Ancient plants exposed
Ian St. John
http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2-13-1443_1803683,00.html
Ancient plants exposed
22/09/2005 08:00 - (SA)
A close-up image shows ancient moss on the melting glaciers in the Andes in
Peru, next to a black, felt-tip marker. (Lonnie Thompson, AP)
Ohio - When Lonnie Thompson started collecting ice samples from the world's
glaciers in the 1970s, people were abuzz about a coming ice age.
Since then, global warming has become more than an academic concept for the
Ohio State University professor. He's watched it.
"It's amazing how quickly the change has come," Thompson told The Associated
Press on Tuesday.
Some of his ice samples, kept in a Columbus freezer, within the next decade
could become all that's left of glaciers that help prevent flooding and
provide a steady water supply and hydroelectric power during the dry season
for many mountain and riverside communities worldwide.
"There are (South American) villages that the only source of water are the
glaciers," he said. Glaciers also form the headwaters of many great rivers -
the Amazon, the Ganges, the Yangtze.
"If you have a disruption in a climate system you will displace people, and
those people will have to go somewhere," Thompson said. "As our numbers
increase, we become more vulnerable to abrupt changes."
Global temperatures rose about one degree Fahrenheit in the 20th century,
and a UN-sponsored network of climate experts says they will keep rising so
long as carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and other gases keep
building up in the atmosphere, trapping heat like a greenhouse.
Preserved plants
Five years ago, Thompson predicted the ice cap of Mount Kilimanjaro in
Tanzania would disappear by 2015. In January he returns to check if the
prediction is on track, or if the ice is melting even faster. His team also
measures groundwater sources around the mountain to determine what affect
the missing ice will have.
Thompson just returned from a summer expedition to the Andes in Peru, where
the largest ice sheet in the tropics, Quelccaya, is retreating as fast as 33
centimetres a day.
His team again collected preserved plants up to 6 500 years old. He's been
collecting the mosses and grasses from a former wetland - a bit musty and
brown but with leaves and DNA intact - since a walk around a lake formed by
the rapidly melting glacier in 2002. The ice, right next to the plants when
he collected them, now can barely be seen in the distance.
Two botanists from the University of Texas confirmed that the plants were
found where they grew. The ice had not moved them, showing just how long
it's been since the ground has been bare.
'Gives perspective'
"That gives us a perspective on the retreat that we've been monitoring,"
Thompson said.
Thompson didn't set out in his career to sound warnings about the planet's
future. He drills cores from vast ice fields, where layers of snow can be
counted like tree rings and trap each year's air chemistry, pollen from
nearby plants, ash from volcanic eruptions and other snapshots of a climate.
He hoped to correlate climate changes with the rise and fall of
civilisations.
"The whole issue of recent climate change is a small part of what we
actually do here," he said, but an important part.
Global warming has already changed ways of life. Spruce trees are dying in
Alaska because the winters aren't cold enough to kill bark beetle eggs,
people who depend on fishing in Greenland can't get their sleds over ever
more slushy and dangerous ice fields, and scientists this summer debated
whether warming oceans are fuelling the increasing number of deadly storms
such as Hurricane Katrina.
p> On the net:
Steve Schulin
"Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.usa> wrote, in part:
> http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2-13-1443_1803683,00.html
> ...
> Five years ago, Thompson predicted the ice cap of Mount Kilimanjaro in
> Tanzania would disappear by 2015. ...
That sounds quite similar to expectations back in the 1970s. The notion
that CO2 emissions have had anything to do with the diminishing size of
Kilimanjaro is one of those "Icons of Calamitology" that continues to be
fashionable in some circles, and I suspect it's especially effective in
arousing feelings of righteous anger amongst some ignorant but
well-meaning folks.
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com/environment/climate_policy/default.html
March 17, 2005
Kilimanjaro - no link to global warming or CO2
...Kilimanjaro is five times higher than Ben Nevis. At an altitude of
nearly three miles, it is always below zero in temperature. The snow is
disappearing on Kilimanjaro, but not primarily because of so-called
global warming, and very few reputable scientists have ever claimed
otherwise. In other words, the Guardian front page on Monday was a
complete distortion of the truth.
Ernest Hemingway described Kilimanjaro's sublime snow crown as "wide as
all the world, great, high, and unbelievably white in the sun." I'm
sorry it has gone. But the process started long ago before modern
greenhouse gas emissions.
Records show that some time in the middle of the 19th century, the
equatorial regions of the planet grew much drier. Possibly this had to
do with deep-seated and complex variations in global wind and tide
patterns. Some historians also suggest that European colonial expansion
in Africa was aided by the ensuing famines that afflicted native
populations. Environmentally, the upshot was less moisture in the air.
But moisture is precisely what you need to freeze and add to your
mountaintop glacier.
In East Africa, recent research has found that after about 1880, local
lakes were drying up quickly as a result of these changes. Such lake
evaporation decreases the amount of precipitation and cloudiness around
Kilimanjaro. This produced a double whammy. Less precipitation robs the
glacier of the material it needs to grow. Worse, less cloud coverage
lets more sunlight filter through. The increase in sunlight (not
temperature) provides more energy for evaporation of the glacier -
something that started well over a century ago.
Because nothing is ever simple in climate change, we should note two
other factors that have added to the loss of Kilimanjaro's ice. First,
remember it is not really a mountain, but the caldera of an active
volcano that last erupted only a century ago. When scientists drilled
for ice-core samples in 2000, they found the interior of the glacier was
completely water-saturated: volcanic vents were heating the base of
Kilimanjaro's ice sheet and melting the bottom layer of ice. I look
forward to the G8 leaders having an active policy to discourage
volcanoes.
Is any human agency involved in the disappearing Kilimanjaro glacier?
The answer is, unfortunately, yes - but it is local. The Tanzanians have
been burning nearby forests. For example, honey collectors start fires
to try to smoke bees out of their hives. The resulting loss of foliage
causes reduced moisture in the atmosphere around Kilimanjaro, leading to
yet another round of reduced precipitation and cloud cover, further
increasing solar radiation and glacial evaporation.
The mechanics of the birth, growth and death of mountain glaciers is
highly complex and very long-term. Alas, the advent of the faddish
doctrine of catastrophism has coincided with the birth of our 24-hour
news culture and resulted in a very spurious vision of instantaneous
change. Kilimanjaro's glacier was born ... with the end of the last
great ice age, when the world actually got warmer. That warmth provided
the vital precipitation that let the ice form. The subsequent
disappearance of the ice has been a long-term, mostly natural phenomenon
- not the result of you driving the kids to school.
[Source: George Kerevan, "Sermon on the mount a global scare too far",
The Scotsman, March 17, 2005, p. 24]
Jonathan Kirwan
subject line that intentionally mangles the name of a field of study.
Not that I hadn't already made this decision about SS for other
reasons.
Jon
Steve Schulin
Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
> It's hard to care about reading any post that starts out with a
> subject line that intentionally mangles the name of a field of study. ...
I appreciate your voicing this. I'd like to stress that calamitology is
not a synonym for climatology. I'd be happy to hear how you would better
distinguish between objective climatology and alarmist calamitology?
> ...
> Not that I hadn't already made this decision about SS for other
> reasons.
If you can falsify the Bible's apparent young Earth description using
science, you'd be the first, as best I can tell. Dr. Grumbine recently
ranted about tree rings in this regard, but I notice that his criticism
did not seem to apply to my best Bible-based estimate of Creation dated
as occurring approximately 13,000 years ago.
>
> Jon
Jonathan Kirwan
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>In article <otrak1tv3jvrlclg8...@4ax.com>,
> Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
>> It's hard to care about reading any post that starts out with a
>> subject line that intentionally mangles the name of a field of study. ...
>
>I appreciate your voicing this. I'd like to stress that calamitology is
>not a synonym for climatology. I'd be happy to hear how you would better
>distinguish between objective climatology and alarmist calamitology?
I don't have a definition for that mangled name. And certainly no
idea what you mean by it.
>> ...
>> Not that I hadn't already made this decision about SS for other
>> reasons.
>
>If you can falsify the Bible's apparent young Earth description using
>science, you'd be the first, as best I can tell.
Right off the bat, you are acting out a lying game, SS. Science
already _has_ made a consensus statement on this subject and yet you
pretend in your statement here that it doesn't. It's not that science
doesn't already have a firm conclusion, it's that you don't accept
most of the weight of the evidence. You _must_ be not just picking
and choosing, but doing so in such a way as to completely decimate the
entire body of science. You would have to exclude so much, that what
remains is a paltry dribble.
As I said before, if you are willing to exclude so much, you could
_reasonably_ conclude that the earth is flat.
So what could possibly be the point in my trying to "falsify" your
biblical (easter bunny and tooth fairy) fantasies with science fact?
It would only be an exercise in finding out just how much of science
you don't understand well and reject. And I'm not terribly interested
in the details of that.
Of course, you could take this from another point of view, SS. You
might want to bother making a case of your own, I suppose. Ignoring
the bible, which you and I cannot possibly agree on in terms of its
value for telling us when the world was created, try and convince me
that the Earth _is_ within 10,000 years of being 13,000 years old.
Make a convincing argument that demonstrates a comprehensive use of
the better state of modern science to do so. Use science, use it
comprehensively so as not to cherry pick, be honest, and let's see
where that goes.
I won't hold my breath. And to be honest, it doesn't really matter.
All you need to do is to admit that you believe that modern science
theory and result doesn't exclude 13,000 years as a possibility and
you've already done all the damage anyone could hope to do towards any
idea that you understand science and can learn to apply it,
comprehensively. And you've admitted exactly that. QED.
>Dr. Grumbine recently
>ranted about tree rings in this regard, but I notice that his criticism
>did not seem to apply to my best Bible-based estimate of Creation dated
>as occurring approximately 13,000 years ago.
Nicely removed from the oldest direct tree-ring information, I see,
which in absolute terms only goes back to about 7900 BC or so and
might be extendable to 9400 BC if we loosen up just slightly on that.
I gather from this that counting tree rings is about the only thing in
science you agree with. I suppose this defines your level of abstract
reasoning.
Jon
Phil Hays
>If you can falsify the Bible's apparent young Earth description using
>science, you'd be the first, as best I can tell.
Why do you hide behind science when you clearly don't believe it?
Why do you hide behind young Earth creationism when you clearly don't
believe it?
What do you really believe, Steve Schulin?
Astrology?
Something else? Do tell.
--
Caution: Contents may contain sarcasm.
Phil Hays
Steve Schulin
Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Steve Schulin wrote:
>
> >If you can falsify the Bible's apparent young Earth description using
> >science, you'd be the first, as best I can tell.
>
> Why do you hide behind science when you clearly don't believe it?
Science is a method. I value it highly.
>
> Why do you hide behind young Earth creationism when you clearly don't
> believe it?
I don't know how old the Earth is. The Bible-based timeline that seems
most reasonable to me puts Creation at approximately 13,000 years ago.
When I look at dated data, I think about what assumptions are involved
in the dating, and the implications of those assumptions on the
interpretation of the data.
> What do you really believe, Steve Schulin?
>
> Astrology?
>
> Something else? Do tell.
I believe that God created man in His image and that He imbued us with
His Word. I believe that without His grace, none of us would be saved
from the wages of sin.
There was an article yesterday out of Oklahoma State University --
http://www.ocolly.com/new_ocollycom/new_site/read_story.php?a_id=28073
-- about Dr. Henry 'Fritz' Schaefer, the Graham Perdue professor of
Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum
Chemistry at the University of Georgia. My own views are consistent with
the following that he expressed: "A creator must exist; he must have
awesome power and wisdom; he has a loving nature; he requires justice as
he is just; we all fall short of the creator's standards; God made a way
to save us ..." There was an apparent typo in the article title when I
saw it this morning: I think the headline was meant to read Big Bang
where it said Big Band.
> --
> Caution: Contents may contain sarcasm.
> Phil Hays
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
Phil Hays
>Science is a method. I value it highly.
I doubt it.
> The Bible-based timeline that seems
>most reasonable to me puts Creation at approximately 13,000 years ago.
Did you apply the method of science to this question? Or astrology?
Eric Swanson
>
>In article <9rcbk1tloq1d2s6vr...@4ax.com>,
> Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Steve Schulin wrote:
>>
>> >If you can falsify the Bible's apparent young Earth description using
>> >science, you'd be the first, as best I can tell.
