Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Acrobatic earth during Flood
139 views
Skip to first unread message
Mark Buchanan
Feb 24, 2013, 12:05:58 PM2/24/13
to
YECist have proposed some very unusual earth and cosmic dynamics over
the years to reconcile real geological evidence with a one year event.
Here is a new one by John Baumgardner:
http://creationicc.org/more.php?pk=42
" * * *
In this paper I seek to show that, instead of gradual variations in the
rate of seafloor spreading over hundreds of millions of years, the
mechanism responsible of the megasequences was rotational instability of
the earth during the Flood. This rotational instability involved a few
rotations of the earth about an axis perpendicular to its spin axis.
This auxiliary rotation brought the original North Pole down a meridian
of longitude, across the equator, through the original South Pole
location, then up the meridian of longitude on the opposite side of the
earth from the first, across the equator, and back to its original North
Pole location some three or four times during the course of the Flood. I
use numerical calculations to show that this sort of auxiliary rotation
produces swirling surges of ocean water, tens to hundreds of meters
high, like mega-tsunamis, over the continent surfaces. The large scale
pattern of erosion and sedimentation resulting from such surges would
seem to match what is actually observed in the earth's Phanerozoic
sediment record. This seems to shed new light on how such staggering
amounts of geological change could unfold in only a few months' time
during the Flood cataclysm.
* * * "
So the earth does 3-4 flips while spinning on its axis in one year. It
would be fun to see how he proposes what forces caused this - that is if
he doesn't just ignore the issue. The forces needed would not just be to
start and stop the process, but would need to be constant in magnitude
and changing in direction throughout the process.
There is also the problem of how the forces would be applied to the
earth. A giant axle with bearings would do the trick.
Mark
the years to reconcile real geological evidence with a one year event.
Here is a new one by John Baumgardner:
http://creationicc.org/more.php?pk=42
" * * *
In this paper I seek to show that, instead of gradual variations in the
rate of seafloor spreading over hundreds of millions of years, the
mechanism responsible of the megasequences was rotational instability of
the earth during the Flood. This rotational instability involved a few
rotations of the earth about an axis perpendicular to its spin axis.
This auxiliary rotation brought the original North Pole down a meridian
of longitude, across the equator, through the original South Pole
location, then up the meridian of longitude on the opposite side of the
earth from the first, across the equator, and back to its original North
Pole location some three or four times during the course of the Flood. I
use numerical calculations to show that this sort of auxiliary rotation
produces swirling surges of ocean water, tens to hundreds of meters
high, like mega-tsunamis, over the continent surfaces. The large scale
pattern of erosion and sedimentation resulting from such surges would
seem to match what is actually observed in the earth's Phanerozoic
sediment record. This seems to shed new light on how such staggering
amounts of geological change could unfold in only a few months' time
during the Flood cataclysm.
* * * "
So the earth does 3-4 flips while spinning on its axis in one year. It
would be fun to see how he proposes what forces caused this - that is if
he doesn't just ignore the issue. The forces needed would not just be to
start and stop the process, but would need to be constant in magnitude
and changing in direction throughout the process.
There is also the problem of how the forces would be applied to the
earth. A giant axle with bearings would do the trick.
Mark
Ron O
Feb 24, 2013, 12:25:06 PM2/24/13
to
On Feb 24, 11:05�am, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Not only that, but the continental plates moved thousands of miles
during this year with subduction around the Pacific and molten
material filling the Atlantic basin as the plates spread apart. Does
he say how the water stayed liquid and did not vaporize during this
period of astronomical energy releases? It isn't just the friction of
the plates moving, but all the molten rock that has to solidify and
cool down. The Atlantic basin was once molten rock. No one that I
know of contests that. You can even observe new molten rock spewing
into the Atlantic along the ridge where the continents are still
separating.
Shades of Velicovsky. What was zipping around the solar system and
flipping earth so often during a single year of the flood?
Ron Okimoto
wrote:
during this year with subduction around the Pacific and molten
material filling the Atlantic basin as the plates spread apart. Does
he say how the water stayed liquid and did not vaporize during this
period of astronomical energy releases? It isn't just the friction of
the plates moving, but all the molten rock that has to solidify and
cool down. The Atlantic basin was once molten rock. No one that I
know of contests that. You can even observe new molten rock spewing
into the Atlantic along the ridge where the continents are still
separating.
