which were anounced very recently, to which the
paleontologists replied "Oh, we were wrong and the molecular
scientists were right"
--
Greg #1636
Minister, Universal Life Church
Completely pointless personal and work pages:
Http://users.aber.ac.uk/ggs98
Elf Sternberg
Greg Shelley <gg...@aber.ac.uk> writes:
>Fossils of which were anounced very recently, to which the
>paleontologists replied "Oh, we were wrong and the molecular scientists
>were right"
Which is the way things *should* work, both in that scientists
admit they were wrong about something when better data comes in-- that's
science, after all-- and that the macro should correspond to the micro
which is its foundation and not expect things to be the other way
around.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
Testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this
world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.
-- Richard Dawkins
Adam Marczyk
> "Adam Marczyk" wrote..
>
> > 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.
>
> Why are you using .04% from the time of Exodus?
Because the page cites that as the average rate.
> > 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?
>
> Look...you can twist, and bend numbers all you want in a way that please
> you.
How interesting. Plugging the numbers you gave me into the standard equation
for exponential growth counts as "twisting and bending"? If you want
twisting and bending, go look at that ICR page you cited below and see how
they artificially and with no good justification jack their curve up right
after the flood supposedly happened, then jack it down again for most of
recorded history, then up again at the advent of modern civilization, and
then triumphantly proclaim that they've "proven" creationism by the
population growth argument.
> That's fine. You completely ignore this model below which are facts
> from recent studies done this century:
>
> 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
I think you're the one who's ignoring the trend here. Can you see any
pattern in these numbers? Like maybe population growth didn't really take
off until the last century when we began to make substantial advances in
agriculture and health care?
> Now...I'm sure if I posted these numbers above in support of creation,
you
> would take your calculator out, and twist them until they suited
evolution.
> It doesn't take a genius to look at them, and realize that 3900 years ago
> there could be 8 people on earth. I merely stated that the model I posted
> suggests it was possible.
So you've retreated from claiming the population growth argument proves
creationism to claiming it doesn't conclusively disprove it? Well enough.
But you're never going to get the kind of explosive growth creationists
think we should get until you have modern technology and medicine. It just
doesn't work.
> I will yet give you another one. Have you got your
> calculater ready? http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-021.htm
See above.
> > 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.
>
> Do I dare say it is labeled a fossil anomaly? Probably not, I may be
> infringing on all the evolutionists. Look...I've scoured the net, and my
> books, and I can find only "one" reference to this particular claim that
you
> make, that has any detail at all. Only one! On the entire internet!
And? Perhaps you should forego the Internet and go right to the
peer-reviewed scientific literature. The article I cited has an extensive
bibliography.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn
> You've
> latched on to this one topic, and I have a strong suspicion you are aware
> that there is not an abundance of information regarding the Haymond Beds.
> These "beds" consisting of 15,000 alternating layers of sand and shale,"
> that you think convincingly proves your case, does not! Just because I
don't
> have acces YET, to information in order to challenge your claim, does not
> prove "convincingly" your case.
The problem isn't that you don't have access to the information, the problem
is that the information does not exist. When I first brought this up, you
dragged out responses to it from several creationist sites. When I pointed
out that none of those responses could adequately explain the existence of
the Haymond beds at all, you got suddenly defensive. Interesting.
> I'm skeptical of that study.
And yet there's no skepticism whatsoever about the ICR's artificially
inflated and altered population growth curves, eh?
> I can't trust
> it, until I look at it further, and here's why:
>
> Evolutional Hoaxes
Oh, we're going to start poisoning the well now, huh?
> Nebraska Man: How many skeletons do you think were found of Nebraska Man?
> 100? 50? 25? 10? How about one complete skeleton? How about half a
skeleton?
> Maybe 1/10 of a skeleton? Hold on, Nebraska man was reconstructed from a
> single tooth! What is even more amazing--the tooth turned out to be a
pig's
> tooth! How could anyone be so gullible as to believe a man could be
> reconstructed from a tooth? Yet many people placed their faith in Nebraska
> man until the hoax was exposed.
"Many people"? Uh-huh. Nebraska Man's human ancestry was championed by one
overzealous scientist - just about everyone else doubted it from the
beginning - and was never published in peer-reviewed literature.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html
> Java Man: How many skeletons do you think were found of Java Man? 100? 50?
> 25? 10? How about one complete skeleton? How about half a skeleton? Java
Man
> was reconstructed from a skullcap, thighbone, and 2 molar teeth. Dr.
Eugene
> DuBois found the thighbone 50 feet away from the skullcap, but assumed it
> was the same individual. After discovering human skulls at the same level
> near his Java Man discovery, he hid the skulls under the floorboards of
his
> bedroom for 26 years. Before his death DuBois confessed that he had not
> found the missing link and admitted that Java Man was probably a giant
> gibbon.