>>
>> Why do you hide behind science when you clearly don't believe it?
>
>Science is a method. I value it highly.
>
>>
>> Why do you hide behind young Earth creationism when you clearly don't
>> believe it?
>
>I don't know how old the Earth is. The Bible-based timeline that seems
>most reasonable to me puts Creation at approximately 13,000 years ago.
>When I look at dated data, I think about what assumptions are involved
>in the dating, and the implications of those assumptions on the
>interpretation of the data.
Once again, we see Nuke Schulin hand wave away the implications of his
Young Earth delusions. We know that there is a series of events which
happened over the geological history of the Earth. The "stack" of
sediments, lava flows, etc, show that those events happened in an ordered
sequence. Earth scientists have spent many man-years investigating this
record of events, constructing a time scale to these events based on
various measures of time, such as the decay of radio isotopes.
The Young Earth point of view is that the time scale is flawed because it
assumes a constant rate of decay. The Young Earth believers, such as Nuke,
question this assumption, usually by offering a different assumption, which
is, that the decay rate of radioactive isotopes has varied considerably,
such that the geologists 4.55 million year time scale can be compressed
into some short period, as little as 6,000 years. What they ignore is that
the geological stack represents real events and that these events have real
consequences. As I pointed out earlier, they ignore the fact that the
atmosphere has a small mass compared to the Earth. The real result of multiple
major volcanic eruptions happening on a daily basis would be a world much
different than what we now know, as the sulfate aerosols dumped into the
stratosphere would likely cause major cooling for the early period before the
radio isotope clock settles down. About the time of the so-called Flood event,
the Earth would likely have been cooled to the point of freezing the oceans,
from the surface to the bottom. How could a Flood event have occured with all
the water locked up as ice? How could people find anything to eat with the
Earth locked into a perpetual winter?
Come on, Nuke, tell us how your assumptions fit the available data....
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Kirwan
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>In article <9rcbk1tloq1d2s6vr...@4ax.com>,
> Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Steve Schulin wrote:
>>
>> >If you can falsify the Bible's apparent young Earth description using
>> >science, you'd be the first, as best I can tell.
>>
>> Why do you hide behind science when you clearly don't believe it?
>
>Science is a method. I value it highly.
I cannot imagine how you would value a methodology which produces so
much that you reject out of hand. You cannot possibly believe that it
is of any serious value and do that.
I doubt you value the method much at all.
>> Why do you hide behind young Earth creationism when you clearly don't
>> believe it?
>
>I don't know how old the Earth is. The Bible-based timeline that seems
>most reasonable to me puts Creation at approximately 13,000 years ago.
Your use of "most reasonable" says absolutely _nothing_ about your
reasoning, only about your internal state of mind.
>When I look at dated data, I think about what assumptions are involved
>in the dating, and the implications of those assumptions on the
>interpretation of the data.
><snip>
And, since you obviously have little respect for the theories and
results of science and cannot possibly have much respect for its
processes as a consequence, ... I'd suggest that you don't use
science, at all. In other words, you base your belief upon apocrypha
(in the small-a sense of the word) and then hand select out anything
that disagrees with it on the basis of something else entirely that
has nothing to do with the consensus results of science.
Jon
Lloyd Parker
Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>In article <9rcbk1tloq1d2s6vr...@4ax.com>,
> Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Steve Schulin wrote:
>>
>> >If you can falsify the Bible's apparent young Earth description using
>> >science, you'd be the first, as best I can tell.
>>
>> Why do you hide behind science when you clearly don't believe it?
>
>Science is a method. I value it highly.
>
>>
>> Why do you hide behind young Earth creationism when you clearly don't
>> believe it?
>
>I don't know how old the Earth is. The Bible-based timeline that seems
>most reasonable to me puts Creation at approximately 13,000 years ago.
So we have rocks on the earth older than the earth. We have fossils (life
forms) older than the earth. Gee, that would give any rational person pause.
Robert Grumbine
Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>>
>> Why do you hide behind young Earth creationism when you clearly don't
>> believe it?
>
>I don't know how old the Earth is. The Bible-based timeline that seems
>most reasonable to me puts Creation at approximately 13,000 years ago.
Which one is it (full cite please), and could you briefly describe
why this Biblical interpretation is more trustworthy than Bishop
Ussher's 6ky age and where the additional 7 ky came from?
Staying with tree rings and your Bible interpretations ...
Why does the tree ring record _not_ show Noah's flood? By Bible
chronologies I'm familiar with, the flood occurred 4-5 kya (2000-3000 BC).
Trees do notice (i.e., die) being under flood waters for extended periods.
While you're at it, which length of the flood do you prefer?
Thanks for the laugh earlier. Being referred to as ranting is
amusing coming from someone writing also about 'calamatologists'.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Robert Grumbine
Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:17:07 -0400, Steve Schulin
><steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>Dr. Grumbine recently
>>ranted about tree rings in this regard, but I notice that his criticism
>>did not seem to apply to my best Bible-based estimate of Creation dated
>>as occurring approximately 13,000 years ago.
>
>Nicely removed from the oldest direct tree-ring information, I see,
>which in absolute terms only goes back to about 7900 BC or so and
>might be extendable to 9400 BC if we loosen up just slightly on that.
13,300 years BP, so 11 ky BC:
Stuiver, Minze, et al, 1986. Radiocarbon age calibration back to 13,300
years BP and the 14 C age matching of the German Oak and US bristlecone
pine chronologies. IN: Calibration issue / Stuiver, Minze, et al.,
Radiocarbon 28(2B): 969-979.
Of course there are methods other than tree rings. But I'll stay there
for now.
>I gather from this that counting tree rings is about the only thing in
>science you agree with. I suppose this defines your level of abstract
>reasoning.
Wait and see.
Steve Schulin
swa...@notspam.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
> steve....@nuclear.com says...
> >
> >I don't know how old the Earth is. The Bible-based timeline that seems
> >most reasonable to me puts Creation at approximately 13,000 years ago.
> >When I look at dated data, I think about what assumptions are involved
> >in the dating, and the implications of those assumptions on the
> >interpretation of the data.
>
> Once again, we see Nuke Schulin hand wave away the implications of his
> Young Earth delusions. We know that there is a series of events which
> happened over the geological history of the Earth. The "stack" of
> sediments, lava flows, etc, show that those events happened in an ordered
> sequence. Earth scientists have spent many man-years investigating this
> record of events, constructing a time scale to these events based on
> various measures of time, such as the decay of radio isotopes.
>
> The Young Earth point of view is that the time scale is flawed because it
> assumes a constant rate of decay. The Young Earth believers, such as Nuke,
> question this assumption, usually by offering a different assumption, which
> is, that the decay rate of radioactive isotopes has varied considerably,
> such that the geologists 4.55 million year time scale ...
One interesting bit-of-info from the rocks is that the oldest volcanic
rocks are dated as much younger than the oldest non-volcanic rocks
(3.5-billion years vs 3.96-billion years). It's true that we might find
older volcanic specimens in the future, and it's possible that every
older volcanic rock has metamorphized. But the latter isn't considered
likely by anybody I've read. I'm not sure why you're so enamored of the
in-vogue interpretation of the geological stack.
> ... can be compressed
> into some short period, as little as 6,000 years. ...
The most Bible-based chronology I've seen puts Creation at approimately
13,000 years ago.
> ... What they ignore is that
> the geological stack represents real events and that these events have real
> consequences. As I pointed out earlier, they ignore the fact that the
> atmosphere has a small mass compared to the Earth. The real result of
> multiple
> major volcanic eruptions happening on a daily basis would be a world much
> different than what we now know, as the sulfate aerosols dumped into the
> stratosphere would likely cause major cooling for the early period before the
> radio isotope clock settles down. About the time of the so-called Flood
> event,
> the Earth would likely have been cooled to the point of freezing the oceans,
> from the surface to the bottom. How could a Flood event have occured with
> all
> the water locked up as ice? How could people find anything to eat with the
> Earth locked into a perpetual winter?
>
> Come on, Nuke, tell us how your assumptions fit the available data....
I find vulcanology to be a delightfully interesting field. There's much
I don't know, but it seems clear enough to me that your comments here,
if valid, could be demonstrated to be valid somehow by you without your
requesting any contribution by me. But, let's start with a basic
question: how many individual eruptions do I have to account for? I'd be
grateful to learn of some database you may know of or learn about in the
future.
Steve Schulin
Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Steve Schulin wrote:
>
> >Science is a method. I value it highly.
>
> I doubt it.
It's good to see you practicing skeptcism.
>
>
> > The Bible-based timeline that seems
> >most reasonable to me puts Creation at approximately 13,000 years ago.
>
> Did you apply the method of science to this question? Or astrology?
Which question?
> --
> Caution: Contents may contain sarcasm.
> Phil Hays
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
Jonathan Kirwan
wrote:
>In article <m49bk19jhbc4gsuu7...@4ax.com>,
>Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:17:07 -0400, Steve Schulin
>><steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>Dr. Grumbine recently
>>>ranted about tree rings in this regard, but I notice that his criticism
>>>did not seem to apply to my best Bible-based estimate of Creation dated
>>>as occurring approximately 13,000 years ago.
>>
>>Nicely removed from the oldest direct tree-ring information, I see,
>>which in absolute terms only goes back to about 7900 BC or so and
>>might be extendable to 9400 BC if we loosen up just slightly on that.
>
> 13,300 years BP, so 11 ky BC:
>
>Stuiver, Minze, et al, 1986. Radiocarbon age calibration back to 13,300
>years BP and the 14 C age matching of the German Oak and US bristlecone
>pine chronologies. IN: Calibration issue / Stuiver, Minze, et al.,
>Radiocarbon 28(2B): 969-979.
This is, I assume, about counting tree rings and provides an absolute
chronology?
I was gathering my (potentially incorrect) information from one source
only: H. Kitagawa* and J. van der Plicht, "Atmospheric Radiocarbon
Calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late Glacial Fluctuations and
Cosmogenic Isotope Production", Science, Vol 279, Feb 20, 1998. They
cite the tree-ring calibration data summarized in a special issue in
M. Stuiver, A. Long, R. S. Kra, Eds., Radiocarbon 35 (1993). All of
that is post 1986.
Thanks for the source. I'll try and track down a copy as well as the
one from Radiocarbon 35.
>Of course there are methods other than tree rings. But I'll stay there
>for now.
Okay.
>>I gather from this that counting tree rings is about the only thing in
>>science you agree with. I suppose this defines your level of abstract
>>reasoning.
>
> Wait and see.
:)
Jon
Phil Hays
>Phil Hays wrote:
>> Steve Schulin wrote:
>> > The Bible-based timeline that seems
>> >most reasonable to me puts Creation at approximately 13,000 years ago.
>>
>> Did you apply the method of science to this question? Or astrology?
>
>Which question?
The age of the universe.
Robert Grumbine
Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 17:18:20 -0000, bo...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <m49bk19jhbc4gsuu7...@4ax.com>,
>>Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:17:07 -0400, Steve Schulin
>>><steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>Dr. Grumbine recently
>>>>ranted about tree rings in this regard, but I notice that his criticism
>>>>did not seem to apply to my best Bible-based estimate of Creation dated
>>>>as occurring approximately 13,000 years ago.
>>>
>>>Nicely removed from the oldest direct tree-ring information, I see,
>>>which in absolute terms only goes back to about 7900 BC or so and
>>>might be extendable to 9400 BC if we loosen up just slightly on that.
>>
>> 13,300 years BP, so 11 ky BC:
>>
>>Stuiver, Minze, et al, 1986. Radiocarbon age calibration back to 13,300
>>years BP and the 14 C age matching of the German Oak and US bristlecone
>>pine chronologies. IN: Calibration issue / Stuiver, Minze, et al.,
>>Radiocarbon 28(2B): 969-979.
>
>This is, I assume, about counting tree rings and provides an absolute
>chronology?
That's my understanding, but not based on reading the paper itself.
