New to the boards

[Nivalian]

I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast pace, which is what I prefer. I've been trying to find a new forum since facebook and the History Channel discontinued theirs. I hope to learn a lot and have clean interesting debates with some of you.

I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, in just 6000 years ago.

I know I'm a minority so be easy (for now). I will do by best to not to offend anyone.

[Ron O]

Welcome aboard. This isn't such a bad start. Keep it up. Don't
worry so much about offending anyone, most everyone has a pretty thick
skin.

You do know that you are arguing from the short end of the stick?
Young earth creationism is the closest thing to flat earthism without
being flat earthism. You may want to check out some of the Christian
old earth creationist web sites to confirm that.

We do have a geocentrist creationists, but he may be an old earth
geocentrist. You get all kinds here.

Ron Okimoto

[Boikat]

On Jul 22, 7:41�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:

Welcome to Talk.origins.

Start here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Boikat

[chris thompson]

Welcome to talk.origins!

Since you bring it up right away, how can you support the idea of a
6000 year old earth? That is contradicted by everything we know of
geology and radiometric dating.

I would also say that based on what I see in the world, belief in a
young earth and creation ex nihilo are not required by the majority of
Christians.

Chris

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:41:02 -0400, Nivalian wrote
(in article <e8199a3a-1964-44cf...@googlegroups.com>):

> I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast pace, which
> is what I prefer. I've been trying to find a new forum since facebook and
> the History Channel discontinued theirs. I hope to learn a lot and have
> clean interesting debates with some of you.
>
> I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of the
> Universe, in just 6000 years ago.

Ooh, boy.

>
> I know I'm a minority so be easy (for now). I will do by best to not to
> offend anyone.

Better put on your flame-retardant undies and buckle up, it's gonna be a
bumpy ride.



--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[Mark Buchanan]

Welcome to the lions den. If you play nice we promise to chew slowly.

Advice: 'DO YOUR HOMEWORK' - sorry for shouting but most creationists don't understand what they are arguing against.

Mark

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:41:02 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>
wrote in talk.origins:

Have you heard of Last Tuesdayism? It teaches that the entire universe
was created last Tuesday. It has problems with consistency that can also
be found in Young Earth Creationism.

[UC]

On Jul 22, 8:41�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:

To the best of our knowledge the universe is about 14 billions years
old, and the earth about 4.5 billion years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

If you have ever seen a lump of coal, and realize it was once plants,
you would understand such a transformation takes more than 6000 years.
After all, Egyptian civilization itself is hardly much younger.

"By about 5500 BC, small tribes living in the Nile valley had
developed into a series of cultures demonstrating firm control of
agriculture and animal husbandry, and identifiable by their pottery
and personal items, such as combs, bracelets, and beads. The largest
of these early cultures in upper (Northern) Egypt, the Badari which
probably originated in the Western Desert, was known for its high
quality ceramics, stone tools, and its use of copper."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_egypt

[Dana Tweedy]

Welcome to the Monkey House!

Be aware that believing in God, and having a Christian worldview does
not mean one must reject the science of evolution. I believe God
created the universe, and that he created all life on Earth. I also
believe that evolution was one of his mechanisms for that creation.



DJT

[jonathan]

"Nivalian" <rhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e8199a3a-1964-44cf...@googlegroups.com...

Welcome! I feel the belief in God and Darwinian evolution are
not necessarily incompatible. And neither is the idea of creation
and a very old Earth.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

Creation

"Considered in connection with the entire account of creation", says a
recent eminent Jesuit exegete, "the words of Genesis cited above proximately
maintain nothing else than that the earth with all that it contains and
bears, together with the plant and animal kingdoms, has not produced itself
nor is the work of chance; but owes its existence to the power of God.
However, in what particular manner the plant and animal kingdoms received
their existence: whether all species were created simultaneously or only a
few which were destined to give life to others: whether only one fruitful
seed was placed on mother earth, which under the influence of natural causes
developed into the first plants, and another infused into the waters gave
birth to the first animals - all this the Book of Genesis leaves to our own
investigation and to the revelations of science, if indeed science is able
at all to give a final and unquestionable decision. In other words, the
article of faith contained in Genesis remains firm and intact even if one
explains the manner in which the different species originated according to
the principle of the theory of evolution" (Knabenbauer, "Stimmen aus
Maria-Laach", XIII, 74; cf. Muckermann, "Attitude of Catholics towards
Darwinism and Evolution", 78.)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm








>
>
>
>

[Nivalian]

On Sunday, July 22, 2012 8:58:52 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On Jul 22, 7:41�pm, Nivalian &lt;rhed...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> &gt; I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast pace, which is what I prefer. �I&#39;ve been trying to find a new forum since facebook and the History Channel discontinued theirs. �I hope to learn a lot and have clean interesting debates with some of you.
> &gt;
> &gt; I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, in just 6000 years ago.
> &gt;
> &gt; I know I&#39;m a minority so be easy (for now). �I will do by best to not to offend anyone.
>
> Welcome aboard. This isn&#39;t such a bad start. Keep it up. Don&#39;t

> worry so much about offending anyone, most everyone has a pretty thick
> skin.
>
> You do know that you are arguing from the short end of the stick?

Yes I know. I've been outnumbered in most forums because not only do I debate people with a different worldviews (e.g. naturalism), I also debate with people who have the same worldview as I in reference with the age of the universe, earth and evolution.

> Young earth creationism is the closest thing to flat earthism without
> being flat earthism. You may want to check out some of the Christian
> old earth creationist web sites to confirm that.
>
> We do have a geocentrist creationists, but he may be an old earth
> geocentrist. You get all kinds here.
>

Lol...That's what I expected.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:41:02 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast pace, which is what I prefer. I've been trying to find a new forum since facebook and the History Channel discontinued theirs. I hope to learn a lot and have clean interesting debates with some of you.
>

.

>I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, in just 6000 years ago.

Standard opening reply/question:

It takes light a bit more than 2,000,000 years to reach earth from the
nearest major galaxy, Andromeda.
How did that light get here in 6,000 years?

>I know I'm a minority so be easy (for now).

Not clearly a minority, unless you're only counting people with a
science education.

> I will do by best to not to offend anyone.

Probably impossible to offend anyone here.

Hope you enjoy your stay with us.

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[Nivalian]

On Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:53:10 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:

> Welcome to talk.origins!
>
> Since you bring it up right away, how can you support the idea of a
> 6000 year old earth? That is contradicted by everything we know of
> geology and radiometric dating.

Good question. I know the difference between facts and interpretation of the facts; and how worldviews drive their interpretations of those facts. Once you look deeper and understand certain dating methods and how they work you will notice something is not right. I also know a little about how science funding works, which is more political than science.

> I would also say that based on what I see in the world, belief in a
> young earth and creation ex nihilo are not required by the majority of
> Christians.
>

Right, it's not required to believe in a young earth to be a christian.



On Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:53:10 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:

> On Jul 22, 8:41�pm, Nivalian &lt;rhed...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> &gt; I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast pace, which is what I prefer. �I&#39;ve been trying to find a new forum since facebook and the History Channel discontinued theirs. �I hope to learn a lot and have clean interesting debates with some of you.
> &gt;
> &gt; I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, in just 6000 years ago.
> &gt;

> &gt; I know I&#39;m a minority so be easy (for now). �I will do by best to not to offend anyone.

[Nivalian]

On Monday, July 23, 2012 12:14:00 AM UTC-4, Friar Broccoli wrote:



> Standard opening reply/question:
>
> It takes light a bit more than 2,000,000 years to reach earth from the
> nearest major galaxy, Andromeda.
> How did that light get here in 6,000 years?

The star light problem is not only a problem for YEC, but a problem for OEC as well called the horizon problem. There are some wild proposals to rescue a particular theory but only opens doors to more questions and issues. Maybe are assumptions with the constant speed of light is wrong. Who knows?



> Not clearly a minority, unless you&#39;re only counting people with a
> science education.
>

Today, the science educations follows todays paradigm, which can change.

> Hope you enjoy your stay with us.
>

Thank you

[Nivalian]

On Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:58:30 PM UTC-4, J.J. O&#39;Shea wrote:

>
> Ooh, boy.
>

I get that response many times

[Nivalian]

On Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:02:59 PM UTC-4, Mark Buchanan wrote:

>
> Welcome to the lions den. If you play nice we promise to chew slowly.
>

Lol...

> Advice: &#39;DO YOUR HOMEWORK&#39; - sorry for shouting but most creationists don&#39;t understand what they are arguing against.
>

Hey Mark - I believe the problem is more philosophical than science. If you believe in naturalism you are going to interpret the evidence differently than someone who doesn't believe in naturalism.

[Nivalian]

On Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:48:20 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
>
> Welcome! I feel the belief in God and Darwinian evolution are
> not necessarily incompatible. And neither is the idea of creation
> and a very old Earth.
>

Hi Jonathon, thanks for responding. I don't believe in the Theory of Evolution not because of my Christian faith but because science is against it.

Notice I capitalized "Theory of Evolution". I do however do believe in speciation, natural selection, and mutations. There is no quarrel between Creationists and Evolutionists about those.

[RMcBane]

On 7/23/2012 12:20 AM, Nivalian wrote:
> On Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:53:10 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
>
>> Welcome to talk.origins!
>>
>> Since you bring it up right away, how can you support the idea of a
>> 6000 year old earth? That is contradicted by everything we know of
>> geology and radiometric dating.
>
>
> Good question. I know the difference between facts and interpretation of the facts; and how worldviews drive their interpretations of those facts. Once you look deeper and understand certain dating methods and how they work you will notice something is not right. I also know a little about how science funding works, which is more political than science.
>

Have you ever taken a course that explained dating radiometric methods
or does your information come from creationist literature/websites?
Do you have experience in going after research grants, or does your
knowledge of how research is funded again come from the same creationist
sources?

Are you aware that these techniques are used by industry? Oil and gas
industry and mining industry use an old earth model and no global flood
for exploration and development of resources. Private companies will
use whatever model works best, the bottom line is money, not politics.
I suggest that you try to find any company that has successfully used a
young earth and/or global flood model for exploration and then ask
yourself why not if you are not able to find any.