Shades of Velicovsky. What was zipping around the solar system and
flipping earth so often during a single year of the flood?
Ron Okimoto
Boikat
Feb 24, 2013, 12:31:02 PM2/24/13
to
> YECist have proposed some very unusual earth and cosmic dynamics over
> the years to reconcile real geological evidence with a one year event.
>
> Here is a new one by John Baumgardner:
>
> http://creationicc.org/more.php?pk=42
>
> " * * *
> In this paper I seek to show that, instead of gradual variations in the
> rate of seafloor spreading over hundreds of millions of years, the
> mechanism responsible of the megasequences was rotational instability of
> the earth during the Flood. This rotational instability involved a few
> rotations of the earth about an axis perpendicular to its spin axis.
> This auxiliary rotation brought the original North Pole down a meridian
> of longitude, across the equator, through the original South Pole
> location, then up the meridian of longitude on the opposite side of the
> earth from the first, across the equator, and back to its original North
> Pole location some three or four times during the course of the Flood. I
> use numerical calculations to show that this sort of auxiliary rotation
> produces swirling surges of ocean water, tens to hundreds of meters
> high, like mega-tsunamis, over the continent surfaces. The large scale
> pattern of erosion and sedimentation resulting from such surges would
> seem to match what is actually observed in the earth's Phanerozoic
> sediment record. This seems to shed new light on how such staggering
> amounts of geological change could unfold in only a few months' time
> during the Flood cataclysm.
> * * * "
Sounds pretty violent. How did the giant wooden barge survive,
> the years to reconcile real geological evidence with a one year event.
>
> Here is a new one by John Baumgardner:
>
> http://creationicc.org/more.php?pk=42
>
> " * * *
> In this paper I seek to show that, instead of gradual variations in the
> rate of seafloor spreading over hundreds of millions of years, the
> mechanism responsible of the megasequences was rotational instability of
> the earth during the Flood. This rotational instability involved a few
> rotations of the earth about an axis perpendicular to its spin axis.
> This auxiliary rotation brought the original North Pole down a meridian
> of longitude, across the equator, through the original South Pole
> location, then up the meridian of longitude on the opposite side of the
> earth from the first, across the equator, and back to its original North
> Pole location some three or four times during the course of the Flood. I
> use numerical calculations to show that this sort of auxiliary rotation
> produces swirling surges of ocean water, tens to hundreds of meters
> high, like mega-tsunamis, over the continent surfaces. The large scale
> pattern of erosion and sedimentation resulting from such surges would
> seem to match what is actually observed in the earth's Phanerozoic
> sediment record. This seems to shed new light on how such staggering
> amounts of geological change could unfold in only a few months' time
> during the Flood cataclysm.
> * * * "
again? And when the Earth started it's chaotic rotations/spin/dance,
how was the energy disapated?
>
> So the earth does 3-4 flips while spinning on its axis in one year. It
> would be fun to see how he proposes what forces caused this - that is if
> he doesn't just ignore the issue. The forces needed would not just be to
> start and stop the process, but would need to be constant in magnitude
> and changing in direction throughout the process.
>
> There is also the problem of how the forces would be applied to the
> earth. A giant axle with bearings would do the trick.
Boikat
Paul J Gans
Feb 24, 2013, 2:08:42 PM2/24/13
to
facts. Were I to point out that in 1000 years we might better
understand how the earth came to twirl, would folks think I'd
lost it? I sure would.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Mike Painter
Feb 24, 2013, 4:07:10 PM2/24/13
to
problem.
Clearly the other story about windows and fountains is the answer.
The force exerted by the water from fountains and windows was not
perpendicular to the earth.
This "theory" explains his claims and has the added benefit of
explaining where the water went.
Once the earth was stable again the 25,000 rpm of the earth flung the
water into space where it became comets.
Since this is a modern theory I must use quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics and chaos theory kept the Ark on earth.
Mark Buchanan
Feb 24, 2013, 4:49:22 PM2/24/13
to
radiometric decay'. One of the problems of the RATE project was that the
earth would be vaporized by too much radiation on one year. See the
section 'The Heat Problem' here:
http://www.icr.org/article/rate-review-unresolved-problems/
Thank goodness that there is a possible solution, from the above page,
"Dr. Russell Humphreys, a member of the RATE group, has suggested one
possible mechanism that may explain this dilemma. He has found evidence,
both scientific and scriptural, that cooling of the earth by the
expansion of the cosmos may have occurred simultaneously with the heat
produced by accelerated decay."