>
>I was gathering my (potentially incorrect) information from one source
>only: H. Kitagawa* and J. van der Plicht, "Atmospheric Radiocarbon
>Calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late Glacial Fluctuations and
>Cosmogenic Isotope Production", Science, Vol 279, Feb 20, 1998. They
>cite the tree-ring calibration data summarized in a special issue in
>M. Stuiver, A. Long, R. S. Kra, Eds., Radiocarbon 35 (1993). All of
>that is post 1986.
>
>Thanks for the source. I'll try and track down a copy as well as the
>one from Radiocarbon 35.
The 45 ky are from carbon in lake varves, right?
Please do let me know. As always, of course, there's the matter
that a data set may only make the developer happy for a certain span,
but be 'ok' for a longer period.
Lloyd Parker
Sounds like you and Bishop Usher can't agree.
Jonathan Kirwan
wrote:
Almost. I'll quote them: "The floating varve chronology was
connected to the old part of the absolute tree ring chronology by 14C
wiggle matching, resulting in an absolute calendar age covering the
time span from 8830 to 37,930 cal yr B.P. The age beyond 37,930 cal yr
B.P. is obtained by assuming a constant sedimentation in the Glacial."
> Please do let me know. As always, of course, there's the matter
>that a data set may only make the developer happy for a certain span,
>but be 'ok' for a longer period.
Yes.
Jon
Eric Swanson
So, where do those zircons come from which are dated at 4.55 x 10^9 years?
>> ... can be compressed
>> into some short period, as little as 6,000 years. ...
>
>The most Bible-based chronology I've seen puts Creation at approimately
>13,000 years ago.
The compression period would have started at that date and been finished by
the flood, at about 4000 BP, a difference of 9,000 or so years, MOL. Somehow,
according to the YE chronology, esentially all the events in the stack occur
within that 9k years. But, Nuke, do you believe, accept or agree that this
is the age of the Earth, or are you just playing the debate game again?
>> ... What they ignore is that
>> the geological stack represents real events and that these events have real
>> consequences. As I pointed out earlier, they ignore the fact that the
>> atmosphere has a small mass compared to the Earth. The real result of
>> multiple
>> major volcanic eruptions happening on a daily basis would be a world much
>> different than what we now know, as the sulfate aerosols dumped into the
>> stratosphere would likely cause major cooling for the early period before the
>> radio isotope clock settles down. About the time of the so-called Flood
>> event,
>> the Earth would likely have been cooled to the point of freezing the oceans,
>> from the surface to the bottom. How could a Flood event have occured with
>> all
>> the water locked up as ice? How could people find anything to eat with the
>> Earth locked into a perpetual winter?
>>
>> Come on, Nuke, tell us how your assumptions fit the available data....
>
>I find vulcanology to be a delightfully interesting field. There's much
>I don't know, but it seems clear enough to me that your comments here,
>if valid, could be demonstrated to be valid somehow by you without your
>requesting any contribution by me. But, let's start with a basic
>question: how many individual eruptions do I have to account for? I'd be
>grateful to learn of some database you may know of or learn about in the
>future.
I once saw a book in a store that listed a large number of eruptions with
their magnitudes and dates. My point, though, was that all of them must
be considered. The actual dates wouldn't make much difference, given the
compression ratio of 4.5 x10^9 to 9x10^3 or 500,000:1 on average. For
example, a volcanic event with a magnitude expected only once in 1,000 years
on the present historical time scale, suddenly has a return frequency of 500
per year, or more than one per day. Or, the extremely rare once in 100 million
year asteroid impact would happen every 45 years. An assessment of the
geological record which counted all such events found in the record would
provide more accurate times between various big events. The little, 100 year
return events, such as Pinatubo, El Chichon, Krakatoa or Tambora, would be lost
in the noise. All this gets even worse if a shorter time is considered, as
would result with a YE dated about 6,000 yers BP.
Steve Schulin
Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Steve Schulin wrote:
> >Phil Hays wrote:
> >> Steve Schulin wrote:
> >> > The Bible-based timeline that seems
> >> >most reasonable to me puts Creation at approximately 13,000 years ago.
> >>
> >> Did you apply the method of science to this question? Or astrology?
> >
> >Which question?
>
> The age of the universe.
The 13,000-year figure I cited was not a product of the scientific
method.
Jonathan Kirwan
Of course not. You don't respect that method much.
Jon
Science Cop
So show the same scrulous details that science people do, and show
exactly how this number is part of your most tenaciously held beliefs.
How was the number produced? Why couldn't it be 13,000, or 1,300? What
is the method that produces this number in enough details that a reader
would know themselves by following you method to arrive at this
ballpark?
Science Cop
So show the same scruplous details that science people do, and show
Phil Hays
> Phil Hays wrote:
>
>> Steve Schulin wrote:
>> >Phil Hays wrote:
>> >> Steve Schulin wrote:
>> >> > The Bible-based timeline that seems
>> >> >most reasonable to me puts Creation at approximately 13,000 years ago.
>> >>
>> >> Did you apply the method of science to this question? Or astrology?
>> >
>> >Which question?
>>
>> The age of the universe.
>
>The 13,000-year figure I cited was not a product of the scientific
>method.
So then why have you not applied the scientific method to the question
of the age of the universe? It is a method you value highly, so you
claim.
Eric Swanson
>
>In article <steve.schulin-2B8...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, steve....@nuclear.com says...
>>
>> swa...@notspam.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>>> steve....@nuclear.com says...
>>> >
>>> >I don't know how old the Earth is. The Bible-based timeline that seems
>>> >most reasonable to me puts Creation at approximately 13,000 years ago.
>>> >When I look at dated data, I think about what assumptions are involved
>>> >in the dating, and the implications of those assumptions on the
>>> >interpretation of the data.
>>> Come on, Nuke, tell us how your assumptions fit the available data....
>>
>>I find vulcanology to be a delightfully interesting field. There's much
>>I don't know, but it seems clear enough to me that your comments here,
>>if valid, could be demonstrated to be valid somehow by you without your
>>requesting any contribution by me. But, let's start with a basic
>>question: how many individual eruptions do I have to account for? I'd be
>>grateful to learn of some database you may know of or learn about in the
>>future.
>
>I once saw a book in a store that listed a large number of eruptions with
>their magnitudes and dates. My point, though, was that all of them must
>be considered. The actual dates wouldn't make much difference, given the
>compression ratio of 4.5 x10^9 to 9x10^3 or 500,000:1 on average. For
>example, a volcanic event with a magnitude expected only once in 1,000 years
>on the present historical time scale, suddenly has a return frequency of 500
>per year, or more than one per day. Or, the extremely rare once in 100 million
>year asteroid impact would happen every 45 years. An assessment of the
>geological record which counted all such events found in the record would
>provide more accurate times between various big events. The little, 100 year
>return events, such as Pinatubo, El Chichon, Krakatoa or Tambora, would be lost
>in the noise. All this gets even worse if a shorter time is considered, as
>would result with a YE dated about 6,000 yers BP.
After some thought, I would add that the once in 1,000 year list might include
Tambora and Kuwae, with Krakatoa, Huaynaputina and Santorini reperesenting a bit
more frequent class of large eruptions.
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/
Here's a list of large Holocene (the last 10,000 years on the geological time
scale) eruptions:
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm
A rough count of the page indicates 585 events over 10,000 years.
Steve Schulin
Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Steve Schulin wrote:
> > Phil Hays wrote:
> >
> >> Steve Schulin wrote:
> >> >Phil Hays wrote:
> >> >> Steve Schulin wrote:
> >> >> > The Bible-based timeline that seems
> >> >> >most reasonable to me puts Creation at approximately 13,000 years ago.
> >> >>
> >> >> Did you apply the method of science to this question? Or astrology?
> >> >
> >> >Which question?
> >>
> >> The age of the universe.
> >
> >The 13,000-year figure I cited was not a product of the scientific
> >method.
>
> So then why have you not applied the scientific method to the question
> of the age of the universe? It is a method you value highly, so you
> claim.
When it comes to assumptions used in interpreting data, I value the Word
of God even more highly than I do any other.
> --
> Caution: Contents may contain sarcasm.
> Phil Hays
Very truly,
Stee Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
Steve Schulin
"Science Cop" <scien...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Steve Schulin wrote:
> > Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > ...
> > > The age of the universe.
> >
> > The 13,000-year figure I cited was not a product of the scientific
> > method.
> > ...
> So show the same scruplous details that science people do, and show
> exactly how this number is part of your most tenaciously held beliefs.
> How was the number produced? Why couldn't it be 13,000, or 1,300? What
> is the method that produces this number in enough details that a reader
> would know themselves by following you method to arrive at this
> ballpark?
I've posted reference several times here, and am happy to do so again.
It is quite replicable, every step of the way:
Harold Camping, "The Biblical Calendar of History"
It's available on the web at
click on "English"
click on "Literature Online"
click on "Biblical Calendar of History"
You can directly access the frame with summary chart showing dates at
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U21D351FB
which is a shortcut to
http://209.10.202.163/graphical/literature/calendar/calendar_02.html#sec0
1
Steve Schulin
lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote, in part:
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> >...
> >The most Bible-based chronology I've seen puts Creation at approimately
> >13,000 years ago.
>
> Sounds like you and Bishop Usher can't agree.
Well, if he were alive today, perhaps he'd change his mind.
Jonathan Kirwan
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>> Sounds like you and Bishop Usher can't agree.
>
>Well, if he were alive today, perhaps he'd change his mind.
Well spoken, SS. Almost a quote from Galileo's own writings, in fact,
in a section of "The Assayer." Okay, I'll chalk up a point for you,
much as I may be loathe to do it.
Jon
Science Cop
only has to do with human lineages starting from a certain date. There
is nothing on that page which gives any conclusive data about the age
of the Earth or the Universe.
What I "know" is that there are some preceeding "days", which "can be
like 1,000 years" to the lord. There's nothing either way that these
days are 24 hours or 1000 exact years each or they might be 500,000,000
million years more or less, or not equal length periods at all.
>From the chronology table there are purported witnesses (except for the
opening scene of JOB) who might have supplied data. Prior to this
chronology there are no witnesses mention whatsoever.
What kind of science-person swallows data without any pedigree of
where it came from and who generated the data and how to verify the
data by independent means?
This is not even similar to science. It is "SUPERSTITION" not even
based on holy writ -- pure plucked out of the buttocks fresh wet and
stinking, covered with flies. In fact, I suspect it comes straight from
the Lord of the Flies.
Phil Hays
> Phil Hays wrote:
>> So then why have you not applied the scientific method to the question
>> of the age of the universe? It is a method you value highly, so you
>> claim.
>When it comes to assumptions used in interpreting data, I value the Word
>of God even more highly than I do any other.
Then would this be true about global climate change as well?
So then, what does the Word of God say about climate change? No use
measuring temperatures if it is already Known.
Steve Schulin
bo...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
> In article <steve.schulin-D45...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> >In article <9rcbk1tloq1d2s6vr...@4ax.com>,
> > Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> >>
> >> Why do you hide behind young Earth creationism when you clearly don't
> >> believe it?
> >
> >I don't know how old the Earth is. The Bible-based timeline that seems
> >most reasonable to me puts Creation at approximately 13,000 years ago.
>
> Which one is it (full cite please), and could you briefly describe
> why this Biblical interpretation is more trustworthy than Bishop
> Ussher's 6ky age and where the additional 7 ky came from?
Thank you for asking. It's a nice change from your previous impostures.
Harold Camping's "The Biblical Calendar of History" is the reference
I've cited here over the years. As to your question of where the
additional years come from compared to Ussher's estimate, let me first
note that the two scholars use different approaches with very important
implications. Camping's approach allows the Bible to provide all the
necessary data between Creation and birth of Christ. Ussher did not
think this was possible. His work was an attempt to integrate a wide
variety of sources. Ussher settled on year 710 of the Julian calendar as
Creation year because he believed there was a calibration point between
scripture and secular history. Scripture, he said, specified that
Nebuchadnezar died 3442 years after Creation. The best reading of the
secular record, he said, put Nebuchadnezar's death at 562 years before
Christian era.
That said, the big increase in years in Camping's Bible-based chronology
is a result of differences in the relationship seen between the
consecutively listed patriarchs. If you treat each of the listed men as
fathering the next, you'll come up with a shorter timeline than if new
patriarchs were descendants (but not sons), selected for inclusion to
denote a new era. Camping notes that some of the begatting relationships
were, for example, accompanied explicitly by one man naming the next. In
these cases, Camping cites reason to conclude that these _were_
father-son relationships. But in other cases, begatting is not
accompanied by one man naming the next.