>
>
>> I would also say that based on what I see in the world, belief in a
>> young earth and creation ex nihilo are not required by the majority of
>> Christians.
>>
>
> Right, it's not required to believe in a young earth to be a christian.
>
>
>
> On Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:53:10 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
>> On Jul 22, 8:41 pm, Nivalian &lt;rhed...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>> &gt; I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast pace, which is what I prefer. I&#39;ve been trying to find a new forum since facebook and the History Channel discontinued theirs. I hope to learn a lot and have clean interesting debates with some of you.
>> &gt;
>> &gt; I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, in just 6000 years ago.
>> &gt;
>> &gt; I know I&#39;m a minority so be easy (for now). I will do by best to not to offend anyone.
>>
>> Welcome to talk.origins!
>>
>> Since you bring it up right away, how can you support the idea of a
>> 6000 year old earth? That is contradicted by everything we know of
>> geology and radiometric dating.
>>
>> I would also say that based on what I see in the world, belief in a
>> young earth and creation ex nihilo are not required by the majority of
>> Christians.
>>
>> Chris
>
>

--
Richard McBane

[Nivalian]

On Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:28:27 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> Welcome to the Monkey House!
>
> Be aware that believing in God, and having a Christian worldview does
> not mean one must reject the science of evolution. I believe God
> created the universe, and that he created all life on Earth. I also
> believe that evolution was one of his mechanisms for that creation.
>
>

Dana - you may be surprised but just about all scientists, Creationists included, believe in "evolution". But, unsurprisingly, there are also two different terms of evolution.

The main difference between the two has to do with the age of the earth.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Jul 22, 10:56�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:48:20 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
>
> > Welcome! �I feel the belief in God and Darwinian evolution are
> > not necessarily incompatible. �And neither is the idea of creation
> > and a very old Earth.
>
> Hi Jonathon, thanks for responding. �I don't believe in the Theory of Evolution not because of my Christian faith but because science is against it.

I would like to see you explain this idea a bit more fully. What
"science", specifically, is "against" ToE?

>
> Notice I capitalized "Theory of Evolution". �I do however do believe in speciation, natural selection, and mutations.

So, if you do not mind may asking, with which specific part(s) of ToE
do you disagree, and why?

>�There is no quarrel between Creationists and Evolutionists about those.

...this seems rather naive...or is it wishful thinking?
"(S)peciation, natural selection, and mutations" are the sources of
quarrels among creationists, and among evolutionists, as well as
between the two groups.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Jul 22, 10:20锟絧m, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:53:10 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
> > Welcome to talk.origins!
>
> > Since you bring it up right away, how can you support the idea of a
> > 6000 year old earth? That is contradicted by everything we know of
> > geology and radiometric dating.
>

> Good question. 锟絀 know the difference between facts and interpretation of the facts; and how worldviews drive their interpretations of those facts. 锟絆nce you look deeper and understand certain dating methods and how they work you will notice something is not right. I also know a little about how science funding works, which is more political than science.

I hope that you are aware that you did not answer this polite
question, either. Delineate what you think is "not right" about which
particular dating methods...and, if you would, delineate why, if there
is "something" "not right" about "certain dating methods", multiple
dating methods converge on dates with such agreement? (and please be
careful to discuss __properly used dating methods--of _course_ errors
result when trying to use, for instance, carbon dating to date billion-
year-old rocks...)

> > I would also say that based on what I see in the world, belief in a
> > young earth and creation ex nihilo are not required by the majority of
> > Christians.
>
> Right, it's not required to believe in a young earth to be a christian.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:53:10 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:

> > On Jul 22, 8:41锟絧m, Nivalian &lt;rhed...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> > &gt; I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast pace, which is what I prefer. 锟絀&#39;ve been trying to find a new forum since facebook and the History Channel discontinued theirs. 锟絀 hope to learn a lot and have clean interesting debates with some of you.

> > &gt;
> > &gt; I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, in just 6000 years ago.
> > &gt;

> > &gt; I know I&#39;m a minority so be easy (for now). 锟絀 will do by best to not to offend anyone.

[Garamond Lethe]

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 21:20:00 -0700, Nivalian wrote:

> On Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:53:10 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
>
>> Welcome to talk.origins!
>>
>> Since you bring it up right away, how can you support the idea of a
>> 6000 year old earth? That is contradicted by everything we know of
>> geology and radiometric dating.
>
>
> Good question. I know the difference between facts and interpretation
> of the facts; and how worldviews drive their interpretations of those
> facts. Once you look deeper and understand certain dating methods and
> how they work you will notice something is not right. I also know a
> little about how science funding works, which is more political than
> science.
>
>

I'd like to hear more about the science funding.

Here's what it looks like from my side of the fence.

Last week I finished the process of pitching my grant application for
"Lab-Directed Research and Development" (LDRD) funding. This is a pot of
money that's controlled locally at the lab, as opposed to National
Science Foundation (NSF) funds or Office of Science funds at the
Department of Energy. I'm asking for $1.5 million over three years,
which puts it on the lower end size-wise. That'll fund half of my time
and fully fund two Ph.D. students.

Any lab employee can submit a proposal. For the first round there's only
a two-page proposal needed, so *lots* of proposals get submitted. There
are two good rationales: 1) "This work with get us on the cover of
Nature" (and we get on the cover of Nature pretty frequently), or 2) "We
can use this money to secure a larger stream of outside funding". (Being
able to pitch 1 *and* 2 is pretty sweet.)

Competing for these funds are a population of postdocs and younger
scientists there who were not only good enough to get in and finish a top-
tier Ph.D. program, but who were also good enough to get hired on based
on their Ph.D. work. Nearly all of them will be submitting one or more
proposals. At the first cut this year, the total dollars in the
proposals exceeded the total dollars available by a factor of five.

This is seen (and seen correctly) as one of the easiest ways to get
funding. Grants that are competitive nationally tend be be
oversubscribed on the order of 20x.

I made the first cut: the second cut was only oversubscribed by a factor
of two. Then came the seven-page full proposal and a 30-minute
presentation to a *very* skeptical audience.

And at this point I'm told that, yes, politics does play a role. *All*
of the proposals that get this far are solid, have a reasonable chance of
success, further the mission of the lab, and will likely lead to either a
cover story in Nature or increased funding (or both).

So other factors start creeping in as tiebreakers. If there's agreement
that one hotshot postdoc might leave for academia if her proposal doesn't
get accepted, that might put a thumb on the scale. If another researcher
has had a few LDRD grants in the past but only had middling success, then
that will count against their current proposal.

I'll find out in about a month if I got funded or not.

As far as politics goes, it's reasonably transparent and is widely seen
as fair. If you're ideas are consistently good and your work is
consistently great, you'll (eventually, probably) get funded.


Well, so what?

I can tell you (having had the opportunity to observe this process and
similar ones up close and personal) that if you have any evidence at all
that there's even a 10% systemic error in isochron dating techniques,
that'll get funded --- it'll sail right through. That's Nobel-prize-
quality work, and yes, you'll definitely get at least one cover of
"Nature" out of it.

You've got a population of some of the brightest young scientists in the
world, they're all looking to make their reputation, and you've got an
idea that will do that and much, much more.

So why isn't this idea getting any traction?

The simplest explanation is that not only is "radiometric flaws" a bad
idea, it's been around long enough that we know exactly why it's a bad
idea. The technical term is "cherrypicking", and I've never seen an
argument in this area that relies on anything else.

Let me make you an offer. You convince me that best-practice radiometric
dating has systemic error >10% and I will make sure you get funding. I
will, of course, be asking geologists and nuclear chemists for assistance
(since those are the people who will ultimately be evaluating the work).
I don't need proof, I just need enough data to make a plausible story
that there's something there worth spending money to investigate.

I believe I've read all of the creationist geologists who have written on
this topic recently (the name Mike Snavely comes to mind). The kindest
description I have for that work is "obviously wrong". (This may have
something to do with why they've never been on the cover of Nature.)

One other note: I also do peer-review for journals, so I know precisely
how much politics are involved in getting a paper published. It ain't
hard (hey, I've done it, how hard can it be?). But the work does need to
be more than fan-dancing, and creationist aren't exceeding even that low
bar. Not even Mike Behe was willing to submit his creationist work to
peer-review; he's not an idiot, he knew where his holes were.

If you can do even modestly better, then fame, fortune and scientific
plaudits await.



<snip>

[Slow Vehicle]

...and you may be surprised that evasive answers result in
increasingly insistent questions...
Are you drawing a distinction between "scientists who are
Creationists", and "rank-and-file Creationists"?
What do you mean, "different terms of evolution"?

If you would be so kind, explain how 4K years allow time for "enough"
evolution to have developed all modern species from the limited
numbers (two? or seven?) of "kinds" on the ark?

For that matter, if the earth truly is only 6K years old, why does it
_look_ so much older?

[Slow Vehicle]

On Jul 22, 10:39�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 23, 2012 12:14:00 AM UTC-4, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > Standard opening reply/question:
>
> > It takes light a bit more than 2,000,000 years to reach earth from the
> > nearest major galaxy, Andromeda.
> > How did that light get here in 6,000 years?
>
> The star light problem is not only a problem for YEC, but a problem for OEC as well called the horizon problem. There are some wild proposals to rescue a particular theory but only opens doors to more questions and issues. �Maybe are assumptions with the constant speed of light is wrong. �Who knows?

..you are aware, i hope, that you did not answer a polite question.
Evasion will not get you very far, here.
How do you, personally, explain the size of the observed universe,
given that you can go outside at night and see light that is much,
much older than 6K years?

> > Not clearly a minority, unless you&#39;re only counting people with a
> > science education.
>
> Today, the science educations follows todays paradigm, which can change.

What do you, personally, see changing in "todays paradigm", and what
do you, personally, think will change it?

[Mike Painter]

On 7/22/2012 9:20 PM, Nivalian wrote:
>
> Good question. I know the difference between facts and interpretation of the facts; and how worldviews drive their interpretations of those facts. Once you look deeper and understand certain dating methods and how they work you will notice something is not right. I also know a little about how science funding works, which is more political than science.
>

Are you claiming to know more about dating techniques than the people
who developed and used them do?
Where did you get this information?

There are many YEC web sites that repeat part of the story when it comes
to dating and ignore what science says about them..
"Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using
the Carbon dating method" is a good one.
You will find no references to it on other than christian web sites.
No references includes http://www.ornl.gov/ where you should first look
for it.