Java Man is _Homo erectus_, which we can tell from skull size, and many
specimens of it are known. The claim that Dubois said Java Man was a gibbon
is fraudulent; the claim that he found further skulls and concealed them is
also fraudulent.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html
> Piltdown Man: In 1912 Charles Dawson reconstructed Piltdown Man out of a
> jaw, 2 molar teeth, and a piece of skull. In 1953 the hoax was exposed.
The
> jawbone turned out to be that of a modern orangutan, the teeth had been
> filed down and the bones artificially colored to deceive the public. For
> over 40 years evolutionists promoted his findings as fact. The British
> Museum has documented other discoveries by Dawson as being fakes. Imagine
if
> you lived during that time, placing your faith in evolution based upon
> Dawson's findings. Wouldn't you be a little upset when you discovered the
> truth?
Your source is erroneous. No one knows who forged Piltdown Man; it could
just as well have been a creationist seeking to embarrass evolutionists. The
claim that Piltdown Man was promoted as factual for 40 years is also
fraudulent; long before the hoax was discovered, it was well known that
Piltdown Man was a strange anomaly that did not fit with the rest of what we
knew about human evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piltdown.html
> Orce Man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed
as
> the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later
> officials admitted the skull fragment was not human, but probably came
from
> a 4-month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year
> old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very
detail
> drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. ("Skull
fragment
> may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)
"Probably"? Another fraudulent claim. What the fragment belonged to simply
has not been determined yet; some evidence suggests it is equine, other
evidence suggests it is human. The debate is ongoing.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_orce.html
> Boule's Neanderthal Man: Reconstructed in 1915. Marcellin Boule wrongly
> arranged the foot bones so that the big toe diverged from the other toes
to
> look like an opposing thumb. The knee joint was misplaced to give a
> bent-knee look. The spine was misshapen so it couldn't stand upright and
the
> head was placed in an unbalanced position too far forward.
> Boule's model of Neanderthal man was placed on display in the Field Museum
> of Natural History in Chicago for 44 years before the mistakes were
> discovered! After the mistakes were disclosed, they kept it on display for
> another 20 years until they created a new Neanderthal model. What did they
> do with the old inaccurate model? Instead of throwing it in the garbage
can
> where it belonged, they moved it to the second floor of the museum and
> displayed a new sign, "An Alternate View of Neanderthal." But it wasn't an
> alternate view. It was a wrong view.
Okay, so Boule was wrong. I thought we were discussing deliberate hoaxes
here?
> Date:
> 06/14/00
> Subject:
> The Archaeraptor Hoax
>
> Update
>
> In the November, 1999 issue of National Geographic the long awaited proof
of
> the dinosuar to bird connection, a fossil named archaeraptor, a feathered
> dinosaur, was announced. Using great art work the claimed connection was
> made to look very believable. All was great until January, 2000 when the
> news broke that the archaeraptor was a hoax. A faker in China had pinned a
> reptile's tail onto a fossil bird. National Geographic was so desparate
for
> any kind of evidence of a dinosaur to bird connection they didn't bother
to
> listen to evolutionists who expressed doubts about the validity of the
> fossil.
The very text you cited destroys your own argument. The scientific community
never fell for Archaeoraptor; no peer-reviewed articles were published about
it, and it was exposed as a fake very quickly. National Geographic, which is
not peer-reviewed, was overzealous and paid the price. This is an example of
how science works, if you hadn't noticed. And, again, no one knows who
forged Archaeoraptor. It could have been a creationist trying to embarrass
evolution.
> Evolutionist Storrs Olson, fossil bird expert from the Smithsonian
> Institute, in an open letter to National Geographic excoriated them for
> resorting to "sensationalistic, unsubstantiated tabloid journalism. He
wrote
> 'National Geographic is not receiving competent consultation in certain
> scientific matters. There is not one undisputed example of a dinosaur with
> feathers. None. The public deserves to know this.'"
He's another one of the Birds Are Not Dinosaurs crackpots - probably best to
ignore him. Those guys are nearly as good as creationists at denying what's
right in front of their faces.
> National Geographic promoted with great fanfare this "proof" of the
dinosaur
> to bird connection. You can be certain they will not take the same effort
in
> announcing that it was a hoax. This is just the latest in a long series of
> hoaxes from the brontosaurus, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man and more that are
> enthusiastically promoted as "proof" of evolution, then as quickly ignored
> when shown to be frauds.
Your claims are the ones that are fraudulent. The scientific method detected
all these frauds - evolutionists are the ones who exposed them, not
creationists.
> Evolutionists promote this kind of "junk science"
> in their desparation to find any kind of evidence for their religion of
> evolution. The evidence is against them, biological and fossil, so with
the
> use of clever stories and great artwork they seek to convince the public
of
> a lie.