When you ask about "trustworthy", I'd like to stress that it's God whom
I trust. If you mean to ask why I prefer Camping's interpretation to
Ussher's, well, there's many reasons. I'll mention two simple ones: (1)
Camping's approach accounts for the difference between begat and
begat-and-named; (2) Ussher's chronology seems contradictory to the
Bible (Usher's calendar shows that Israel was in Egypt for 215 years.
But Exodus 12 specifies 430 years).
Harold Camping's "The Biblical Calendar of History" is available on the
web at
click on "English"
click on "Literature Online"
click on "Biblical Calendar of History"
You can directly access the frame with summary chart showing dates at
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U21D351FB
which is a shortcut to
http://209.10.202.163/graphical/literature/calendar/calendar_02.html#sec0
1
>
> Staying with tree rings and your Bible interpretations ...
>
> Why does the tree ring record _not_ show Noah's flood? By Bible
> chronologies I'm familiar with, the flood occurred 4-5 kya (2000-3000 BC).
> Trees do notice (i.e., die) being under flood waters for extended periods.
> While you're at it, which length of the flood do you prefer?
Using Camping's method, the flood of Noah's day occurred about 7,000
years ago. I do think you're right about trees dying in such a flood. I
recall the Bible describes Noah's family spending a long time in the
ark. I don't, however, recall offhand the various Bible particulars
relevant to flood duration.
>
> Thanks for the laugh earlier. Being referred to as ranting is
> amusing coming from someone writing also about 'calamatologists'.
Well, I sure hope no one is misled by the misspelling of the word here,
which should be calamitologists -- the root being calamity. As to your
previous rant, I merely note that you've already amply demonstrated that
it was indeed a rant.
Steve Schulin
"Science Cop" <scien...@sbcglobal.net> wrote, in part:
> ...
> This is not even similar to science. ...
That faith is nothing like the scientific method has long been
acknowledged in this thread and others. I was happy to answer your
questions as to exactly how the approximately 13,000-year figure was
calculated. I do not expect you or anyone else to share my faith. And
none of my criticisms of the alarm about CO2 are based on my religious
beliefs. Of the numerous replies in this Kilimanjaro subthread, I notice
that nobody has mentioned Kilimanjaro.
RayLopez99 @evilfucker.com
Steve Schulin wrote:
> In article <1128815585....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Science Cop" <scien...@sbcglobal.net> wrote, in part:
>
> > ...
> > This is not even similar to science. ...
>
> That faith is nothing like the scientific method has long been
> acknowledged in this thread and others. I was happy to answer your
> questions as to exactly how the approximately 13,000-year figure was
> calculated. I do not expect you or anyone else to share my faith. And
> none of my criticisms of the alarm about CO2 are based on my religious
> beliefs. Of the numerous replies in this Kilimanjaro subthread, I notice
> that nobody has mentioned Kilimanjaro.
Why should we discuss your attempted lies about Kilimanjaro? The whole
thread started by a criminal forger identity-thief David Naugler, who
shares moral values with you on lying whenever it suits you, they you
are first reply to his deception signed by a deception? What's to talk
about except how did you go to being a son of the Father of Lies by
reading the Bible?
Liars caught lying is the first clue to make some distance between
yourself and them. You join them. You ARE them.
Steve Schulin
Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
Well, I haven't noticed anything in the Bible which helps in
interpreting temperature measurement records or evaluating the various
projections about climate change. It's sure possible that there's
something I've missed so far in that regard
> --
> Caution: Contents may contain sarcasm.
> Phil Hays
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
Eric Swanson
For one who is big on questioning assumptions, I suggest you should think
seriously about Camping's chronology. It's foundation is the number of years
of life experienced by various personalities in the Old Testament. But, what
exactly was a "year" to the people in those days?
Given that their world view problably was something like the Earth was the
Center of the Universe, with the sun appearing every day, it is quite likely
that they had no understanding of the fact that the Earth revolves around the
Sun to define the meaning of" year". If this point of view includes the notion
that the Sun revolves around the Earth once a day, but the Moon takes longer,
about 28 days, then the word for "year" most likely described the lunar cycle
of 13 Moons for each Solar year as we now understand it. The life based
chronology with people living 600, 700, or 800 such lunar "years" would actually
describe lives of only 46, 53 or 61 Solar years, life spans are rather close
to those found in primative societies without the benefits of modern medical
intervention. One should note that other societies, such as the American
Indians, have historical notions based on Lunar periods.
Nuke, I think you guys need to check your assumptions against reality.
Phil Hays
> Phil Hays wrote:
>> Steve Schulin wrote:
>> > Phil Hays wrote:
>> >> So then why have you not applied the scientific method to the question
>> >> of the age of the universe? It is a method you value highly, so you
>> >> claim.
>> >When it comes to assumptions used in interpreting data, I value the Word
>> >of God even more highly than I do any other.
>> So then, what does the Word of God say about climate change? No use
>> measuring temperatures if it is already Known.
>Well, I haven't noticed anything in the Bible which helps in
>interpreting temperature measurement records or evaluating the various
>projections about climate change. It's sure possible that there's
>something I've missed so far in that regard
I think you missed mentioning a few items. You can Know that any
paleoclimatology beyond 13,000 years ago is wrong. Even less than
that, correct? When was the Flood by your reckoning? Any record that
goes beyond the flood data must also be wrong, so tree rings, ice
cores, lake bottom varves, ocean floor sediments, and all sort of
other geologic records must be Known to be Wrong because of your
interpretation of the Word of God.
That "helps in evaluating the various projections about climate
change" by removing a large fraction of the knowledge we have about
climate change from discussion. The rest you ignore by astrology.
Phil Hays
See correction below
>Steve Schulin wrote:
>> Phil Hays wrote:
>>> Steve Schulin wrote:
>>> > Phil Hays wrote:
>
>>> >> So then why have you not applied the scientific method to the question
>>> >> of the age of the universe? It is a method you value highly, so you
>>> >> claim.
>
>>> >When it comes to assumptions used in interpreting data, I value the Word
>>> >of God even more highly than I do any other.
>
>>> So then, what does the Word of God say about climate change? No use
>>> measuring temperatures if it is already Known.
>
>>Well, I haven't noticed anything in the Bible which helps in
>>interpreting temperature measurement records or evaluating the various
>>projections about climate change. It's sure possible that there's
>>something I've missed so far in that regard
>
>I think you missed mentioning a few items. You can Know that any
>paleoclimatology beyond 13,000 years ago is wrong. Even less than
>that, correct? When was the Flood by your reckoning? Any record that
>goes beyond the flood
, that
Steve Schulin
swa...@notspam.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
> For one who is big on questioning assumptions, I suggest you should think
> seriously about Camping's chronology. It's foundation is the number of years
> of life experienced by various personalities in the Old Testament. But, what
> exactly was a "year" to the people in those days?
>
> Given that their world view problably was something like the Earth was the
> Center of the Universe, with the sun appearing every day, it is quite likely
> that they had no understanding of the fact that the Earth revolves around the
> Sun to define the meaning of" year". If this point of view includes the
> notion
> that the Sun revolves around the Earth once a day, but the Moon takes longer,
> about 28 days, then the word for "year" most likely described the lunar cycle
> of 13 Moons for each Solar year as we now understand it. The life based
> chronology with people living 600, 700, or 800 such lunar "years" would
> actually
> describe lives of only 46, 53 or 61 Solar years, life spans are rather close
> to those found in primative societies without the benefits of modern medical
> intervention. One should note that other societies, such as the American
> Indians, have historical notions based on Lunar periods.
>
> Nuke, I think you guys need to check your assumptions against reality.
Hi Eric -
Thanks for expressing your interest. Would you be surprised to learn
that the issue you raise has been the subject of much interest over the
years, including back when Ussher was researching the history of the
world?
Steve Schulin
Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
The role of paleoclimatic findings in the current alarm about CO2 and
climate is interesting. If you ever notice that my religious views
interfere with any particulars I discuss, I hope you won't be shy about
pointing it out. You are fundamentally correct that I do not embrace the
old ages which many scholars, of sound mind and good will, consider
overwhelmingly worthy of intellectual embrace. Some are clear enough
thinkers to understand that their views include assumptions which remain
unproven.
Eric Swanson
Expressing my interest? Just checking your assumptions. Is the shorter Usher
time line based on statistically derived life spans computed from some sort of
historical sample? Is it plausable to assume that people living on Earth
several thousand years ago were so different that they lived about 13 times
longer in orbital years as we find in today's populations of the Third World?
Or, is the assumption that these people actually lived very long lives beyond
discussion based on your belief that the Bible is the Ultimate Truth?
Steve Schulin
swa...@notspam.net (Eric Swanson) wrote, in part:
> steve....@nuclear.com says...
> > swa...@notspam.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
> >
> >> ...what exactly was a "year" to the people in those days?
> >> ...
> >> Nuke, I think you guys need to check your assumptions against reality.
> >
> >Thanks for expressing your interest. Would you be surprised to learn
> >that the issue you raise has been the subject of much interest over the
> >years, including back when Ussher was researching the history of the
> >world?
>
> Expressing my interest? Just checking your assumptions. ...
Gee whiz Eric, if you weren't interested in some aspect, would you have
posted?
> ... Is the shorter Usher time line based on statistically derived life
> spans computed from some sort of historical sample? ...
No.
> ... Is it plausable to assume that people living on Earth
> several thousand years ago were so different that they lived about 13 times
> longer in orbital years as we find in today's populations of the Third World?
There is a lot of wiggle room in our understanding of aging and whatnot.
I've read that 98% of our DNA is viewed as having no function (junk DNA
is a popular term for it). There was an event described in the Bible as
the fall. I don't pretend to understand what natural changes occurred at
that time.
> Or, is the assumption that these people actually lived very long lives beyond
> discussion based on your belief that the Bible is the Ultimate Truth?
Beyond discussion? Not at all. I am very grateful to live in a nation
where folks are free to discuss such things without governmental
repression. And the steady stream of interest by others in my religious
beliefs may even have some good aspects that counter the off-topic
burden. For example, Profs. Grumbine and Parker may stop using he
6,000-year figure as Gospel.
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
P.S. CHINA: Executed for Distributing Bibles
by The Voice of the Martyrs
When 34-year old Jiang Zongxiu went to her neighboring market last June
in Guizhou Province, China. Along with her mother-in-law, Jiang went
through the marketplace, taking opportunities to hand out Bibles and
Christian literature and telling people about Jesus. Only this day they
had an encounter with the Chinese police.
The two Christian women were handcuffed together and brought to the
police station. They were interrogated throughout the evening of the
17th. The next morning they were sentenced by the Public Security Bureau
(PSB) to 15 days incarceration for "suspected spreading of rumor and
disturbing the social order."
Jiang and her mother-in-law knew the risk of spreading Christian
literature in communist China. Both had been active in their church for
more than 10 years and dared to go forth. Even when they were arrested,
interrogated and sentenced to serve 15 days, they were willing to accept
the consequences of their actions - all from a government that claims to
have "freedom of religion."
But it was not enough for the PSB to arrest and beat these two Christian
women for the crime of passing our Christian literature. In the
afternoon of June 18th, Mrs. Jiang Zongziu was pronounced dead by the
PSB office of Tongzi County. They claimed she died of "natural causes."
The fact is she was beaten to death.
The Voice of the Martyrs has received video testimony from the surviving
family, photos of Jiang body showing her bruised body, and a copy of the
actual arrest document. All of this had to be smuggled out of China as
the authorities continue to attempt to hide their systematic persecution
of Christians. An international campaign is now under way on behalf of
the surviving family.
Much of the world would like you to believe Christians are no longer
persecuted. Sister Jiang's family would disagree. Now you can stay
informed of what is really happening to your Christian brothers and
sisters in countries like China and even discover practical ways to
help, with a FREE subscription to The Voice of the Martyrs monthly
newsletter. Don't turn your back on today's persecuted church. Subscribe
today.
Sign up for a free Voice of the Martyrs monthly newsletter! --
http://www.persecution.com
Melchizedek
Steve Schulin wrote:
> There is a lot of wiggle room in our understanding of aging and whatnot.