[Mike Painter]

On 7/22/2012 9:46 PM, Nivalian wrote:
> Hey Mark - I believe the problem is more philosophical than science. If you believe in naturalism you are going to interpret the evidence differently than someone who doesn't believe in naturalism.
>

If you don't want to talk about science then this is not the place to be.

Science spends most of it's time trying to show that it's theories are
wrong.

Your 6000 year old earth also denies all of astronomy and a huge part of
physics.

Either that or your god tricked us.

[Mike Painter]

I'm not sure what creationists you deal with but the vast majority here
and on the major web sites absolutely deny evolution as defined by science.

[Nivalian]

On Monday, July 23, 2012 12:57:10 AM UTC-4, RMcBane wrote:


> Have you ever taken a course that explained dating radiometric methods
> or does your information come from creationist literature/websites?

Yes to both. I took a course that explained dating radiometric methods in a secular college, and studied information from creationist literature/websites. I started out like most people believing in ToE and billions of years. I was NOT a creationist until I actually understood the methods used fully and read peer-reviewed articles; not from media outlets and headline reporting.

> Do you have experience in going after research grants, or does your
> knowledge of how research is funded again come from the same creationist
> sources?
>

The NCSE, for example, are anti-creationists who receive grants from the government (directly) and universities (indirectly) and need public support to help fund research for evolution by spreading the word. Therefore, in return, the government will give more money for grants and research in regards to evolution.

> Are you aware that these techniques are used by industry? Oil and gas
> industry and mining industry use an old earth model and no global flood
> for exploration and development of resources. Private companies will
> use whatever model works best, the bottom line is money, not politics.
> I suggest that you try to find any company that has successfully used a
> young earth and/or global flood model for exploration and then ask
> yourself why not if you are not able to find any.

This has nothing to do with an old earth or new earth models.

[jonathan]

"Nivalian" <rhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:726c4467-2d90-4ec8...@googlegroups.com...

But if you're going to claim the earth is so young, that's a hard
point to make, the evidence of an ancient Earth is quite
abundant even to the naked eye.

The Grand Canyon for instance, If the canyon was
formed by the water cuttting deeper and deeper
into the rock, the river would stop flowing pretty
quickly, as it would've dug itself a hole. The only
possible explanation is that the ground is rising up,
and the river maintains the same relative level, so
it can keep flowing long enough to cut through
all those layers of rock.

No carbon dating or any fancy science is needed
to see that many types of rocks must have taken
eons to form.






>
>
>

[Slow Vehicle]

On Jul 22, 11:58锟絧m, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 23, 2012 12:57:10 AM UTC-4, RMcBane wrote:
> > Have you ever taken a course that explained dating radiometric methods
> > or does your information come from creationist literature/websites?
>

> Yes to both. I took a course that explained dating radiometric methods in a secular college, and studied information from creationist literature/websites. 锟絀 started out like most people believing in ToE and billions of years. 锟絀 was NOT a creationist until I actually understood the methods used fully and read peer-reviewed articles; not from media outlets and headline reporting.

Are you aware that you have _yet_ to answer a polite question?
You "took a course", then "studied creationist literature/websites",
and you feel this adequately prepares you to dismiss radiometric
dating in fee simple?
What, precisely, do you think invalidates the convergent results
obtained from properly-used isochron dating techniques?
Can you provide citations, or links to the sources you imply?
Do you know enough about what, for instance, I believe, to feel good
about implying that I get my information from "media outlets and
headline reporting"?

> > Do you have experience in going after research grants, or does your
> > knowledge of how research is funded again come from the same creationist
> > sources?
>

> The NCSE, for example, are anti-creationists who receive grants from the government (directly) and universities (indirectly) and need public support to help fund research for evolution by spreading the word. 锟絋herefore, in return, the government will give more money for grants and research in regards to evolution.

Ah. I see. One of those who does not understand how science works.

> > Are you aware that these techniques are used by industry? 锟絆il and gas

> > industry and mining industry use an old earth model and no global flood

> > for exploration and development of resources. 锟絇rivate companies will

> > use whatever model works best, the bottom line is money, not politics.
> > I suggest that you try to find any company that has successfully used a
> > young earth and/or global flood model for exploration and then ask
> > yourself why not if you are not able to find any.
>
> This has nothing to do with an old earth or new earth models.

I would like to hear you explain how you think that the fact that
industries, with millions and millions of dollars riding on results,
successfully uses old-earth models (including reliance upon the
accuracy of isochron dating), "has nothing to do with old earth or new
earth models".

Why do things _look_ so old?
Where is the physical evidence for the Flood?
Where is the historical evidence for the Flood? (If you prefer, why
did the Egyptians, for instance, not seem to notice being destroyed by
the Flood?)

[Ernest Major]

In message <4b9ea3ac-3abd-4ecb...@googlegroups.com>,
Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com> writes

It's about time you starting addressing evidence, rather than throwing
out vague and unsupported animadversions.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

In message <726c4467-2d90-4ec8...@googlegroups.com>,
Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com> writes

Lots of creationists deny speciation (even though it has been repeatedly
observed in the wild, in the field and in the lab); other creationists
are young earth hyperevolutionists (is that your position?)

We have at least one creationist here who denies the existence of
natural selection (I diagnose the more pious than thou syndrome), and
another who argues that it is a meaningless term.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:41:02 -0700, Nivalian wrote:

> I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast pace, which is what I prefer.

Well.. Welcome. We've had a shortage of creationists here, which rather detracts from the
fun-to-be-had. But your're a fine example and i'll tell you why in a minute.

> I've been trying to find a new forum since facebook and the History Channel discontinued
> theirs. I hope to learn a lot and have clean interesting debates with some of you.

If you're looking for debates without namecalling, this place is pretty good. If you expect
people not to badger you on your previous statements, you're in the wrong place.

> I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, in just
> 6000 years ago.

Well... Let's hope you grow up some day. Yet, as i said, youre a fine example of a YEC,
since so far, and i;ve been reading all your posts in this thread, you've managed to
sidestep all questions put to you.

Chapeau.

> I know I'm a minority so be easy (for now). I will do by best to not to offend anyone.

That's nice. I hope you'll get around to answering some of the basic questions asked in this
thread. So far, you're a farly typical YEC, claiming to be scientifically literate and having
studied he material, but completely out of your depth and quite evasive when it comes to
actually backing that up.

A fine example, as i said.

[SkyEyes]

On Jul 22, 5:41�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast pace, which is what I prefer. �I've been trying to find a new forum since facebook and the History Channel discontinued theirs. �I hope to learn a lot and have clean interesting debates with some of you.

>
> I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, in just 6000 years ago.
>

> I know I'm a minority so be easy (for now). �I will do by best to not to offend anyone.

Glad to meet you. I'm a former born-again christian and ex-Old Earth
Creationist. Now I'm an atheist and quite enthusiastic about
evolution.

What in particular would you care to talk about?


Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 00:42:02 -0400, Nivalian wrote
(in article <46cc7220-b180-4ed2...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:58:30 PM UTC-4, J.J. O&#39;Shea wrote:
>
>>
>> Ooh, boy.
>>
>
> I get that response many times
>

Yep, we gots us another preacher, here, boyz'n'grrlz. Sad, really.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[RMcBane]

On 7/23/2012 1:58 AM, Nivalian wrote:
> On Monday, July 23, 2012 12:57:10 AM UTC-4, RMcBane wrote:
>
>
>> Have you ever taken a course that explained dating radiometric methods
>> or does your information come from creationist literature/websites?
>
> Yes to both. I took a course that explained dating radiometric methods in a secular college, and studied information from creationist literature/websites. I started out like most people believing in ToE and billions of years. I was NOT a creationist until I actually understood the methods used fully and read peer-reviewed articles; not from media outlets and headline reporting.
>

Great, then what do you think are the problems with these methods?

>
>> Do you have experience in going after research grants, or does your
>> knowledge of how research is funded again come from the same creationist
>> sources?
>>
>
> The NCSE, for example, are anti-creationists who receive grants from the government (directly) and universities (indirectly) and need public support to help fund research for evolution by spreading the word. Therefore, in return, the government will give more money for grants and research in regards to evolution.
>

You didn't answer my question about your experience.

But speaking of NCSE, their membership is from individuals and
scientific organizations. They don't mention any government grants in
their funding section, but I didn't dig into their IRS filings to see
exactly how much government money they received. You can read about
their membership and funding at:
<http://ncse.com/about/faq>

You will also find in their FAQ that NCSE doesn't appear to do any
research on evolution.

>
>> Are you aware that these techniques are used by industry? Oil and gas
>> industry and mining industry use an old earth model and no global flood
>> for exploration and development of resources. Private companies will
>> use whatever model works best, the bottom line is money, not politics.
>> I suggest that you try to find any company that has successfully used a
>> young earth and/or global flood model for exploration and then ask
>> yourself why not if you are not able to find any.
>
> This has nothing to do with an old earth or new earth models.

Why would you think that industry finding one model useful and the
other not, has nothing to do with the conversation. It sound like you
are in denial already.


--
Richard McBane

[Roger Shrubber]

Nivalian wrote:
> I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast pace, which is what I prefer. I've been trying to find a new forum since facebook and the History Channel discontinued theirs. I hope to learn a lot and have clean interesting debates with some of you.
>
> I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, in just 6000 years ago.
>
> I know I'm a minority so be easy (for now). I will do by best to not to offend anyone.

Here is a suggestion. Pick a small number of people to respond to.
Ignore the others. If you state you are doing so, so much the better.

If you don't, the conversation will become fractured into way too
many threads and very little progress will be made.

Some people may be better to respond to than others. I will
suggest 3.

Garamond is your first choice. You have already engaged him.
He is surpassingly patient and not inclined to insult. He
writes well and has show an inclination to spend a fair
amount of time constructing well informed replies.

Chris Thompson is similarly mellow. He is also inclined to
be thorough in his responses and will potentially investigate
what you claim. He appears motivated to engage.

Ernest Major has been at this for a long time and has a
good command of the facts. He has engaged.

Each of these people are more than capable of addressing
most aspects of evolution and have shown that they are
capable of understanding their own limitations. That turns
out to be more important than pressing their strengths.

I could and would love to focus on you but lack the time.
Don't waste time responding to this post but do consider the
suggestion.