What's this now? Unsubstantiated spouting off? Pointless ad hominem insults?
Sigh. Mind if we stick to the facts and dump the inflammatory rhetoric?
Water may be a part of it, but metamorphism requires conditions that no
global flood could possibly provide. From
http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol212/typesmetamorph.htm
"Metamorphism, therefore occurs at temperatures and pressures higher than
200 degrees C and 300 MPa."
> > > 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?
>
> > Anyway, here's my answer to that:
> >
> > The statement that "there should be billions of transitional fossils" is
a
> > blatant misrepresentation.
>
> Wrong. Estimation by some evolutionists state the earth to be 4.6 billion
> years old. If you had 100 animals alive on earth for each 1 year of those
1
> billion years, you would have 100 billion animal fossils.
You need to read what I said below. Fossilization is a very rare process
that occurs only under special conditions. The vast majority of creatures
that have ever lived do not fossilize.
> Where the transitional forms?
I'll get to them. Patience.
> >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.
>
> Show me convincing evidence proving one species progressing into another.
Oh, if that's all you want, we've seen it happen lots of times. No big deal.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
> > If every (or even most) of
> > the organisms that had ever lived fossilized, we would be up to our
knees
> in
> > fossils.
>
> Your right....we aren't in up to our knees in fossils. We live on a young
> earth, approx. 6000 years.
Did you expect your silly and unevidenced assertion to win you debate
points? There is no evidence whatsoever for a young earth.
> > Nevertheless, there is not, as this question implies, a very small
> > number of fossils that may or may not be transitional.
>
> You incorrectly quote me again. I said "questionable" transitions.
>
> > 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.
>
> Show me them. Does theropod resemble the archaeraptor hoax? The so-called
> feathered dinasour falsely reported by National Geographic? ( 06/14/00 )
As a matter of fact, they do, which is why the hoax wasn't discovered
immediately (though it was discovered very fast). Birds and small theropod
dinosaurs share so many morphological similarities that you can stick their
bones together and nothing will immediately leap out as being wrong except
to the most highly trained paleontologist's eye. Funny, isn't it?
Anyway, here's some links to a few of the many genuine feathered dinosaurs
we have:
Sinosauropteryx prima
http://dinosauricon.com/genera/sinosauropteryx.html
Sinornithosaurus millennii
http://dinosauricon.com/genera/sinornithosaurus.html
(for an illuminating account of Sinornithosaurus, see here:
http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/inspiration.html )
Caudipteryx zoui
http://www.terribleclaw.com/dinosaurs/caudipteryx.html
Microraptor zhaoianus
http://dinosauricon.com/genera/microraptor.html
Beipiaosaurus inexpectus
http://dinosauricon.com/genera/beipiaosaurus.html
> > 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.
>
> This is one of the biggest obstacles evolutionists face! Don't blame it on
> creationists.....other people want to see as well.
Those people will just have to be content with the transitional series we do
have.
> >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.
>
> Where?
Where what? Where do we have them? Probably in museums and such. Or did you
mean where can *you* see them?
Transition from fishes to first amphibians
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1
Transition from therapsid reptiles to first mammals
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm
Horse evolution
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/horses.html
Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
> > 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.
>
> Let's take a peak at the theory of vistigal structures, and homologous
> structures below.
>
> HOMOLOGIES, or COMPARATIVE ANATOMY
>
> Evolutionists say that similarities in design (similar bone structure of
> mammal's legs, bird's wings, etc.) show common ancestry. Creationists say
> that these show the hand of a common creator. This argument carries almost
> equal weight for both sides.
No, it doesn't, because the creationist model fails to explain why
homologies exist where there is no obvious reason for them to (for example,
between human arm bones, bat wings and whale flippers), or why they don't
exist where there *is* a reason for them to (whale flippers and fish fins,
for example).
> It's a matter of choice. In any case, if there
> were any truth in homologous structures showing common ancestry, those
> homologies should be controlled by homologous genes, and micro-biologists
> have found that this is not the case. The argument from homology is thus
> fatally flawed.
Um, conserved homeobox genes do indeed control basic development for a wide
variety of species.
> VESTIGIAL ORGANS
>
> At one time it was argued that the 150 or so organs thought to be
vestigial
> (that is, once useful for a previous stage of evolution, but now no longer
> needed), indicated life had evolved from more primitive forms. For
example,
> our tonsils, appendixes, "tailbones," etc. were once thought to be useless
> for humans. But there are now less than a dozen such organs for which the
> function is not known. It's now concluded "there's no such thing as
> vestigial organs." But we still see them sometimes mentioned in textbooks.
There are indeed such things as vestigial organs. Some of them do serve some
function, but they point to evolutionary origin nonetheless. For example,
the coccyx. Why did the creator make people with rudimentary tails? (Some
babies are born with actual tails.) Or the appendix. It serves no purpose
relating to digestion; the only thing it can do is get blocked, inflamed and
burst. That's a pretty dumb thing for a great designer to make, isn't it?