> I've read that 98% of our DNA is viewed as having no function (junk DNA
> is a popular term for it). There was an event described in the Bible as
> the fall. I don't pretend to understand what natural changes occurred at
> that time.
There is NO junk DNA. It is a careless expression used by someone
unfamiliar with the requirements that DNA has a 3-D structure involving
many folds and has to have do-nothing-fillers in strategic places so
that genes can be accessible at the surface instead of buried deep
inside a tangled ball.
While the do-nothing-fillers do nothing about making proteins, which is
the only function DNA does at all, they DO SOMETHING about making the
3-D shape exactly so.
Again the horse's azz talking about science when he denies there was
any period of time before Biblical Adam except "six undefined lengths
of time euphemistically called days".
Schulin doesn't accept atomic decay rates as true, despite geiger
counters to show him it is true, despite photographic emulsions to show
it is true, yet he thinks he understand nuclear waste disposal science.
Phil Hays
>The role of paleoclimatic findings in the current alarm about CO2 and
>climate is interesting.
The LPTM, for example. A 60,000 year long period of geologic history
about 55 million years ago that is good analog of what the future will
hold for our great grand children, if we burn fossil fuels without
limit, and trigger the release of much of the methane hydrates frozen
under the ocean floors. Interesting, if tropical rainforests above
the Arctic Circle interest you. Do they?
Of course, you can't discuss it honestly without pointing out that
your opinion of the Word of God limits history to 13,000 years... And
that your opinion trumps all evidence.
> If you ever notice that my religious views
>interfere with any particulars I discuss, I hope you won't be shy about
>pointing it out. You are fundamentally correct that I do not embrace the
>old ages which many scholars, of sound mind and good will, consider
>overwhelmingly worthy of intellectual embrace. Some are clear enough
>thinkers to understand that their views include assumptions which remain
>unproven.
Are you a clear enough thinker to understand that your assumptions
about the Word of God are unproven?
Steve Schulin
Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Steve Schulin wrote:
>
> >The role of paleoclimatic findings in the current alarm about CO2 and
> >climate is interesting.
>
> The LPTM, for example. A 60,000 year long period of geologic history
> about 55 million years ago that is good analog of what the future will
> hold for our great grand children, if we burn fossil fuels without
> limit, and trigger the release of much of the methane hydrates frozen
> under the ocean floors. Interesting, if tropical rainforests above
> the Arctic Circle interest you. Do they?
>
> Of course, you can't discuss it honestly without pointing out that
> your opinion of the Word of God limits history to 13,000 years... And
> that your opinion trumps all evidence.
Well, I've many times enjoyed it when my partner or myself played a
trump card in the game of bridge, but I'm not sure what you find
analogous in my choice not to embrace other's assumptions in
interpreting data.
As for honest discussions, I've had no problems in discussing other data
which is commonly interpreted through the lens of an old Earth (such as
one of the earlier icons of Calamitology -- Fig 2 in the 1990 IPCC
summary for policymakers). Another example: discussions of whether
Milankovitz cycles can be fit as well to the data as some have claimed.
As for LTPM, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading papers discussing It in
the past and look forward to seeing how AR4 assesses it. The data which
shows carbon spike seems unambiguous.
> > If you ever notice that my religious views
> >interfere with any particulars I discuss, I hope you won't be shy about
> >pointing it out. You are fundamentally correct that I do not embrace the
> >old ages which many scholars, of sound mind and good will, consider
> >overwhelmingly worthy of intellectual embrace. Some are clear enough
> >thinkers to understand that their views include assumptions which remain
> >unproven.
>
> Are you a clear enough thinker to understand that your assumptions
> about the Word of God are unproven?
Sure.
> --
> Caution: Contents may contain sarcasm.
> Phil Hays
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
Robert Grumbine
Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>In article <11kdb70...@corp.supernews.com>,
> bo...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
>
>> In article <steve.schulin-D45...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>> >In article <9rcbk1tloq1d2s6vr...@4ax.com>,
>> > Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> >>
>> >> Why do you hide behind young Earth creationism when you clearly don't
>> >> believe it?
>> >
>> >I don't know how old the Earth is. The Bible-based timeline that seems
>> >most reasonable to me puts Creation at approximately 13,000 years ago.
>>
>> Which one is it (full cite please), and could you briefly describe
>> why this Biblical interpretation is more trustworthy than Bishop
>> Ussher's 6ky age and where the additional 7 ky came from?
>
>Thank you for asking. It's a nice change from your previous impostures.
Gracious as ever.
>Harold Camping's "The Biblical Calendar of History" is the reference
>I've cited here over the years.
Publisher and year would be helpful.
Is this the same Harold Camping who wrote _1994?_ and
_Are You Ready?_ (the latter I have a copy of, published in 1993
by Vantage Press, NY)
If so, he's rather more precise than your vague comments about
'about 13 ky' in response to questions of the age of the earth -- 11,013 BC.
The flood is at 4990 BC by his chronology.
On the other hand, his methodology includes filling those gaps
you mention so as to get numerologically 'good' figures. The problem
with that was illustrated when the world did not end 11 years ago.
It was supposed to end at 13,000 years of age exactly, and, by
Camping's (or this Camping, perhaps your guy is a different fellow
by the same name) efforts that was to be 1988 or 1994. (1988 was,
apparently, when the judgement on the church began, for the 1994 end
of the world.)
Since his version extends pre-Christ chronology by 7000 years over
Ussher's 4000 years, there's quite a lot of gap-filling going on
unconstrained by chronological information within the Bible. (In
the book I have, he's clear about his methog being to match up
numeric patterns that he feels are significant. But there isn't
direct statement in the Bible that these patterns are indeed
significant.)
[snip]
>Harold Camping's "The Biblical Calendar of History" is available on the
>web at
>
>http://www.familyradio.com
Ok. Same Camping.
[snip]
>> Staying with tree rings and your Bible interpretations ...
>>
>> Why does the tree ring record _not_ show Noah's flood? By Bible
>> chronologies I'm familiar with, the flood occurred 4-5 kya (2000-3000 BC).
>> Trees do notice (i.e., die) being under flood waters for extended periods.
>> While you're at it, which length of the flood do you prefer?
>
>Using Camping's method, the flood of Noah's day occurred about 7,000
>years ago. I do think you're right about trees dying in such a flood. I
>recall the Bible describes Noah's family spending a long time in the
>ark. I don't, however, recall offhand the various Bible particulars
>relevant to flood duration.
There are two different durations, depending on which sections you
read. One is well over a year.
Many problems with the flood as a literal event, whether 4-5 kya or
7 kya. But, to stay with tree rings, why did the flood not create a
gap in the tree ring record? We do have a continuous record to well
before 7 kya.
But it's interesting that you seem to use calamitologist as a
derogatory term, while, at the same time, promoting the work of
someone who writes books on the end (imminent at the time of writing)
of the world.
[snip]
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Robert Grumbine
Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 20:32:19 -0000, bo...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <11kdk1pmke7j8ntkg...@4ax.com>,
>>Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 17:18:20 -0000, bo...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <m49bk19jhbc4gsuu7...@4ax.com>,
>>>>Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:17:07 -0400, Steve Schulin
>>>>><steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>>I was gathering my (potentially incorrect) information from one source
>>>only: H. Kitagawa* and J. van der Plicht, "Atmospheric Radiocarbon
>>>Calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late Glacial Fluctuations and
>>>Cosmogenic Isotope Production", Science, Vol 279, Feb 20, 1998. They
>>>cite the tree-ring calibration data summarized in a special issue in
>>>M. Stuiver, A. Long, R. S. Kra, Eds., Radiocarbon 35 (1993). All of
>>>that is post 1986.
>>>
>>>Thanks for the source. I'll try and track down a copy as well as the
>>>one from Radiocarbon 35.
>>
>> The 45 ky are from carbon in lake varves, right?
>
>Almost. I'll quote them: "The floating varve chronology was
>connected to the old part of the absolute tree ring chronology by 14C
>wiggle matching, resulting in an absolute calendar age covering the
>time span from 8830 to 37,930 cal yr B.P. The age beyond 37,930 cal yr
>B.P. is obtained by assuming a constant sedimentation in the Glacial."
Ah. Thanks.
Steve Schulin
bo...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote, in part:
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> > bo...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
> >> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> >> > Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> Why do you hide behind young Earth creationism when you clearly don't
> >> >> believe it?
> >> >
> >> >I don't know how old the Earth is. The Bible-based timeline that seems
> >> >most reasonable to me puts Creation at approximately 13,000 years ago.
> >>
> >> Which one is it (full cite please), and could you briefly describe
> >> why this Biblical interpretation is more trustworthy than Bishop
> >> Ussher's 6ky age and where the additional 7 ky came from?
> >
> >Thank you for asking. It's a nice change from your previous impostures.
>
> Gracious as ever.
I was truly glad to see the change. Your previous public comments about
me, including when I'm not participating in thread, have never hinted at
such an unfamiliarity, on your part, of any particulars of my beliefs.
> >Harold Camping's "The Biblical Calendar of History" is the reference
> >I've cited here over the years.
>
> Publisher and year would be helpful.
I hope you found the URL and frame navigation directions, for the full
text of the reference, I provided to be as helpful as was intended. I've
only seen it online.
> Is this the same Harold Camping who wrote _1994?_ and
> _Are You Ready?_ (the latter I have a copy of, published in 1993
> by Vantage Press, NY)
I see you later conclude that it is the same. I've heard of some of the
books he's written, and have read much of one released online a year or
two ago.
> If so, he's rather more precise than your vague comments about
> 'about 13 ky' in response to questions of the age of the earth -- 11,013 BC.
> The flood is at 4990 BC by his chronology.
Well, I've several times over the years here provided link showing the
specifics, as I was happy to do for you in this thread. I regret if my
vagueness in any way misled anyone. And I'll surely keep your comment in
mind when considering how to express my beliefs if the matter comes up
in future posts.
> On the other hand, his methodology includes filling those gaps
> you mention so as to get numerologically 'good' figures...
There are no gaps when you consider the difference in language between
begat and begat-and-called-his-name. If there were any other methods of
interpreting the Bible which yielded no gaps, I would be happy to learn
of it.
> ... The problem
> with that was illustrated when the world did not end 11 years ago.
You seem to be mixing apples and oranges.
> It was supposed to end at 13,000 years of age exactly, and, by
> Camping's (or this Camping, perhaps your guy is a different fellow
> by the same name) efforts that was to be 1988 or 1994. (1988 was,
> apparently, when the judgement on the church began, for the 1994 end
> of the world.)
Camping was wrong. I didn't read his book, but I did hear him discuss
the matter quite regularly on his "Open Forum" radio show, before and
after the year he had identified. As best I recall, he never claimed it
was a certainty he was right about the year, BTW, and he explained his
methodology and assumptions quite forthrightly.
> Since his version extends pre-Christ chronology by 7000 years over
> Ussher's 4000 years, there's quite a lot of gap-filling going on
> unconstrained by chronological information within the Bible. ...
You seem as if you don't understand where the bulk of the difference
comes from. I refer you to the portions of my previous post which you
snipped, or you can find it by reading the reference I provided, and
about which you asked for more info.
> ... (In
> the book I have, he's clear about his methog being to match up
> numeric patterns that he feels are significant. But there isn't
> direct statement in the Bible that these patterns are indeed
> significant.)
I've listened to his reasoning, and followed it up by studying the
Bible. I think Camping is on the right track, and perhaps right on
target in most of the ideas I've examined. The
http://www.familyradio.com website has audio archives of his weeknight
call-in show, "Open Forum". I highly recommend it to folks who are
interested in learning more about the Bible.
>
> [snip]
>
> >Harold Camping's "The Biblical Calendar of History" is available on the
> >web at
> >
> >http://www.familyradio.com
>
> Ok. Same Camping.
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Staying with tree rings and your Bible interpretations ...
> >>
> >> Why does the tree ring record _not_ show Noah's flood? By Bible
> >> chronologies I'm familiar with, the flood occurred 4-5 kya (2000-3000 BC).
> >> Trees do notice (i.e., die) being under flood waters for extended periods.
> >> While you're at it, which length of the flood do you prefer?