[wiki trix]

On Jul 22, 8:58�ｿｽpm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 7:41�ｿｽpm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast pace, which is what I prefer. �ｿｽI've been trying to find a new forum since facebook and the History Channel discontinued theirs. �ｿｽI hope to learn a lot and have clean interesting debates with some of you.

>
> > I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, in just 6000 years ago.
>

> > I know I'm a minority so be easy (for now). �ｿｽI will do by best to not to offend anyone.
>
> Welcome aboard. �ｿｽThis isn't such a bad start. �ｿｽKeep it up. �ｿｽDon't
> worry so much about offending anyone, most everyone has a pretty thick
> skin.
>
> You do know that you are arguing from the short end of the stick?
> Young earth creationism is the closest thing to flat earthism without
> being flat earthism. �ｿｽYou may want to check out some of the Christian
> old earth creationist web sites to confirm that.
>
> We do have a geocentrist creationists, but he may be an old earth
> geocentrist. �ｿｽYou get all kinds here.
>
> Ron Okimoto

That is so true Ron. I, for example, as a devote Ziontologist, know
that the universe was created ex nihilo a mere six thousand years from
now, and true time runs backwards relative to our naive perception of
it.

[wiki trix]

On Jul 22, 10:11�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:41:02 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com>
> wrote in talk.origins:

>
> >I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast pace, which is what I prefer.

> >I've been trying to find a new forum since facebook and the History Channel discontinued theirs.

> >I hope to learn a lot and have clean interesting debates with some of you.
>
> >I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, in just 6000 years ago.
>

> >I know I'm a minority so be easy (for now). �I will do by best to not to offend anyone.
>
> Have you heard of Last Tuesdayism? It teaches that the entire universe
> was created last Tuesday. It has problems with consistency that can also
> be found in Young Earth Creationism.

Last Tuesdayism has problems with consistency? What problems are
those? Please be specific. As a Futurist, I am not a Last Tuesdayist.
But that is not due to problems with consistency, to be sure.

[chris thompson]

On Jul 23, 12:20 am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:53:10 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
> > Welcome to talk.origins!
>
> > Since you bring it up right away, how can you support the idea of a
> > 6000 year old earth? That is contradicted by everything we know of
> > geology and radiometric dating.
>

> Good question.  I know the difference between facts and interpretation of the facts; and how worldviews drive their interpretations of those facts.  Once you look deeper and understand certain dating methods and how they work you will notice something is not right. I also know a little about how science funding works, which is more political than science.

Would you care to go into detail about what isn't right with
radiometric dating? Is there also something wrong with counting rings
on trees to determine it's age?

Chris

>
> > I would also say that based on what I see in the world, belief in a
> > young earth and creation ex nihilo are not required by the majority of
> > Christians.
>
> Right, it's not required to believe in a young earth to be a christian.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> On Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:53:10 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:

> > On Jul 22, 8:41 pm, Nivalian &lt;rhed...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> > &gt; I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast pace, which is what I prefer.  I&#39;ve been trying to find a new forum since facebook and the History Channel discontinued theirs.  I hope to learn a lot and have clean interesting debates with some of you.

> > &gt;
> > &gt; I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, in just 6000 years ago.
> > &gt;

> > &gt; I know I&#39;m a minority so be easy (for now).  I will do by best to not to offend anyone.

>
> > Welcome to talk.origins!
>
> > Since you bring it up right away, how can you support the idea of a
> > 6000 year old earth? That is contradicted by everything we know of
> > geology and radiometric dating.
>

[wiki trix]

On Jul 23, 12:20�am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:53:10 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
> > Welcome to talk.origins!
>
> > Since you bring it up right away, how can you support the idea of a
> > 6000 year old earth? That is contradicted by everything we know of
> > geology and radiometric dating.
>
> Good question. �I know the difference between facts and interpretation of the facts;

Yes. In the scientific method, we assume that there are objective
facts and scientific theory is about the interpretation of those
objective facts. Or everything might be pure illusion. But we run into
questions like how is the success of science to be explained and why
is mathematics so effective and consistent in predicting outcomes, and
so if it is an illusion, it is so pervasive and consistent, that it
may as well be reality. Albert Einstein said: "Reality is merely an
illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism

> and how worldviews drive their interpretations of those facts.

True. Look up Kuhn's theory laden observation for more details.

> �Once you look deeper and understand certain dating methods and how they work you will notice something is not right. I also know a little about how science funding works, which is more political than science.

How science funding works has no effect on the speed of light and the
distance to galaxies, and the greater than 6000 years it would take to
get here.

[chris thompson]

A Futurist? Does that mean you believe the universe will be created
next Tuesday?

Chris

[Rolf]

"Nivalian" <rhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:e8199a3a-1964-44cf...@googlegroups.com...

>I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast pace, which
>is what I prefer. I've been trying to find a new forum since facebook and
>the History Channel discontinued theirs. I hope to learn a lot and have
>clean interesting debates with some of you.
>
> I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of the
> Universe, in just 6000 years ago.
>
> I know I'm a minority so be easy (for now). I will do by best to not to
> offend anyone.
>

Hi, and welcome on board!

I decided I'd have to sort out the question about what to believe, the Bible
or science, 69 years ago.
The bible lost although I still wanted to find out what the religions were
about, and and after 30 years of that I had it pretty well worked out.

What say if we start with the evidence for a young earth, a global flood and
the probality of the story of Noah and the Ark being anywhere near true?

A fact to consider: Oil companies drill for oil using the scientific theory
of earth geology because that is the only method that pays off.

For an introduction to geological evidence, you may start here:
http://www.fjords.com/sognefjord.shtml
or, as I did, google 'Norwegian fjord geology'.

It is interesting to note that we observe the same process of glacial
creation of fjords can be observed in this age and time, on Greenland. That
means we also have first hand, real time evidence of the process already
identified as the source of many Norwegian fjords in effect right now for
all to see if they car too.

Needless to say, all very incompatible with a 6000 or even 50000 year old
Earth!

Rolf

[chris thompson]

I'd mention John Harshman and Richard Norman and John Wilkins.

Chris

[Eric Root]

On Jul 22, 11:56嚙緘m, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:48:20 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
>

> > Welcome! 嚙瘢 feel the belief in God and Darwinian evolution are
> > not necessarily incompatible. 嚙璀nd neither is the idea of creation

> > and a very old Earth.
>

> Hi Jonathon, thanks for responding. 嚙瘢 don't believe in the Theory of Evolution not because of my Christian faith but because science is against it.
>

If science were against it, wouldn't scientist agree with you? If
that were true, wouldn't science have stumbled on a 6000-year age of
the earth, through purely scientific means, without reference to any
particular religious conclusion about the Earth's age?

> Notice I capitalized "Theory of Evolution". 嚙瘢 do however do believe in speciation, natural selection, and mutations. 嚙確here is no quarrel between Creationists and Evolutionists about those.

Actually, by agreeing with scientists (BTW, there is no such thing as
"Evolutionists" with a capital E) you expose yourself to the
accusation of "wolf in sheep's clothing" by the only true creationist
in the world, Ray Martinez.

[Richard Norman]

I have been lurking here but you and Garamond and Ernest Major have
been doing fine in trying to get some actual content from Nivalian.
One more voice asking "but specifically what evidence and
interpretation is lacking or faulty?", no matter how polite, is not
likely to be effective.

My impression is that Navalian has simply rejected utterly the
materialistic and naturalistic basis on which science is based -- or
at least uses the anti-materialistic arguments to simply accept that
all scientific argument must be fatally flawed. There is no arguing
with that not because that postion is correct but because no argument
will be understood. He might well reject the "two magisteria" notion
that relligion and science work in separate domains, the position that
most scientifically minded theists accept. In that case, goddidit and
that is the end of that.

[Mujin]

On 2012/07/23 9:41, Nivalian wrote:
> I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast pace, which is what I prefer. I've been trying to find a new forum since facebook and the History Channel discontinued theirs. I hope to learn a lot and have clean interesting debates with some of you.
>
> I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, in just 6000 years ago.
>
> I know I'm a minority so be easy (for now). I will do by best to not to offend anyone.

Welcome. It's hard to say whether you're in the minority or not (among
the Creationists who post here anyway) since you haven't clearly stated
your position. It would be helpful if you could clarify:

Are you a strict literalist who takes the Bible at face value and
calculates the age of the universe using estimates of the chronology and
genealogies given in the OT?

If you view some parts of the story given in the Bible as non-literal
could you please identify them and explain why you accept them as
symbolic while considering the remainder literal?

Do you believe that it is necessary for your religious beliefs to be
true in order for the proposition that the universe is 6000 years old to
seem reasonable? i.e. do you think that even if all elements of your
Christianity had been lost in the Dark Ages it would be inevitable that
scientific study would eventually determine the age of the universe to
be 6000 years?

Could you please explain what you think is the single strongest piece of
evidence for a universe only 6000 years old?

--
[NOTE: The above is solely the work of the author and
does not represent the official position of Bureau B]

Mujin

煩 惱 無 盡 誓 願 斷 bon no mu jin sei gan dan
法 門 無 量 誓 願 學 ho mon mu ryo sei gan gaku

[Louann Miller]

SkyEyes <skye...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:7686d8ee-78cc-48f5-8f47-
94cac7...@l6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com:

>
> Glad to meet you. I'm a former born-again christian and ex-Old Earth
> Creationist. Now I'm an atheist and quite enthusiastic about
> evolution.
>

Ah, the fatal question (from a church kid to authority figures) "What ELSE
did you lie about?" IMO churches do themselves far more harm, setting
themselves up for that question, than whatever nebulous good they think
they're getting from making the kids spout YEC doctrine.

[Ernest Major]

In message <dsiq08t5aii8ecpas...@4ax.com>, Richard Norman
<rsno...@comcast.net> writes

>On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 05:01:54 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
><chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 23, 7:28�am, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrubb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Nivalian wrote:
>>> > I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast
>>> >pace, which is what I prefer. �I've been trying to find a new forum
>>> >since facebook and the History Channel discontinued theirs. �I hope
>>> >to learn a lot and have clean interesting debates with some of you.
>>>
>>> > I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of

>>> >Universe, in just 6000 years ago.
>>>
>>> > I know I'm a minority so be easy (for now). �I will do by best to

He claimed that "(he doesn't) believe in the Theory of Evolution not
because of (his) Christian faith but because science is against it."
Such a claim means that he can't reject legitimately universally reject
evidence-based inferences on epistemological grounds - he's already
conceded the legitimacy of empirical observation and inference.
--
alias Ernest Major

[TomS]

"On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 21:00:19 -0700 (PDT), in article
<0722430d-0fb8-4b0b...@googlegroups.com>, Nivalian stated..."
>
>On Sunday, July 22, 2012 8:58:52 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On Jul 22, 7:41�pm, Nivalian &lt;rhed...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>>&gt; I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast pace, which
>>is what I prefer. �I&#39;ve been trying to find a new forum since facebook and

>>the History Channel discontinued theirs. �I hope to learn a lot and have clean
>>interesting debates with some of you.