Or, if we step outside of humankind for a while, try the panda's thumb
(co-opted from wrist bones even though it had a perfectly good fifth
finger), or flightless beetles with useless wings sealed permanently under
their shells.
> I'm not convinced yet. Nice try though :-)
I'm still waiting to hear you explain how the global flood produced a fossil
record containing preserved raindrop imprints, footprints and mud cracks.
Adam Marczyk
Adam Marczyk <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:3bb09...@bingnews.binghamton.edu...
> Derek <ban...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:9hVr7.25937$9j.40...@news1.telusplanet.net...
> > "Adam Marczyk" wrote..
[snip]
> > You've
> > latched on to this one topic, and I have a strong suspicion you are
aware
> > that there is not an abundance of information regarding the Haymond
Beds.
> > These "beds" consisting of 15,000 alternating layers of sand and shale,"
> > that you think convincingly proves your case, does not! Just because I
> don't
> > have acces YET, to information in order to challenge your claim, does
not
> > prove "convincingly" your case.
>
> The problem isn't that you don't have access to the information, the
problem
> is that the information does not exist. When I first brought this up, you
> dragged out responses to it from several creationist sites. When I pointed
> out that none of those responses could adequately explain the existence of
> the Haymond beds at all, you got suddenly defensive. Interesting.
>
> > I'm skeptical of that study.
>
> And yet there's no skepticism whatsoever about the ICR's artificially
> inflated and altered population growth curves, eh?
>
> > I can't trust
> > it, until I look at it further, and here's why:
> >
> > Evolutional Hoaxes
>
> Oh, we're going to start poisoning the well now, huh?
Anyway, two can play at that game. Let's take a look at some notable lies,
distortions, misrepresentations and other deceptive tactics practiced by
prominent creationists:
Scientific Creationism and Error
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html
Details how prominent creationist Duane Gish has continued to repeat the
same demonstrably false claims over and over, despite being publicly
corrected numerous times.
Some Questionable Creationist Credentials
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Lists some prominent creationists whose degrees are irrelevant, honorary or
entirely fraudulent, obtained from unaccredited diploma-mill schools. (Kent
Hovind is probably the most infamous example.)
Sun Pictures and the Noah's Ark Hoax
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax.html
Describes the hoax carried out by Sun International Pictures in a
documentary purporting to prove that Noah's Ark had been found atop a
mountain in Turkey, when in fact the ark has never been located.
Creationist Whoppers
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html
Examples of more falsehoods told by Duane Gish, deceptive out-of-context
quotations by Henry Morris, and more.
Shouldn't you be wary about trusting people who have a well-known history of
bearing false witness? One would presume you would be skeptical of the
creationists as well.
[snip]
Jason
> I will yet give you another one. Have you got your
> calculater ready? http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-021.htm
this document is completely flawed. two examples:
--------
"Any numerical description of the development of the
human population cannot avoid conjecture, simply because there has never
been a census of all the people of the world ... The earliest date for
which the global population can be calculated with an uncertainty of only,
say 20 per cent is the middle of the 18th century. The next earliest time
for which useful data are available is the beginning of the Christian era,
when Rome collected information bearing on the number of people in various
parts of the empire."
---------
which pretty much admits that the population argument doesn't prove anything.
and second, my favorite:
---------
"For still earlier periods (than A.D. 1) the population
must be estimated indirectly from calculations of the number of people who
could subsist under the social and technological institutions presumed to
prevail at the time. Anthropologists and historians have estimated, for
example, that before the introduction of agriculture the world could have
supported a hunting and gathering culture of between five and ten million
people."1
Such guesses are useless, however, because they are
based on a discredited model, that of human evolution. The
creation-cataclysm model of earth history fits all the known facts of man's
history much better than the evolution model does2, and it
recognizes that man's agriculture and other basic technologies are
essentially as old as man himself.
----------
and then goes on to crunch numbers assuming there never were hunter/gatherer
people. So, basically, it's saying "to prove creationism, let's assume that
the creationism is right and compute some numbers based on that assumption.
Oh, look! the world could only be 4000 years old!"
hilarious...
Robert Templeton
news:vx6s7.603$pN2.3...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
What do you expect? Religious arguments, esp. creationist ones, nearly
always assume their conclusion and then proceed to "produce" evidence and
premises to support it. Religion is the opposite of reason and science.
Therefore, their approach makes sense (from an observational pov, mind you
;0)
Robert Templeton
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>Hey, HEY!!!! cut that OUT! we'll have NO insulting of poor innocent horses
>(or mules or jackasses, for that matter)...even a slimemold would result in
>a better clone than JPB...
Slime mold DID result in JPB, remember. And in the rest of us.