> >
> >Using Camping's method, the flood of Noah's day occurred about 7,000
> >years ago. I do think you're right about trees dying in such a flood. I
> >recall the Bible describes Noah's family spending a long time in the
> >ark. I don't, however, recall offhand the various Bible particulars
> >relevant to flood duration.
>
> There are two different durations, depending on which sections you
> read. One is well over a year.
>
> Many problems with the flood as a literal event, whether 4-5 kya or
> 7 kya. But, to stay with tree rings, why did the flood not create a
> gap in the tree ring record? We do have a continuous record to well
> before 7 kya.
As I mentioned prior, I think you're right about trees dying in such a
flood. As for why today's best estimates of tree ages include some which
are older than flood, I note the possibility of dating error, even by
the most skilled researchers using the most reliable tools.
> But it's interesting that you seem to use calamitologist as a
> derogatory term, while, at the same time, promoting the work of
> someone who writes books on the end (imminent at the time of writing)
> of the world.
> ...
Glad to prompt your interest. The similarities of Calamitology and
religion are abundant, IMHO. Do you also find it interesting that it was
your post which asked me for source, and that my forthright answer is
now portrayed as promoting the source?
Phil Hays
> Phil Hays wrote:
>> The LPTM, for example. A 60,000 year long period of geologic history
>> about 55 million years ago that is good analog of what the future will
>> hold for our great grand children, if we burn fossil fuels without
>> limit, and trigger the release of much of the methane hydrates frozen
>> under the ocean floors. Interesting, if tropical rainforests above
>> the Arctic Circle interest you. Do they?
>>
>> Of course, you can't discuss it honestly without pointing out that
>> your opinion of the Word of God limits history to 13,000 years... And
>> that your opinion trumps all evidence.
>
>Well, I've many times enjoyed it when my partner or myself played a
>trump card in the game of bridge, but I'm not sure what you find
>analogous in my choice not to embrace other's assumptions in
>interpreting data.
I'm writing this "no trump".
>As for honest discussions, I've had no problems in discussing other data
>which is commonly interpreted through the lens of an old Earth
Your opinion. You have also had no problem presenting astrology as
science. Again, in your opinion.
>As for LTPM, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading papers discussing It in
>the past and look forward to seeing how AR4 assesses it. The data which
>shows carbon spike seems unambiguous.
Yet you know that LPTM never happened. For 55 million years ago was
far, far before the Creation of the Earth in 11000BC. Your trump
card. The LPTM must have been an odd event during the Flood, right?
For almost all geology must be compressed to fit into the Events you
Know Happened, like the Universal Flood. Evidence doesn't count.
Unless it is in the trump suit.
Steve Schulin
Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
Phil, I'm sorry for you if you don't understand that there's a
difference between data and assumptions. It's true enough that I think
the Bible is clear in portraying a young Earth. Yet I acknowledge that I
might be wrong, and the posts I've made over the years on climate
science are not dependent upon my unscientific presumptions.
Your oft-voiced conclusion that I present astrology is silly. Are you
still under the misconception that use of the irrational number known as
phi -- or calling it "The Golden Number" or "The Golden Ratio" or "The
Golden Section" or even "The Divine Ratio" -- is some tipoff that
astrology is being presented? You still owe your readers an apology for
that repeated error of yours.
Steve Schulin
"Melchizedek" <Melch...@USA.com> wrote:
> Steve Schulin wrote:
>
> > There is a lot of wiggle room in our understanding of aging and whatnot.
> > I've read that 98% of our DNA is viewed as having no function (junk DNA
> > is a popular term for it). There was an event described in the Bible as
> > the fall. I don't pretend to understand what natural changes occurred at
> > that time.
>
> There is NO junk DNA. ...
I'll send you a bumper sticker, if you'd like: "God don't make no junk".
Send SSA envelope to:
"God don't make no junk" offer
nuclear.com
PO Box 5807
Rockville MD 20855
USA
I don't have any pre-printed, so please don't expect it too soon.
> ... It is a careless expression used by someone
> unfamiliar with the requirements that DNA has a 3-D structure involving
> many folds and has to have do-nothing-fillers in strategic places so
> that genes can be accessible at the surface instead of buried deep
> inside a tangled ball.
>
> While the do-nothing-fillers do nothing about making proteins, which is
> the only function DNA does at all, they DO SOMETHING about making the
> 3-D shape exactly so.
I think it's clear that the term "junk DNA" is indeed a misnomer. And
it's also clear that there has been functionality of at least some of
the so-called junk demonstrated, and not just to position the
approximately 2% known as coding DNA.
> Again the horse's azz talking about science when he denies there was
> any period of time before Biblical Adam except "six undefined lengths
> of time euphemistically called days".
>
> Schulin doesn't accept atomic decay rates as true, despite geiger
> counters to show him it is true, despite photographic emulsions to show
> it is true, yet he thinks he understand nuclear waste disposal science.
Be sure to prominently include the word kook on any correspondence to
get the bumper sticker.
Phil Hays
>As for honest discussions, I've had no problems in discussing other data
>which is commonly interpreted through the lens of an old Earth (such as
>one of the earlier icons of Calamitology -- Fig 2 in the 1990 IPCC
>summary for policymakers).
Yet you believe this "lens" to be false. You are writing things you
think are false. Your discussions are at best hypothetical. Do you
really believe in anything at all, or are you just discussing young
Earth creationism in a different hypothetical "lens"?
You may have no problem writing something along this line. But as
someone who has read what you write, I'm often been left with the
feeling you were actively trying to mislead. Or to be plain, that you
were lying. Is this a problem for you?
Robert Grumbine
Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>In article <11kdb70...@corp.supernews.com>,
> bo...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
>
>> In article <steve.schulin-D45...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>> >In article <9rcbk1tloq1d2s6vr...@4ax.com>,
>> > Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>When you ask about "trustworthy", I'd like to stress that it's God whom
>I trust. If you mean to ask why I prefer Camping's interpretation to
>Ussher's, well, there's many reasons. I'll mention two simple ones: (1)
>Camping's approach accounts for the difference between begat and
>begat-and-named; (2) Ussher's chronology seems contradictory to the
>Bible (Usher's calendar shows that Israel was in Egypt for 215 years.
>But Exodus 12 specifies 430 years).
More on Camping ...
[by the way, I'm only quoting from Christian sites. Nobody would expect
other religions to be overfond of a particular Christian interpretation.]
This is long, but it was such fascinating reading to see what
there was regarding Camping's age of the earth that I'll place it
here. Back to Schulin's points downthread.
It appears that outside of his own ministry, Camping is considered
an extremly poor guide to or interpreter of the Bible. Common complaints
(see below for more detail) are against his numerology, unconstrained
allegorical interpretation, placing himself above the Bible, inconsistency,
and incoherency.
As to the age of the earth, Camping's figure is at variance with
all the rest of Christianity as well as science. Most Christianity is
content to let science answer the question. Of that which doesn't most
arrives, using Ussher's methods, at ages between 6 and 10 ky. (There
are a couple of gaps even to Ussher's method, and filling them gives
nonunique solutions.) The 13 ky is arrived at by a unique-to-Camping
application of numerology. And one which, one would have thought,
would be considered demonstrated false by the non-ending of the world
in 1994 -- the relevance being that his gap filling by his numerology
was based on the end of the world being then.
To judge by what other Christians have had to say, Camping's
age for the earth is bad theology too.
Sampling of what other Christians have had to say. Note that although the
quotes are exact, there are gaps between quoted sections. Not needed
for those who find the above summary sufficient, but consider this
advertising for where to see more of what other Christians think of
Camping's prophecy and eschatology. I've focussed on those which
talk about his methods. He more recent phase, starting in 2001-2,
is to call for Christians to abandon churches in favor of listening to his
radio shows (among other things). This elicits more substantial comment.
It derives from the same source, however, Camping deciding then that the 1994
wasn't to be the end of the world, but the end of the church. Schulin's
first citation to Camping in sci.env was in 2002, perhaps not coincidentally.
Camping is now calling for the end of the earth in 2011-2012 (both years
have been quoted), vs. his earlier dates in 1994-1995 (4 dates, the last
3 made after the earth passed the earlier predication).
http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID23682%7CCHID125043%7CCIID1347620,00.html
by David Rastetter
"Can we say as some might, “Just leave it alone, and it will prove
itself wrong?” I’m afraid we cannot take such a lackadaisical approach
to this latest, off -the- wall teaching of Harold Camping.
For one, he is one of ours whether we want to claim him or not. He has
been instrumental in bringing many into the Reformed faith and has
directed people for years to biblically Reformed churches. I can recall
going to my first Family Radio conference. I soon became aware of how
three denominations where predominantly represented: the PCA, the OPC
and the Reformed Baptists."
"There are many verses he uses to show us that the Church era has come
to an end. I will use one of his studies, and from there you will see
how he has figured out the church age is over. The other studies he
has done are all interpreted in the same hermeneutical fashion.
Camping uses Acts 27 where Paul was a prisoner and heading by ship to
Rome where he would face trial. What happened on this voyage was tragic.
A storm arose and destroyed the ship, but not before Paul and the others
onboard made it to safety. Paul referred to this incident in II
Corinthians 11:25, where he said he kept his Christian witness and
remained faithful to God. He did this not for himself, but for the sake
of the Church. It should be obvious that Paul was not referring to the
shipwreck of Acts 27 as the end of the corporate church. He used it to
build up the church: “Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure
of my concern for all the churches” (II Corinthians 11:28). Now, where
Paul used Acts 27 to help the church see spiritual strength at its best,
Camping uses Acts 27 to tear apart the church, causing confusion and sin.
Through what is called allegorical interpretation, Harold Camping
claims that this account of the shipwreck is actually a parable with
a heavenly meaning that believers leave the corporate church. It is a
wonder how anyone could read Acts 27 and determine its real meaning
requires believers to leave their church before it’s too late. It is a
unique hermeneutic style. I will not do a verse-by-verse study as
Camping does, but I will describe the spiritual meaning that Camping
derives from this chapter. You may want to read Acts 27 before looking
for these supposed deeper spiritual meanings. "
From http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/campingsRevelation.htm
by Wayne Jackson
"Some 3,500 years earlier, Moses wrote:
“[W]hen a prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah, if the thing follow
not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which Jehovah has not spoken:
the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him
” (Dt. 18:22).
Here we are – a decade after Mr. Camping’s illustrious “oracle” – and
history has not ended. That is a telling commentary on the gentleman’s
prophetic abilities. "
"When one enters the world of “Harold Camping teaching,” he finds himself
in a maze of mystery. It is almost as if the gentleman selects a variety
of passages from different sections of the Bible – Ezekiel, Jeremiah,
Matthew, Luke, or Revelation – and throws them on the floor, to see
whether or not a pattern of theology will form."
Book review of _1994?_ from August, 1994, by
"Stephen C. Meyers, M.Th., pastors the Kensington Bible Church in
Philadelphia and directs its inner city outreach to the poor and
homeless." at
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0164a.html
" In his book 1994? Harold Camping states the end of the world may
occur this year, somewhere between September 15-17 (p. 531). He does
not know the exact day because Scripture says "no man knows the day
nor the hour" (Matt. 24:36). But according to Camping we can certainly
know the month and the year that Christ will return."
"The main glue that holds Camping's book together is numerology: that
part of ancient mysticism that endeavors to find hidden truths locked
in literal terminology through numbers. Mystical numbers are the keys
that allegedly unlock the hidden truths concealed in literal language.
The basic theory this system operates on is that God created a perfect
world and a perfect word (the Bible) which exhibit precise numerical
and symmetrical design."
"Camping's book is also characterized by inconsistency. According to
Camping, the seventy sevens of Daniel 9 are literal years, except for
the last three and one-half. He calculates the years precisely up to
the point of the death of Christ, which he says occurred in A.D. 33.
He then turns around and says the last three and one-half years equal
2,000 years. Camping takes a page to explain the subtitle "The
Prerogative of God to Use Numbers as He Desires" (p. 403). This should
be amended to say that it is the prerogative of Harold Camping to use
numbers as he desires (and then blame God for it).