>> &gt;
>>&gt; I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of the

>>Universe, in just 6000 years ago.

>> &gt;
>>&gt; I know I&#39;m a minority so be easy (for now). �I will do by best to not
>>to offend anyone.
>>
>> Welcome aboard. This isn&#39;t such a bad start. Keep it up. Don&#39;t

>> worry so much about offending anyone, most everyone has a pretty thick
>> skin.
>>
>> You do know that you are arguing from the short end of the stick?
>

>Yes I know. I've been outnumbered in most forums because not only do I debate
>people with a different worldviews (e.g. naturalism), I also debate with people
>who have the same worldview as I in reference with the age of the universe,
>earth and evolution.

>
>> Young earth creationism is the closest thing to flat earthism without

>> being flat earthism. You may want to check out some of the Christian

>> old earth creationist web sites to confirm that.
>>
>> We do have a geocentrist creationists, but he may be an old earth

>> geocentrist. You get all kinds here.
>>
>
>Lol...That's what I expected.
>
>

So, what's your opinion about geocentrism?


--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)

[jillery]

Why three? Why not just one? Or even better, why not use email? Or
Facebook? Or even a separate newsgroup? This is a public forum. As
you are proposing a topic explicitly limited to just four
participants, it's trivial to use a forum more suited to that purpose.

[jillery]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 05:01:54 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

No surprise there. Be sure to correct everybody's spelling while you
ignore the context.

[Rolf]

"Nivalian" <rhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:c2682e25-be7d-4056...@googlegroups.com...

> On Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:53:10 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
>
>> Welcome to talk.origins!
>>
>> Since you bring it up right away, how can you support the idea of a
>> 6000 year old earth? That is contradicted by everything we know of
>> geology and radiometric dating.
>
>
> Good question. I know the difference between facts and interpretation of

> the facts; and how worldviews drive their interpretations of those facts.

> Once you look deeper and understand certain dating methods and how they
> work you will notice something is not right. I also know a little about
> how science funding works, which is more political than science.

All right, tell us what is not right. You msut have been reading AIG and
CMI

>
>

Well, the geological colum was well worked out already before Darwin, who
happened also to be an accomplished geologist. Bought by big govt? Wallace
too?

Funding? Suggesting scientists are bought by the political establishment,
and it is all hush-hush? Come on, I've heard better conspiracy theories
than that.

>
>> I would also say that based on what I see in the world, belief in a
>> young earth and creation ex nihilo are not required by the majority of
>> Christians.
>>
>
> Right, it's not required to believe in a young earth to be a christian.
>
>
>

> On Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:53:10 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:

>> On Jul 22, 8:41 pm, Nivalian &lt;rhed...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>> &gt; I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast
>> pace, which is what I prefer. I&#39;ve been trying to find a new forum

>> since facebook and the History Channel discontinued theirs. I hope to
>> learn a lot and have clean interesting debates with some of you.

>> &gt;
>> &gt; I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of

>> the Universe, in just 6000 years ago.

>> &gt;
>> &gt; I know I&#39;m a minority so be easy (for now). I will do by best to
>> not to offend anyone.
>>

>> Welcome to talk.origins!
>>
>> Since you bring it up right away, how can you support the idea of a
>> 6000 year old earth? That is contradicted by everything we know of
>> geology and radiometric dating.
>>

[Rolf]

"Nivalian" <rhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:631058cd-d590-43ee...@googlegroups.com...

> On Monday, July 23, 2012 12:57:10 AM UTC-4, RMcBane wrote:
>
>
>> Have you ever taken a course that explained dating radiometric methods
>> or does your information come from creationist literature/websites?
>
> Yes to both. I took a course that explained dating radiometric methods in
> a secular college, and studied information from creationist
> literature/websites. I started out like most people believing in ToE and
> billions of years. I was NOT a creationist until I actually understood
> the methods used fully and read peer-reviewed articles; not from media
> outlets and headline reporting.
>
>

>> Do you have experience in going after research grants, or does your
>> knowledge of how research is funded again come from the same creationist
>> sources?
>>
>
> The NCSE, for example, are anti-creationists who receive grants from the
> government (directly) and universities (indirectly) and need public
> support to help fund research for evolution by spreading the word.
> Therefore, in return, the government will give more money for grants and
> research in regards to evolution.
>

All right, you already know the truth, with good help from creationsist
sources and your faith.

I suggest you stay with your faith.

[Rolf]

"Nivalian" <rhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4b9ea3ac-3abd-4ecb...@googlegroups.com...

> On Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:02:59 PM UTC-4, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>
>>
>> Welcome to the lions den. If you play nice we promise to chew slowly.
>>
>
> Lol...
>
>> Advice: &#39;DO YOUR HOMEWORK&#39; - sorry for shouting but most
>> creationists don&#39;t understand what they are arguing against.
>>
>
> Hey Mark - I believe the problem is more philosophical than science. If
> you believe in naturalism you are going to interpret the evidence
> differently than someone who doesn't believe in naturalism.
>

'What do you mean by 'believing in naturalism'?

Anything wrong with good old chemistry, physics, mathematics and scientific
curiosity?

[Rolf]

"Nivalian" <rhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:726c4467-2d90-4ec8...@googlegroups.com...

> On Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:48:20 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
>>

>> Welcome! I feel the belief in God and Darwinian evolution are
>> not necessarily incompatible. And neither is the idea of creation

>> and a very old Earth.
>>
>
>
>

> Hi Jonathon, thanks for responding. I don't believe in the Theory of
> Evolution not because of my Christian faith but because science is against
> it.
>
> Notice I capitalized "Theory of Evolution". I do however do believe in
> speciation, natural selection, and mutations. There is no quarrel between

> Creationists and Evolutionists about those.
>

Oh yes, indeed there are. YEC is incompatible with all and every science
there is.
>
>

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/22/12 9:20 PM, Nivalian wrote:
> On Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:53:10 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
>
>> Welcome to talk.origins!
>>
>> Since you bring it up right away, how can you support the idea of a
>> 6000 year old earth? That is contradicted by everything we know of
>> geology and radiometric dating.
>
>
> Good question. I know the difference between facts and
> interpretation of the facts;

Do you? "Queen Elizabeth has five digits on her right hand." Fact, or
interpretation of fact?

> and how worldviews drive their interpretations of those facts.

If you knew that, you would know it is a far, far, far, far, far, far,
far, far worse problem for creationism than for conventional geology.

> Once you look deeper and understand certain dating methods and
> how they work you will notice something is not right.

Are you saying that you are *the* world expert in radiometric dating?
Where have you published?

> I also know a little about how science funding works, which is
> more political than science.

Then you should also know that science gets tested endlessly by other
scientists, and that the surest way to be denied funding is to falsify
results.

You are essentially proposing a conspiracy of dishonesty which is
worldwide and multigenerational, and which has lasted over a century
despite huge rewards to any insider who exposes it. Doesn't seem likely
to me. Perhaps my worldview is driving my interpretation.

>> I would also say that based on what I see in the world, belief in a
>> young earth and creation ex nihilo are not required by the majority of
>> Christians.
>>
>
> Right, it's not required to believe in a young earth to be a christian.

But how can young-earth creationism be reconciled with Christianity?
YEC requires that we deny the evidence of God's creation and that we
make hubris a paramount virtue.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/22/12 10:58 PM, Nivalian wrote:
> On Monday, July 23, 2012 12:57:10 AM UTC-4, RMcBane wrote:
>
>
>> Have you ever taken a course that explained dating radiometric methods
>> or does your information come from creationist literature/websites?
>
> Yes to both. I took a course that explained dating radiometric methods
> in a secular college, and studied information from creationist
> literature/websites. I started out like most people believing in ToE
> and billions of years. I was NOT a creationist until I actually
> understood the methods used fully and read peer-reviewed articles;
> not from media outlets and headline reporting.

Where have you published? You deserve international and lasting fame if
your results stand up to scrutiny. Do they?

>> Do you have experience in going after research grants, or does your
>> knowledge of how research is funded again come from the same creationist
>> sources?
>
> The NCSE, for example, are anti-creationists who receive grants from
> the government (directly) and universities (indirectly) and need public
> support to help fund research for evolution by spreading the word.
> Therefore, in return, the government will give more money for grants
> and research in regards to evolution.

As it happens, I have been to the NCSE headquarters. It appears, in
size, furnishings, and general opulence, to be comparable to the
facilities of a below-average church. Meanwhile, the city it is in has
over a hundred churches before you even get through the 'E's in the
listing. I do not know how much public support the NCSE gets, but I
will wager that it is at least four orders of magnitude less than the
public support received by creationist organizations in the US in
property tax exemptions alone.

[TomS]

"On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 07:38:00 -0700, in article
<jujnk6$olv$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Mark Isaak stated..."

Does the NCSE receive any direct grants from any government?

What kind of public support does it get? What kind of "indirect"
grants from universities?

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/22/12 9:46 PM, Nivalian wrote:
>> [...]

> Hey Mark - I believe the problem is more philosophical than science.
> If you believe in naturalism you are going to interpret the evidence
> differently than someone who doesn't believe in naturalism.

Everyone, yourself included, believes in naturalism. If you didn't, you
would not be able to distinguish your pancake syrup from drain cleaner,
or to realize that you cannot levitate above speeding cars, and you
would be dead now.

[Ernest Major]

In message <jujmk3$m8r$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> writes

Time to recommend the song "The Words of God", which expresses neatly
what I think the Christian attitude ought to be, again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-vDhYTlCNw
--
alias Ernest Major

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/22/12 9:56 PM, Nivalian wrote:
> On Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:48:20 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
>
> Hi Jonathon, thanks for responding. I don't believe in the Theory
> of Evolution not because of my Christian faith but because science
> is against it.

I have read a great deal of mainstream biology, creationism, and
historical accounts of both, and I have yet to see the science against
evolution, unless you count a period in the early 20th century before
genetics was understood and incorporated into the theory. Where is this
science being hidden?

>
> I do however do believe in speciation, natural selection, and
> mutations. There is no quarrel between Creationists and
> Evolutionists about those.

You have not met Ray Martinez yet.

[Rolf]

"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OGC8nrHP...@meden.invalid...

He pretends innocense but is a dyed in the wool creationist. He is not her
to learn but to sell his faith. (Christian creationism).

Since he has educated himself from creationist sources and reject all of
science that doesn't fit his beliefs, he is beyond reasoning.
He is not interested in learning anything that goes against his
preconceptions. He just comes back with vague references to well known
creationstic nonsense.
That's what he wants to believe, what does he expect to find here?
Acceptance of his creationist claims?

Is he familiar with the "honest creationist", Kurt Wise?

Here's a bit of something I found at talk origins archive many years ago:

"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a
young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As
I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the
evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to
admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word
of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand." (Wise 2001).
As such, Wise holds certain "hypotheses" (including a very narrow and
theologically questionable interpretation of Scripture) which he will
believe even though all evidence indicates otherwise. Such statements,
ostensibly coming from a scientist practicing the scientific method which
holds all conclusions as provisional and open to further testing, certainly
indicates that there is no reason to trust the scientific validity of any
unpublished, unreviewed "analyses" performed by this man. In light of the
fact that Mr. Camp is fond of quoting "creation scientists" like Duane Gish,
Lee Spetner, Walter ReMine, and "John Woodmorappe," another honest statement
by young-earth creationist Wise is pertinent here:

"Most creation science is garbage" (quoted in an interview in Hitt 1996).

Wise has expounded:

"This gets me in a lot of trouble with a lot of creationists, ... the
material that's out there is-uh, I'll hold back and be nice-garbage. It's
really atrocious" (quoted by Mayshark 1998).

Links:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040605101458/http://a-s.clayton.edu/criticalthinking/Harper%27s+Mag+on+creationism.htm



http://www.weeklywire.com/ww/05-18-98/knox_feat.html

[Walter Bushell]

In article <4vOdnTuXRIjQzpDN...@giganews.com>,

Not usually fatal to the inquirer these days, although there may be
some physical or social punishment involved.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Dexter]

"Nivalian" <rhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:e8199a3a-1964-44cf...@googlegroups.com...

>I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast pace,
> which is what I prefer. I've been trying to find a new forum since
> facebook and the History Channel discontinued theirs. I hope to
> learn a lot and have clean interesting debates with some of you.
>
> I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of

> the Universe, in just 6000 years ago.
>
> I know I'm a minority so be easy (for now). I will do by best to not
> to offend anyone.
________________________________________________________

Let the games begin.

[Attila]

Eric Root wrote:

> On Jul 22, 11:56 pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:48:20 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
>>

>> > Welcome! I feel the belief in God and Darwinian evolution are
>> > not necessarily incompatible. And neither is the idea of creation

>> > and a very old Earth.
>>

>> Hi Jonathon, thanks for responding. I don't believe in the Theory of

>> Evolution not because of my Christian faith but because science is
>> against it.
>>
>
> If science were against it, wouldn't scientist agree with you? If
> that were true, wouldn't science have stumbled on a 6000-year age of
> the earth, through purely scientific means, without reference to any
> particular religious conclusion about the Earth's age?
>

>> Notice I capitalized "Theory of Evolution". I do however do believe in
>> speciation, natural selection, and mutations. There is no quarrel

>> between Creationists and Evolutionists about those.
>
> Actually, by agreeing with scientists (BTW, there is no such thing as
> "Evolutionists" with a capital E) you expose yourself to the
> accusation of "wolf in sheep's clothing" by the only true creationist
> in the world, Ray Martinez.

Eric please! Don't provoke him. I don't think I could take another "Todd
Wood is a double agent" thread. One is/was more than enough.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 7/22/12 11:06 PM, Nivalian wrote:
> On Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:28:27 PM UTC-4, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> Welcome to the Monkey House!
>>
>> Be aware that believing in God, and having a Christian worldview does
>> not mean one must reject the science of evolution. I believe God
>> created the universe, and that he created all life on Earth. I also
>> believe that evolution was one of his mechanisms for that creation.
>>
>>
>
> Dana - you may be surprised but just about all scientists, Creationists included, believe in "evolution".

Evolution is not something one "believes in". It's a fact, that one
accepts. One doesn't "believe in" gravity, or germs, one accepts them
as facts. Also, creationists have given up any right to be called
"scientists" by rejecting the scientific method.



> But, unsurprisingly, there are also two different terms of evolution.


Actually, there are several definitions of the term. For biologists,
evolution means "change in gene frequencies in populations over
generations".

>
> The main difference between the two has to do with the age of the earth.


The age of the earth has nothing to do with the biological definition of
evolution. The age of the earth is entirely independent of the theory
of evolution.

DJT

[UC]

On Jul 23, 12:14�am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:41:02 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast pace, which is what I prefer. �I've been trying to find a new forum since facebook and the History Channel discontinued theirs. �I hope to learn a lot and have clean interesting debates with some of you.
>

> �.

>
> >I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, in just 6000 years ago.
>

> Standard opening reply/question:
>
> It takes light a bit more than 2,000,000 years to reach earth from the
> nearest major galaxy, Andromeda.
> How did that light get here in 6,000 years?

Light doesn't 'rot' or get 'old'.

>
> >I know I'm a minority so be easy (for now).
>

> Not clearly a minority, unless you're only counting people with a
> science education.

>
> > I will do by best to not to offend anyone.
>

> Probably impossible to offend anyone here.
>
> Hope you enjoy your stay with us.
>
> --
> � Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
> � �I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[wiki trix]

On Jul 23, 8:31�am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 23, 7:54�am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 10:11�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:41:02 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com>

> > > wrote in talk.origins:

>
> > > >I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast pace, which is what I prefer.
> > > >I've been trying to find a new forum since facebook and the History Channel discontinued theirs.
> > > >I hope to learn a lot and have clean interesting debates with some of you.
>

> > > >I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, in just 6000 years ago.
>

> > > >I know I'm a minority so be easy (for now). �I will do by best to not to offend anyone.
>
> > > Have you heard of Last Tuesdayism? It teaches that the entire universe
> > > was created last Tuesday. It has problems with consistency that can also
> > > be found in Young Earth Creationism.
>
> > Last Tuesdayism has problems with consistency? What problems are
> > those? Please be specific. As a Futurist, I am not a Last Tuesdayist.
> > But that is not due to problems with consistency, to be sure.
>
> A Futurist? Does that mean you believe the universe will be created
> next Tuesday?

Actually we Ziontologists believe that the universe will be created
6000 years from the current time at any given time. That ends up being
a Tuesday approximately 14.285714285714285714285714285714 % of the
time.

[Mike Painter]

On 7/22/2012 10:58 PM, Nivalian wrote:
> On Monday, July 23, 2012 12:57:10 AM UTC-4, RMcBane wrote:
>
>
>> Have you ever taken a course that explained dating radiometric methods
>> or does your information come from creationist literature/websites?
>
> Yes to both. I took a course that explained dating radiometric methods in a secular college, and studied information from creationist literature/websites. I started out like most people believing in ToE and billions of years. I was NOT a creationist until I actually understood the methods used fully and read peer-reviewed articles; not from media outlets and headline reporting.
>

Studying creationist web sites for information about science is like
searching a Republican web site for information about Democrats.

And all of us would like to see the peer reviewed articles that appear
in science journals.

>
>> Do you have experience in going after research grants, or does your
>> knowledge of how research is funded again come from the same creationist
>> sources?
>>
>
> The NCSE, for example, are anti-creationists who receive grants from the government (directly) and universities (indirectly) and need public support to help fund research for evolution by spreading the word. Therefore, in return, the government will give more money for grants and research in regards to evolution.

Exactly. Creationism is not science. Science says so for a variety of
reasons. So does the Supreme Court.

[Mike Painter]

Betting is now open on,

1. How long Nivalian will stay.
2. If he will ever learn anything.
3. Did he come here to save us?

[Mike Painter]

On 7/22/2012 11:24 PM, jonathan wrote:
> "Nivalian" <rhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:726c4467-2d90-4ec8...@googlegroups.com...

>> On Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:48:20 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
>>>
>>> Welcome! I feel the belief in God and Darwinian evolution are
>>> not necessarily incompatible. And neither is the idea of creation
>>> and a very old Earth.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Jonathon, thanks for responding. I don't believe in the Theory of
>> Evolution not because of my Christian faith but because science is against
>> it.
>>

>> Notice I capitalized "Theory of Evolution". I do however do believe in
>> speciation, natural selection, and mutations. There is no quarrel between
>> Creationists and Evolutionists about those.
>
>

> But if you're going to claim the earth is so young, that's a hard
> point to make, the evidence of an ancient Earth is quite
> abundant even to the naked eye.
>
> The Grand Canyon for instance, If the canyon was
> formed by the water cuttting deeper and deeper
> into the rock, the river would stop flowing pretty
> quickly, as it would've dug itself a hole. The only
> possible explanation is that the ground is rising up,
> and the river maintains the same relative level, so
> it can keep flowing long enough to cut through
> all those layers of rock.
>
> No carbon dating or any fancy science is needed
> to see that many types of rocks must have taken
> eons to form.
>

But you forgot the flood and I will bet a nickel, no, a dime (!) that
this will be given as the cause.

[Will in New Haven]

On Jul 22, 8:41�pm, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast pace, which is what I prefer. �I've been trying to find a new forum since facebook and the History Channel discontinued theirs. �I hope to learn a lot and have clean interesting debates with some of you.
>
> I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, in just 6000 years ago.
>
> I know I'm a minority so be easy (for now). �I will do by best to not to offend anyone.

I would like to propose a theological question. Why is there so much
_evidence_ of an old earth around? We don't need to discuss evolution.
Cosmology and geology make it impossible to be both aware of what is
going on around us and believe that the earth is only thousands of
years old. If you throw in the clear evidence for evolution, it is
only the icing on the layer-cake of the other sciences.

If we grant that the Earth IS only six thousand years old, why is that
evidence all there? What kind of God would put all that evidence
before us?