"
From an article at http://www.equip.org/free/DC989.htm
Feature Article: DC989
dangerous airwaves:
harold camping's call to flee the church
by James R. White
This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume
25, number 1 (2002). For further information or to subscribe to the
Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org
"
ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION REFUTED
How has Camping arrived at the conclusion that the church has been
destroyed? There is one simple answer: unfettered, inconsistent,
arbitrary, and, at times, incoherent allegorical interpretation of the
text of Scripture. Camping has long taught the view, popularized by
Origen in the early church, that first sees a basic, literal meaning
anyone can understand. More important is the moral meaning, which
requires more insight. Most important is the “real” meaning, or the “
spiritual” meaning, which requires spiritual insight and knowledge.
According to Camping, every passage of the Bible has some relevance to
the gospel message.
This becomes the basis, then, for his allegorical interpretations where
anything in the Bible becomes “fair game” to be made into a picture of
whatever Harold Camping desires. For example, to substantiate his current
teachings against the church, Camping has used the two witnesses of
Revelation 11, Jerusalem, Judea, all of Old Testament Israel, Hezekiah’s
life, and the boat the disciples used in John 21 as “pictures” of the
church. Within less than the span of five verses Peter can “represent”
the church as a whole, a disciple, and Christ. There is no limitation
to what can be “seen” with such “interpretation.”
Allegorical interpretation contrasts with the grammatical-historical
method, which first determines a passage’s meaning by reference to its
language, context, and background. When we read the biblical text, we
wish to know what the original author intended to convey to his original
audience in his own context. Until we determine this, we truly have no
basis for asking other questions, such as, “What does this mean to me today?”
Allegorical interpretation ignores the grammar and original context of
the Scriptures, which is why it must be rejected as a valid method of
interpretation. It is simply unverifiable. In other words, no person
using the allegorical method can honestly and logically affirm that his
or her conclusions are actually based upon the text that is being
interpreted. Because the actual meaning of the text is ignored, the
allegorical meaning can have no more weight than one invests in the
allegorical interpreter. Since each allegorical interpreter may “see”
or “feel” something different in the text, allegorical interpretations
can never be verified by others working with the same text (unlike real
biblical exegesis, where the work of generations of scholars verifies
and reverifies the conclusions already reached).
The result of this fatal flaw in the system is that no allegorical
interpretation can claim the authority of the original text. This is
because the source of the interpretation is not the text itself but
the mind of the interpreter who “sees” things in it. Allegorical
interpretation cannot compel anyone else to belief since it is personally
derived, and the people who accept it do so only because they accept
the word of the interpreter, not because they invest any authority in
the text itself. Allegorical interpretations have no more authority
than the one announcing them.
Allegorical interpretation destroys the authority of the text of
Scripture. No one using this method can honestly say, “The Word of God
says,” for their system replaces the meaning of the text (which is
communicated through grammar, lexical meanings, context, and background)
with the more-or-less relevant insights and imagination of the interpreter.
Christians believe the Scriptures are “God breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16–17),
and therefore are authoritative by nature. When the allegorical interpreter
ignores the text, the source of Scripture’s authority is replaced by
the thoughts of mere men and women. This leads to every kind of abuse
of God’s Word. False teachers often utilize such unverifiable forms of
“interpretation” as a cover in order to replace biblical truth with
their own false doctrines. Untaught and unstable believers (2 Pet. 3:16)
are often susceptible to the “smooth speech” of such teachers, and
without solid knowledge of how to properly interpret the Bible, they
accept false conclusions, which are presented with great confidence
and power. So when we point out Camping’s erroneous use of allegorical
interpretation, we are not merely arguing about obtuse, insignificant
points of theology. We are defending the very authority of the Scripture,
for a Bible that cannot communicate God’s truth consistently to each
generation cannot be a solid foundation for the faith.9
"
Concluding paragraph:
"We must also learn from Camping’s error to see that our methods of
interpretation are not dry subjects best left to theologians to hash
out. Each of us is responsible to learn where we received the Bible and
how we are to properly understand its message. Only then can we help
those who have been misled by Harold Camping and all who, like him,
replace the divine message of Scripture with their own thoughts and
fancies."
Misc:
http://www.leaderu.com/science/crackpot.html
Evangelicals and Crackpot Science
Robert C. Newman
Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute
Biblical Theological Seminary
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/ch/ch5_05.htm
Biblical Chronology
Vol. 5, No. 5
September, 1993
Copyright © James B. Jordan 1993
"As a preliminary conclusion we have to say the following about Camping's
hypothesis. (1) There is absolutely nothing in the text to support his
view that these life spans are epochs. Camping has pulled this notion
out of thin air. (2) There is plenty of evidence in the text that each
of the patriarchs was the son of the preceding patriarch. (3) There are
good theological reasons why the naming of some patriarchs is given
special notice; Camping's hypothesis is not needed to explain why the
naming is mentioned in some cases and not in others."
http://www.abhota.info/end3.htm
Provides 4 doomsday datings of Camping's between Sept 1994 and Mar 31, 1995.
http://www.grace-bible.com/lay_the_life_of_the_church.htm
Includes some first hand observations on Camping and his doomsdays.
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0514_Terry_-_666_Anyone.html
Randall Terry comments in 11/93, in part:
"Now the insane book, by Harold Camping, 1994, is a best seller (as of
the spring of 1993). This book will also be wrong. "
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/279
"Harold Camping
Harold Camping has a nationally syndicated television program out of
Oakland, California. His greatest claim to fame is a book that he
produced in 1992. It was titled 1994? Perhaps the most telling portion
of the title is that question mark. The massive volume of more than 550
pages concludes in this unimpressive fashion: “The results of this
study indicate that the month of September of the year 1994 is to be the
time for the end of history” (1992, p. 531). September of 1994 should
have been the end of Mr. Camping’s career as a teacher, but it wasn’t
because in their own blindness, people continue to follow the blind. "
http://home.att.net/~sovereigngrace/jerseyshore.html
Jersey Shore Evangelical Ministers Fellowship
March 6, 2002
"We believe it is obvious that Mr. Camping's strange hermeneutics is
subjective, mystical, Gnostic convoluted, and very bizarre. He has
proven himself to be a false prophet in the past, selling fear and
paranoia with his 1994 book. He is continuing to bring shame and reproach
to the Church."
Phil Hays
>Phil, I'm sorry for you if you don't understand that there's a
>difference between data and assumptions.
And you return to the attack.
> It's true enough that I think
>the Bible is clear in portraying a young Earth. Yet I acknowledge that I
>might be wrong, and the posts I've made over the years on climate
>science are not dependent upon my unscientific presumptions.
More to the point, they don't mention your "unscientific
presumptions". Honesty. Try it.
>Your oft-voiced conclusion that I present astrology is silly.
Perhaps it is silly. But it is true. One name "Landscheidt".
Robert Grumbine
Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>In article <11kn93b...@corp.supernews.com>,
> bo...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote, in part:
>
>> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>> > bo...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
>> >> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>> >> > Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> On the other hand, his methodology includes filling those gaps
>> you mention so as to get numerologically 'good' figures...
>
>There are no gaps when you consider the difference in language between
>begat and begat-and-called-his-name. If there were any other methods of
>interpreting the Bible which yielded no gaps, I would be happy to learn
>of it.
>
>> ... The problem
>> with that was illustrated when the world did not end 11 years ago.
>
>You seem to be mixing apples and oranges.
His method lead him to a conclusion -- that the world would end in
1994. He wrote two books on that, one of which I have in hand.
In other realms, such a spectacularly wrong conclusion would lead
one to question the methods. Why doesn't it prompt such a question
from you?
>> Since his version extends pre-Christ chronology by 7000 years over
>> Ussher's 4000 years, there's quite a lot of gap-filling going on
>> unconstrained by chronological information within the Bible. ...
>
>You seem as if you don't understand where the bulk of the difference
>comes from. I refer you to the portions of my previous post which you
>snipped, or you can find it by reading the reference I provided, and
>about which you asked for more info.
I have one of his books in hand, and after touring the web some,
find that Christian sources see the same thing as I: numerology, and
arbitrary and inconsistent gap filling. See other post for links.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/chronogenealogies.asp
for instance, is emphatic about there being no gaps, including no
gap admissible between begats vs. begats and names. They're young
earth literalists themselves.
[snip]
>> >> Staying with tree rings and your Bible interpretations ...
>> >>
>> >> Why does the tree ring record _not_ show Noah's flood? By Bible
>> >> chronologies I'm familiar with, the flood occurred 4-5 kya (2000-3000 BC).
>> >> Trees do notice (i.e., die) being under flood waters for extended periods.
>> >> While you're at it, which length of the flood do you prefer?
>> >
>> >Using Camping's method, the flood of Noah's day occurred about 7,000
>> >years ago. I do think you're right about trees dying in such a flood. I
>> >recall the Bible describes Noah's family spending a long time in the
>> >ark. I don't, however, recall offhand the various Bible particulars
>> >relevant to flood duration.
>>
>> There are two different durations, depending on which sections you
>> read. One is well over a year.
>>
>> Many problems with the flood as a literal event, whether 4-5 kya or
>> 7 kya. But, to stay with tree rings, why did the flood not create a
>> gap in the tree ring record? We do have a continuous record to well
>> before 7 kya.
>
>As I mentioned prior, I think you're right about trees dying in such a
>flood. As for why today's best estimates of tree ages include some which
>are older than flood, I note the possibility of dating error, even by
>the most skilled researchers using the most reliable tools.
Yet you mention no possibility of dating error by Camping. Your
requirements for intellectual rigor is a curiously selective thing.
But this takes us to a useful point.
In applying science step by step, one can construct an overlapping
set of tree rings. Along the way, we discover that some trees are
more suited to this than others as we check the rings against known
historical events. For instance, we know that there were fires in
an area in a certain year, and the fire-damaged ring must align with
that year. Some trees aren't as reliable chronometers as others,
we discover. On the other hand, we also discover that some are
extremely reliable -- as good or better than the historical records.
Repeat the process backwards. At no point do we find a gap between
all tree rings, no global absence of trees, no global killing of
all trees. There is nothing in the records, which pass to before
7 kya, to say that anything outstanding (like a global flood) has
occurred.
So, presented with the conflict between your preferred biblical
interpretation and the science, you aver the error to be in the science.
No surprise, it's what I've observed before, apparently necessary for
protection of your belief.
But, it gives the lie to your claims of respect for science.
Tree rings that correspond well to historical events for thousands
of years, let's say 5 ky (oldest writing is older than that, but it's
a round and conservative number) -- which indicates that they're
reliable chronometers (within the constraints we learn by scientific
inspection) -- must suddenly, globally, simultaneously, and with no
other traces of effects on the trees, start laying down multiple
rings per year. This, strictly to avoid conflicting with your
Biblical interpretation. You advance no scientific reason for
this to happen, nor tests of how or why; nor would I expect it --
it's your religious position, not a scientific one.
In science, when we find methods that give unreliable results in
the conditions we're trying to use them, we quit using that method.
So, were you being scientific, you must reject tree ring methods.
They obviously have a very severe flaw. That they appear to work
well for chronometry over the past X ky (you'll have to name the
value of X, there's no scientific reason to limit it so I can't
guess) is a coincidence and likely misleading at that.
One could sidestep this by the Omphalos argument, but Camping
certainly and you as far as I know, don't use that one.
Steve Schulin
bo...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote, in part:
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> ...
> >When you ask about "trustworthy", I'd like to stress that it's God whom
> >I trust. If you mean to ask why I prefer Camping's interpretation to
> >Ussher's, well, there's many reasons. I'll mention two simple ones: (1)
> >Camping's approach accounts for the difference between begat and
> >begat-and-named; (2) Ussher's chronology seems contradictory to the
> >Bible (Usher's calendar shows that Israel was in Egypt for 215 years.
> >But Exodus 12 specifies 430 years).
>
> More on Camping ...
> [by the way, I'm only quoting from Christian sites. Nobody would expect
> other religions to be overfond of a particular Christian interpretation.]
>
> This is long, but it was such fascinating reading to see what
> there was regarding Camping's age of the earth that I'll place it
> here. Back to Schulin's points downthread.
>
> It appears that outside of his own ministry, Camping is considered
> an extremly poor guide to or interpreter of the Bible. Common complaints
> (see below for more detail) are against his numerology, unconstrained
> allegorical interpretation, placing himself above the Bible, inconsistency,
> and incoherency.