Is your god really Loki or perhaps Coyote? Or does your god hate aware
and intelligent people and wish to trap them into a lake of fire?

For the evidence I mention above, look around you, or go to

getafuckingeducationyoumoron.edu

--
Will in New Haven

[Will in New Haven]

I know the answer to #3, or the probable answer. Most activist
creationists are DELIGHTED to believe that we are going to Hell. If,
against the odds, there is some sort of creator-god who has arranged
for us to have a happy afterlife, Ray Martinez, for one, will be
FURIOUS that evolutionsts and other riff-raff will be right there with
him.

[chris thompson]

Er? I thought the context of Roger's post was suggesting people
Nivalian could/should interact with. I think John, Richard and John
are more knowledgeable than I am, and also more even-tempered (as my
past interactions with you, to my sorrow, have shown). I'm trying to
be better.

But perhaps, if there was some interaction recently that had to do
with spelling, you could remind me.

Chris

[chris thompson]

On Jul 23, 8:18�pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> He pretends innocense but is a dyed in the wool creationist. He is not her
> to learn but to sell his faith. (Christian creationism).
>

Oh, I don't think he's a dyed in the wool creationists. He came right
out and said he's a creationist.

But he does have serious, serious problems with assessing evidence.
While he claims biologists are interpreting everything through a lens
of _a priori_ acceptance of evolution, in fact he's denying all the
evidence because he filters it through the creationist lens.

It would be good if he presented some objective statistical analyses
of data that point to a young earth, for instance. It's pretty
difficult to fool someone who actually understands the math and tests
used to analyze data.

Chris

(snip fine stuff)

[chris thompson]

On Jul 23, 1:21�pm, Mike Painter <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Betting is now open on,
>
> 1. How long Nivalian will stay.

It would help to know where Nivalian is. (S)he might be at work right
now. But if past experience holds, Niv is, at this point, gone for
good (a shame, really. I hope I am mistaken.)

> 2. If he will ever learn anything.

Mighty Casey strikes out 90% of the time, but as they say, "hope
springs eternal".

> 3. Did he come here to save us?

Don't think so. So many others have come here to try to save
themselves. But when people didn't quail, weep and wail in the face of
their unsupported assertions, they realized t.o. was not the place to
be.

Maybe I am wrong. Just pointing out what's happened in the past.

Chris

[chris thompson]

On Jul 23, 10:47锟絘m, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 07:38:00 -0700, in article

> <jujnk6$ol...@speranza.aioe.org>, Mark Isaak stated..."

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 7/22/12 10:58 PM, Nivalian wrote:
> >> On Monday, July 23, 2012 12:57:10 AM UTC-4, RMcBane wrote:
>
> >>> Have you ever taken a course that explained dating radiometric methods
> >>> or does your information come from creationist literature/websites?
>
> >> Yes to both. I took a course that explained dating radiometric methods
> >> in a secular college, and studied information from creationist

> >> literature/websites. 锟絀 started out like most people believing in ToE
> >> and billions of years. 锟絀 was NOT a creationist until I actually

> >> understood the methods used fully and read peer-reviewed articles;
> >> not from media outlets and headline reporting.
>

> >Where have you published? 锟結ou deserve international and lasting fame if
> >your results stand up to scrutiny. 锟紻o they?

>
> >>> Do you have experience in going after research grants, or does your
> >>> knowledge of how research is funded again come from the same creationist
> >>> sources?
>
> >> The NCSE, for example, are anti-creationists who receive grants from
> >> the government (directly) and universities (indirectly) and need public
> >> support to help fund research for evolution by spreading the word.

> >> 锟絋herefore, in return, the government will give more money for grants

> >> and research in regards to evolution.
>

> >As it happens, I have been to the NCSE headquarters. 锟絀t appears, in

> >size, furnishings, and general opulence, to be comparable to the

> >facilities of a below-average church. 锟組eanwhile, the city it is in has

> >over a hundred churches before you even get through the 'E's in the

> >listing. 锟絀 do not know how much public support the NCSE gets, but I

> >will wager that it is at least four orders of magnitude less than the
> >public support received by creationist organizations in the US in
> >property tax exemptions alone.
>
> Does the NCSE receive any direct grants from any government?

I'd bet not, but you'd probably get more information if you asked at
Panda's Thumb.

>
> What kind of public support does it get? What kind of "indirect"
> grants from universities?

Universities are in the business of _getting_ grants, not handing them
out.

Chris

[Friar Broccoli]

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 21:39:19 -0700 (PDT), Nivalian <rhe...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, July 23, 2012 12:14:00 AM UTC-4, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
>>> I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator
>>> of the Universe, in just 6000 years ago.

.

>> Standard opening reply/question:
>>
>> It takes light a bit more than 2,000,000 years to reach earth from the
>> nearest major galaxy, Andromeda.
>> How did that light get here in 6,000 years?

.

> The star light problem is not only a problem for YEC, but a
> problem for OEC as well called the horizon problem. There are
> some wild proposals to rescue a particular theory but only
> opens doors to more questions and issues.

So, if I understand correctly, you know about a problem with an
uncertain hypothesis, concerning the structure of the early
universe, therefore your beliefs which contradict unrelated
direct observations are OK. Did I get that right?

> Maybe are assumptions with the constant speed of light is
> wrong.
> Who knows?

So, nobody, you included, knows of any way of making your beliefs
on the age of the universe consistent with observed facts. Why
then should anyone accept your beliefs as possibly true?

[introductory pleasantries snipped]

[chris thompson]

On Jul 23, 12:39�am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 23, 2012 12:14:00 AM UTC-4, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > Standard opening reply/question:
>
> > It takes light a bit more than 2,000,000 years to reach earth from the
> > nearest major galaxy, Andromeda.
> > How did that light get here in 6,000 years?
>

> The star light problem is not only a problem for YEC, but a problem for OEC as well called the horizon problem. There are some wild proposals to rescue a particular theory but only opens doors to more questions and issues. �Maybe are assumptions with the constant speed of light is wrong. �Who knows?

Which assumptions? The speed of light has been measured repeatedly for
decades, with ever greater accuracy and precision. Those aren't
assumptions; that's _data_...and the measured speed of light has not
changed by more than a couple percent in all that time. That's an
error value easily accounted for by the instruments being used at the
time.

If you want to call into play the idea that the speed of light changed
right before we were able to measure it accurately, you'll need some
data to support that hypothesis.

Chris

>
> > Not clearly a minority, unless you&#39;re only counting people with a
> > science education.
>
> Today, the science educations follows todays paradigm, which can change.

>
> > Hope you enjoy your stay with us.
>

> Thank you

[chris thompson]

On Jul 23, 9:58�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 20:58:47 +0930, Roger Shrubber

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <rog.shrubb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Nivalian wrote:
> >> I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast pace, which is what I prefer. �I've been trying to find a new forum since facebook and the History Channel discontinued theirs. �I hope to learn a lot and have clean interesting debates with some of you.
>

> >> I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, in just 6000 years ago.
>

> >> I know I'm a minority so be easy (for now). �I will do by best to not to offend anyone.
>
> >Here is a suggestion. Pick a small number of people to respond to.
> >Ignore the others. If you state you are doing so, so much the better.
>
> >If you don't, the conversation will become fractured into way too
> >many threads and very little progress will be made.
>
> >Some people may be better to respond to than others. I will
> >suggest 3.
>
> >Garamond is your first choice. You have already engaged him.
> >He is surpassingly patient and not inclined to insult. He
> >writes well and has show an inclination to spend a fair
> >amount of time constructing well informed replies.
>
> >Chris Thompson is similarly mellow. He is also inclined to
> >be thorough in his responses and will potentially investigate
> >what you claim. He appears motivated to engage.
>
> >Ernest Major has been at this for a long time and has a
> >good command of the facts. He has engaged.
>
> >Each of these people are more than capable of addressing
> >most aspects of evolution and have shown that they are
> >capable of understanding their own limitations. That turns
> >out to be more important than pressing their strengths.
>
> >I could and would love to focus on you but lack the time.
> >Don't waste time responding to this post but do consider the
> >suggestion.
>

> Why three? �Why not just one? �Or even better, why not use email? �Or
> Facebook? �Or even a separate newsgroup? �This is a public forum. �As
> you are proposing a topic explicitly limited to just four
> participants, it's trivial to use a forum more suited to that purpose.

I can only address one thing. Nivalian wrote in his initial post that
Facebook had shut down their channel.

Chris

[HaShem Rules]

On Sunday, July 22, 2012 8:41:02 PM UTC-4, Nivalian wrote:
> I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast pace, which is what I prefer. I&#39;ve been trying to find a new forum since facebook and the History Channel discontinued theirs. I hope to learn a lot and have clean interesting debates with some of you.

>
> I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of the
> Universe, in just 6000 years ago.

The Almighty God made creation. His legions 'good and bad', seeded the planet
to their 'bosses' specs...(Seeing as he is a non-corporeal psyche, beyond the stars.) Where lucifer put himself, in Allah....

Sometimes they got free reign and could seed whatever they wanted. How do
you think the dinosaurs came into existence?

>
> I know I'm a minority so be easy (for now). I will do by best to not to
> offend anyone.

Do you believe in Darwinian thought. Are you a self proclaimed evolved modern human? Evolved from; "You don't what!" How smart is that?

Did you know our race is 99.8% Neanderthal genome? How the hell did that happen?
I will leave it up to you, to find out.....

Welcome to the group.....

--
Islam and Judaism exist. And they have an origin...
Genesis 16, Islam. thru the wild ass, Ishmael...
Genesis 17, Judaism...thru HaShem's Issac...

Call me crazy, but I think that means there is the Almighty God in the mix....

[chris thompson]

On Jul 23, 10:38锟絘m, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:

> On 7/22/12 10:58 PM, Nivalian wrote:
>
> > On Monday, July 23, 2012 12:57:10 AM UTC-4, RMcBane wrote:
>
> >> Have you ever taken a course that explained dating radiometric methods
> >> or does your information come from creationist literature/websites?
>
> > Yes to both. I took a course that explained dating radiometric methods
> > in a secular college, and studied information from creationist

> > literature/websites. 锟絀 started out like most people believing in ToE
> > and billions of years. 锟絀 was NOT a creationist until I actually

> > understood the methods used fully and read peer-reviewed articles;
> > not from media outlets and headline reporting.
>

> Where have you published? 锟結ou deserve international and lasting fame if
> your results stand up to scrutiny. 锟紻o they?

>
> >> Do you have experience in going after research grants, or does your
> >> knowledge of how research is funded again come from the same creationist
> >> sources?
>
> > The NCSE, for example, are anti-creationists who receive grants from
> > the government (directly) and universities (indirectly) and need public
> > support to help fund research for evolution by spreading the word.

> > 锟絋herefore, in return, the government will give more money for grants

> > and research in regards to evolution.
>

> As it happens, I have been to the NCSE headquarters. 锟絀t appears, in

> size, furnishings, and general opulence, to be comparable to the

> facilities of a below-average church. 锟組eanwhile, the city it is in has

> over a hundred churches before you even get through the 'E's in the

> listing. 锟絀 do not know how much public support the NCSE gets, but I

> will wager that it is at least four orders of magnitude less than the
> public support received by creationist organizations in the US in
> property tax exemptions alone.
>

Well Mark, what did you expect? You went to the store front. You
didn't go to the subsidiary tax-haven offices in the Caymans or the
skiing office in Liechtenstein. When you work your way into the Fourth
Level, you will be invited on big-game safaris to hunt mountain
gorillas in Rwanda, and at Second Level you will be given an
opportunity to collect a panda fur in Szechuan. First level members,
of course, get to attend the baby barbecues (side orders of Golden
Lemur also available).

And you get your choice of an Escalade (custom engine emitting extra
CO2 of course) filled with hot babes (or guys, if's that's your
inclination) or a Corvette (with one babe, guy, or hamster).

Chris

[jillery]

In my efforts to make my case, I find instead I have none. You had
made a funny about UC and I missed it altogether. You are right. I am
wrong. Mea Culpa. Please disregard my previous post as the noise
from a dodo.

[Attila]

I don't know about you but spending eternity with Ray is my idea of hell.

[Louann Miller]

chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in news:3e78c931-e9ba-
4c57-92fa-2...@k13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

> On Jul 23, 1:21�pm, Mike Painter <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Betting is now open on,
>>
>> 1. How long Nivalian will stay.
>
> It would help to know where Nivalian is. (S)he might be at work right
> now. But if past experience holds, Niv is, at this point, gone for
> good (a shame, really. I hope I am mistaken.)

Maybe we should be a little gentler with our toys if we don't want them to
break first thing.

[Attila]

It reminds me of the town where I live. For some reason the mormons think
it's important to send missionaries here. They arrive, wander around town
wearing suits (even in summer) and backpacks. They are between 20-25, always
male, always American, doing their penance (or whatever the technical term
is). I have seen only one instance where they actual talked to a native.
Their main activity seems to be going to regional mormon conferences in the
area (Udine or Trieste). After their stint is over (it lasts 3-4 months)
they disappear to be replaced by two new mormons. And on and on it goes.
Maybe Nivalian is doing the creationist version of missionary work. Each new
budding creationist is assigned to a satanic news group. They show up and
post exactly 25 posts and then their mission (literally) is finished. Off
they go to creationist spa or beach resort and frolic with the dinosaurs.

[Roger Shrubber]

jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 20:58:47 +0930, Roger Shrubber

> Why three? Why not just one? Or even better, why not use email? Or
> Facebook? Or even a separate newsgroup? This is a public forum. As
> you are proposing a topic explicitly limited to just four
> participants, it's trivial to use a forum more suited to that purpose.

Just 1 is probably best, at least 1 for the bulk of things.

And there's no slight intended to anyone I didn't single out.
I simply read from some of the responses I'd seen, and an
incomplete survey it was. Yes, many would be upset, somewhat
in the mode of "don't get between me and fresh meat" or "I
saw that fat juicy sheep first" mode that a mob of lone
wolves might say to each other.

Do consider what happens when a freshie shows up.

And I wonder, do they tend to run away because they were
never serious in the first place or is it, to some
significant degree, just due to the noise of so many
voices at once.

Or maybe I'm just lazy, willing to feast on the meat
vicariously and don't want to read as many responses.

[chris thompson]

Damn. 6000 years from now? I was wondering why the water was up to my
knees...Just like it was yesterday, just like it will be tomorrow, I
guess...Time to put some hieroglyphics on the wall...again...

Chris

[chris thompson]

On Jul 23, 3:14�pm, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote in news:3e78c931-e9ba-
> 4c57-92fa-2d1e6d0ce...@k13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

>
> > On Jul 23, 1:21 pm, Mike Painter <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Betting is now open on,
>
> >> 1. How long Nivalian will stay.
>
> > It would help to know where Nivalian is. (S)he might be at work right
> > now. But if past experience holds, Niv is, at this point, gone for
> > good (a shame, really. I hope I am mistaken.)
>
> Maybe we should be a little gentler with our toys if we don't want them to
> break first thing.

I thought I **WAS** gentle. Even Richard thought I was being nice.

Chris

[Paul J Gans]

You have just recreated the scene that saw the invention of
the term "howler monkeys" for the members of this group.


--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Roger Shrubber]

Paul J Gans wrote:

> Roger Shrubber<rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:


>> Do consider what happens when a freshie shows up.
>
>> And I wonder, do they tend to run away because they were
>> never serious in the first place or is it, to some
>> significant degree, just due to the noise of so many
>> voices at once.
>
>> Or maybe I'm just lazy, willing to feast on the meat
>> vicariously and don't want to read as many responses.
>
> You have just recreated the scene that saw the invention of
> the term "howler monkeys" for the members of this group.

Around the time you found t.o., there was this:
https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9cd00bcd1385f6d2

It likely predates you slightly as you were not tagged
for thermo. But some of the names will have warm
memories attached. The group mostly understood
the effect before the howler monkey label was adopted.

[Glenn]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:jukac9$49q$4...@reader1.panix.com...

Somewhat at odds with the claimed purpose of the group.

[Rolf]

"Mike Painter" <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Gqydnf8UKbGEFZDN...@giganews.com...

2 cents on
1. Not long.
2. No.
3. What else?

[Rolf]

"HaShem Rules" <01910i...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:614d5239-2924-4304...@googlegroups.com...

[Rolf]

"Nivalian" <rhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:e8199a3a-1964-44cf...@googlegroups.com...

>I just stumbled upon this discussion board and seems to be fast pace, which

>is what I prefer. I've been trying to find a new forum since facebook and

>the History Channel discontinued theirs. I hope to learn a lot and have
>clean interesting debates with some of you.
>
> I have a Christian worldview and I believe in God, the Creator of the
> Universe, in just 6000 years ago.
>

I presume that declaration means you are committed to remain a Christian,
whatever particular God, religion or worldview that represents in your case.
You know, there are so many to chose between it is hard to tell. But YEC
creationism is great; do you honestly seriously think there is anything for
you to learn here?


If that's the case and your agenda is not to teach us creationism, I suggest
you study the writings of the most prominent character around here, Ray
Martinez. He knows everything you might need or want to know. (Although it
seems you have already settled into a worldview that seems to suit you well
I am somewhat doubtful that there is anything of value for you here.)



If you want debate, you'll have to be more specific than just repeating old
creationist clich�'s, they have all been dealt with a thousand times
already.



Your having read "peer reviewed" is not a relevant argument, you'll have to
show your cards. It is not sufficient to say you have an ace up your sleeve.



Got it? But WRT Ray Martinez, he has all the answers you might want. You don't
want answers that doesn't fit your worldview, do you?



Ray is a great scholar, philosopher, true Christian (one of the few), knows
the Bible, knows the truth about Darwin, the Great Pyramid and everything
else. He has for maybe ten years now been busy writing a book that will be
the end of evolutionary theory. He says it is well worth waiting for and I
am certain you have a lot in common to exchange views about.



We are all eagerly awaiting publication and it would be great if you might
serve as sort of a Sancho Panza to him in the crusade against Darwinism and
atheism.



I don't mind offering my best "good luck" on your "Mission Impossible"
except in your case, you won't pull it off in spite of the odds against it.



Rolf

[jillery]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 10:54:49 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 23, 8:18�pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:

Total aside. Rolf, did you know your computer's clock is off now by
several hours? It's how both Chris and I can appear to answer your
post before you posted it. FYI.

[jillery]

I know nothing about Facebook, other than it exists and it recently
made an apparently deceptive IPO. My understanding of the OP is that
the History Channel blog was shut down. Perhaps Facebook shut it
down. Perhaps Facebook shut down some other blog besides or as well.

But that's not my point. And just to pre-empt somebody from accusing
me of directing a newbie away from T.O., that's not my point either.
Given my post was a paragraph of less than 50 words, it shouldn't be
that hard to figure it out. But just in case; T.O. is a public forum,
and for some here to suggest that replies be deliberately restricted
to just a few individuals is contrary to the spirit of a public forum.
If the OP had asked for answers from a specific person, that's
different, but I still get bombed when I ask for a specific person's
opinion. ISTM the OP was an open invitation. YMMV.

[jillery]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:20:22 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 23, 12:39�am, Nivalian <rhed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, July 23, 2012 12:14:00 AM UTC-4, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> > Standard opening reply/question:
>>
>> > It takes light a bit more than 2,000,000 years to reach earth from the
>> > nearest major galaxy, Andromeda.
>> > How did that light get here in 6,000 years?
>>
>> The star light problem is not only a problem for YEC, but a problem for OEC as well called the horizon problem. There are some wild proposals to rescue a particular theory but only opens doors to more questions and issues. �Maybe are assumptions with the constant speed of light is wrong. �Who knows?
>
>Which assumptions? The speed of light has been measured repeatedly for
>decades, with ever greater accuracy and precision. Those aren't
>assumptions; that's _data_...and the measured speed of light has not
>changed by more than a couple percent in all that time. That's an
>error value easily accounted for by the instruments being used at the
>time.
>
>If you want to call into play the idea that the speed of light changed
>right before we were able to measure it accurately, you'll need some
>data to support that hypothesis.
>
>Chris

Since the OP appears to be shy about posting specific information, I
can only guess that he might be thinking of some of these:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlight_problem>

[chris thompson]

On Jul 23, 2:50�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 10:49:16 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You're not a dodo. I am just glad I had not forgotten some interaction
where I behaved like an asshole. We all make mistakes, except for when
we're dead.

All best,

Chris