It's true enough that many disagree with Camping. And the discussions on
the "Open Forum" call-in radio show reflect that night after night. Some
of the criticisms Grumbine quotes below do not ring true to me at all.
For example, the claim that Camping puts himself above the Bible is a
particularly egregious error. I sure don't begrudge you for being
interested enough to publicly post this compendium of yours. Do you know
if the sources you are quoting have put much more effort than you into
understanding Camping's Bible-based reasoning?
> As to the age of the earth, Camping's figure is at variance with
> all the rest of Christianity as well as science. Most Christianity is
> content to let science answer the question. Of that which doesn't most
> arrives, using Ussher's methods, at ages between 6 and 10 ky. (There
> are a couple of gaps even to Ussher's method, and filling them gives
> nonunique solutions.) ...
And if you or anyone else learns of a methodology other than Camping's
which yields no gaps, I hope you'll let me know about it.
> ... The 13 ky is arrived at by a unique-to-Camping
> application of numerology. ...
I'm not sure why you claim this. His method in this particular case, as
described in the freely available online reference I provided, seems
quite straightforward in the use of the numbers.
> ... And one which, one would have thought,
> would be considered demonstrated false by the non-ending of the world
> in 1994 -- the relevance being that his gap filling by his numerology
> was based on the end of the world being then.
>
> To judge by what other Christians have had to say, Camping's
> age for the earth is bad theology too.
>
>
> Sampling of what other Christians have had to say. Note that although the
> quotes are exact, there are gaps between quoted sections. Not needed
> for those who find the above summary sufficient, but consider this
> advertising for where to see more of what other Christians think of
> Camping's prophecy and eschatology. I've focussed on those which
> talk about his methods. ...
I urge anybody who's interested to compare (a) the step-by-step
replicable methodology Camping presents, in the reference I provided,
for dating back to Creation, with (b) the fruit of Prof. Grumbine's
focus on methodology. Scant apparent overlap is what I found when I did
so.
> ... He more recent phase, starting in 2001-2,
> is to call for Christians to abandon churches in favor of listening to his
> radio shows (among other things). This elicits more substantial comment...
The end of the Church Age was the title theme of the book of his which I
have previously mentioned. It and a more recent book which continues the
theme, called "The Wheat and Tares" are freely available on the
http://www.familyradio.com website -- click on the "Literature Online"
button to find them.
> ... It derives from the same source, however, Camping deciding then that the 1994
> wasn't to be the end of the world, but the end of the church. ...
Why do you make this claim, Professor? Where do you imagine that Camping
claims the church (or even to use the term Camping uses: "the church
age") ended in 1994?
> ... Schulin's
> first citation to Camping in sci.env was in 2002, perhaps not coincidentally.
LOL -- I wish all climate alarmists were as skeptical about everything
as you perhaps may be here.
> Camping is now calling for the end of the earth in 2011-2012 (both years
> have been quoted), vs. his earlier dates in 1994-1995 (4 dates, the last
> 3 made after the earth passed the earlier predication).
Do you contend his latter harmonization is expressed with more certitude
than in that book title one of your sources mentions (with the question
mark right there in the title): "1994?"?
I've left the rest of your post appended,
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
> http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID23682%7CCHID12
Steve Schulin
Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Steve Schulin wrote:
>
> >As for honest discussions, I've had no problems in discussing other data
> >which is commonly interpreted through the lens of an old Earth (such as
> >one of the earlier icons of Calamitology -- Fig 2 in the 1990 IPCC
> >summary for policymakers).
>
> Yet you believe this "lens" to be false. You are writing things you
> think are false. ...
Nope.
> ... Your discussions are at best hypothetical. ...
Nope.
> ... Do you
> really believe in anything at all, ...
Yep.
> ... or are you just discussing young
> Earth creationism in a different hypothetical "lens"?
Could you rephrase the question in such a way that my answer need not
give any credence to that which I've already said "Nope"?
> You may have no problem writing something along this line. But as
> someone who has read what you write, I'm often been left with the
> feeling you were actively trying to mislead. Or to be plain, that you
> were lying. Is this a problem for you?
Your poor opinion of me has been clear enough for a long time. I'm
neither surprised nor bothered to learn that you often have the feeling
you describe here. I've answered many questions and replied to many
comments from you over the years, as I have with others. If you ever
have questions about anything I write, I'd probably continue to answer.
I encourage skepticism, and that includes skepticism of me. I'm no
climate expert -- and I've never pretended otherwise. I have been very
interested in the subject as it relates to energy policy since my
college days (global cooling from particulate pollution and global
warming from CO2 were both of interest to me in the 1970s -- with a lot
of time in a variety of libraries reading related books and journals). I
came here to sci.environment in early 2001 to learn more about the
then-current scientific basis for policy changes being advocated by the
then-new Secretary of Treasury and Administrator of EPA. I've pointed
out numerous -- including some apparently purposeful by folks who
claimed to be experts -- exaggerations and other lies, and I've been
happy to explain myself when questioned. Usenet is a very interesting
venue, and I continue to learn a lot, even from those who rarely pen a
paragraph or even a sentence with which I can agree.
> --
> Caution: Contents may contain sarcasm.
> Phil Hays
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
Steve Schulin
bo...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> > bo...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote, in part:
> >> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> >> > bo...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
> >> >> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Phil Hays <Spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> On the other hand, his methodology includes filling those gaps
> >> you mention so as to get numerologically 'good' figures...
> >
> >There are no gaps when you consider the difference in language between
> >begat and begat-and-called-his-name. If there were any other methods of
> >interpreting the Bible which yielded no gaps, I would be happy to learn
> >of it.
> >
> >> ... The problem
> >> with that was illustrated when the world did not end 11 years ago.
> >
> >You seem to be mixing apples and oranges.
>
> His method lead him to a conclusion -- that the world would end in
> 1994. He wrote two books on that, one of which I have in hand.
Those were the oranges in my analogy. You apparently find it appropriate
to refer to Camping's "method" as if some particular aspect shown to be
in error in the oranges is also used in the non-orange (the dating back
to Creation).
> In other realms, such a spectacularly wrong conclusion would lead
> one to question the methods. Why doesn't it prompt such a question
> from you?
I do question his every step. What is it which prompts you to post these
bogosities of yours?
> >> Since his version extends pre-Christ chronology by 7000 years over
> >> Ussher's 4000 years, there's quite a lot of gap-filling going on
> >> unconstrained by chronological information within the Bible. ...
> >
> >You seem as if you don't understand where the bulk of the difference
> >comes from. I refer you to the portions of my previous post which you
> >snipped, or you can find it by reading the reference I provided, and
> >about which you asked for more info.
>
> I have one of his books in hand, and after touring the web some,
> find that Christian sources see the same thing as I: numerology, and
> arbitrary and inconsistent gap filling. See other post for links.
A few days ago, you said you were unaware or somesuch about any 13,000
year age of the Earth claim. I admire your enthusiasm, but not your
apparently slovenly scholarship. You see the word gap, and you feel
confident in repeatedly applying it however you like. Apples and oranges
again.
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/chronogenealogies.asp
> for instance, is emphatic about there being no gaps, including no
> gap admissible between begats vs. begats and names. They're young
> earth literalists themselves.
That is an interesting page. Their argument about role of untranslated
direct object in begats vs. begats and names is one thing I'll be sure
to do some follow-up reading about. Thanks. When you say they are
emphatic about no gaps, please notice that they are not claiming that
their method relies only upon the Bible. This is a difference between
their approach and Campings, and I have previously mentioned that using
an exclusively Bible-based method seems most appropriate to me.
I don't recall ever presenting value for the Age of the Earth with the
certitude one might infer from your comment here. I wholeheartedly
appreciate your emphasis on intellectual rigor in considering such
matters as dating error.
> But this takes us to a useful point.
>
> In applying science step by step, one can construct an overlapping
> set of tree rings. Along the way, we discover that some trees are
> more suited to this than others as we check the rings against known
> historical events. For instance, we know that there were fires in
> an area in a certain year, and the fire-damaged ring must align with
> that year. Some trees aren't as reliable chronometers as others,
> we discover. On the other hand, we also discover that some are
> extremely reliable -- as good or better than the historical records.
>
> Repeat the process backwards. At no point do we find a gap between
> all tree rings, no global absence of trees, no global killing of
> all trees. There is nothing in the records, which pass to before
> 7 kya, to say that anything outstanding (like a global flood) has
> occurred.
>
> So, presented with the conflict between your preferred biblical
> interpretation and the science, you aver the error to be in the science.
> No surprise, it's what I've observed before, apparently necessary for
> protection of your belief.
If you can ever prove my religious beliefs to be wrong, I hope you will
do so. You may have noticed that I have never urged you or anyone else
to share my faith, nor have my comments here about climate science
depended upon it. I did not imagine that my participation in
sci.environment would lead to such opportunities, as your numerous posts
have prompted, to talk about God.
> But, it gives the lie to your claims of respect for science.
> Tree rings that correspond well to historical events for thousands
> of years, let's say 5 ky (oldest writing is older than that, but it's
> a round and conservative number) -- which indicates that they're
> reliable chronometers (within the constraints we learn by scientific
> inspection) -- must suddenly, globally, simultaneously, and with no
> other traces of effects on the trees, start laying down multiple
> rings per year. This, strictly to avoid conflicting with your
> Biblical interpretation. You advance no scientific reason for
> this to happen, nor tests of how or why; nor would I expect it --
> it's your religious position, not a scientific one.
I love nature, including wood, and have read many a dendochronology
paper, newsletter and whatnot over the years. I'm not familiar with any
5,000-year old part of the historical record which is so unambiguously
matched to tree rings as you claim.
In a prior post, you referred to uncertainty as kind of a paralyzing
force -- you saw fit to ask how someone could get out of bed each
morning in an uncertain world. I was reminded of that when reading the
beginning of U. Michigan geology professor Henry Pollack's book,
"Uncertain Science ... Uncertain World" earlier this evening. I suspect
that he would agree with you on many topics, but he pointed out that the
inherent uncertainty of science is an important reason that it thrives
intellectually and practically. "The normal state of affairs in science
is unsettled and uncertain", he notes on p. 16, "and no amount of new
research will completely eliminate uncertainty." If you think you can
prove my religious assumptions to be wrong, please do so without
requesting further info from me.
> In science, when we find methods that give unreliable results in
> the conditions we're trying to use them, we quit using that method.
> So, were you being scientific, you must reject tree ring methods.
> They obviously have a very severe flaw. That they appear to work
> well for chronometry over the past X ky (you'll have to name the
> value of X, there's no scientific reason to limit it so I can't
> guess) is a coincidence and likely misleading at that.
>
> One could sidestep this by the Omphalos argument, but Camping
> certainly and you as far as I know, don't use that one.
Some aspects of the argument that Creation involved some appearance of
age seem quite reasonable to me. Adam and Eve seem to have been created
as adults, for example. I don't recall Camping addressing the issue of
apparent age, but he does point to passages where God allows those
without faith to race along instead of tripping over their own feet.
These are my words, not Camping's, and I may be omitting important
context, but that's how I remember it, and I mention it here because it
might be relevant to phenomena about which scientists make assumptions.
Steve Schulin
<steve.schulin-C0D...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote, in part:
> In article <11kq6ab...@corp.supernews.com>,
> bo...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote, in part:
> ...
> The end of the Church Age was the title theme of the book of his which I
> have previously mentioned. It and a more recent book which continues the
> theme, called "The Wheat and Tares" are freely available on the
> http://www.familyradio.com website -- click on the "Literature Online"
> button to find them.
>
> > ... It derives from the same source, however, Camping deciding then that
> > the 1994
> > wasn't to be the end of the world, but the end of the church. ...
>
> Why do you make this claim, Professor? Where do you imagine that Camping
> claims the church (or even to use the term Camping uses: "the church
> age") ended in 1994?
> ...
I was in error here. I questioned Grumbine's claim because I recalled
Camping referring to the Church Age ending decades ago. But I see from
searching the familyradio.com site for "1994" that Camping does claim
"the year 1994 marks the official year in which the church age ended." I
apologize for my insulting tone in using the word "imagine", and for any
misleading my question may have caused.