Wonder if some genius could tie together catastrophic plate tectonics,
the expanding universe, and the gyrating earth all into one consistent
story.
Mark
PS For a good analysis of RATE (done by Christians) can be found here:
Mark Buchanan
Feb 24, 2013, 4:57:43 PM2/24/13
to
Mark Isaak
Feb 24, 2013, 5:19:08 PM2/24/13
to
beliefs. I would not be surprised in Baumgardner swallowed the meme
somewhere in his travels and repurposed it later.
--
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
Boikat
Feb 24, 2013, 5:25:08 PM2/24/13
to
>
> Wonder if some genius could tie together catastrophic plate tectonics,
> the expanding universe, and the gyrating earth all into one consistent
> story.
sounding scientifical.
Boikat
JohnN
Feb 24, 2013, 5:28:25 PM2/24/13
to
On Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:05:58 PM UTC-5, Mark Buchanan wrote:
> YECist have proposed some very unusual earth and cosmic dynamics over
>
> the years to reconcile real geological evidence with a one year event.
>
>
>
> Here is a new one by John Baumgardner:
>
>
>
> http://creationicc.org/more.php?pk=42
>
One must remember that the Earth doing all this counter-spinning and jiving was only 2000 years old at the time. Young planets are more flexible than older (6000 yo) planets. Today's elderly Earth, with its arthritis and lumbago, would be in traction for a month doing those break dance moves now.
> YECist have proposed some very unusual earth and cosmic dynamics over
>
> the years to reconcile real geological evidence with a one year event.
>
>
>
> Here is a new one by John Baumgardner:
>
>
>
> http://creationicc.org/more.php?pk=42
>
JohnN
Robert Carnegie
Feb 24, 2013, 6:43:41 PM2/24/13
to
How cool is that!
Paul J Gans
Feb 25, 2013, 11:59:29 AM2/25/13
to
vanish and it did.
Kermit
Feb 25, 2013, 12:09:36 PM2/25/13
to
sloshing about that moved the Earth.
And don't say it's not enough mass; Baumgardner has *numerical
calculations*.
>
> Ron Okimoto
kermit
Rodjk #613
Feb 25, 2013, 1:04:16 PM2/25/13
to
Rodjk #613
>
>
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> kermit- Hide quoted text -
John S. Wilkins
Feb 25, 2013, 6:20:09 PM2/25/13
to
Sink? Does he follow black body radiation laws?
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
- http://evolvingthoughts.net
Burkhard
Feb 25, 2013, 7:16:51 PM2/25/13
to
On Feb 25, 11:20�pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > >How cool is that!
>
> > >> He has found evidence,
> > >> both scientific and scriptural, that cooling of the earth by the
> > >> expansion of the cosmos may have occurred simultaneously with the heat
> > >> produced by accelerated decay.
>
> > Very cool, but not Godly. �God could have said, let the heat
> > vanish and it did.
>
> What *are* God's thermodynamic properties? Is He the ultimate Source or
> Sink? Does he follow black body radiation laws?
> --
Anubis does, arguably
> > >How cool is that!
>
> > >> He has found evidence,
> > >> both scientific and scriptural, that cooling of the earth by the
> > >> expansion of the cosmos may have occurred simultaneously with the heat
> > >> produced by accelerated decay.
>
> > Very cool, but not Godly. �God could have said, let the heat
> > vanish and it did.
>
> What *are* God's thermodynamic properties? Is He the ultimate Source or
> Sink? Does he follow black body radiation laws?
> --
Mark Buchanan
Feb 25, 2013, 8:21:31 PM2/25/13
to
at hyper speeds. Maybe instead of the oceans causing the earth movement
it was the iron core and liquid mantle that did counter gyrations to
produce what happened on the surface.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
> kermit
>
>
Mark
Mark Buchanan
Feb 25, 2013, 8:27:59 PM2/25/13
to
On 25/02/2013 6:20 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>> How cool is that!
>>
>>>> He has found evidence,
>>>> both scientific and scriptural, that cooling of the earth by the
>>>> expansion of the cosmos may have occurred simultaneously with the heat
>>>> produced by accelerated decay.
>>
>> Very cool, but not Godly. God could have said, let the heat
>> vanish and it did.
>
> What *are* God's thermodynamic properties? Is He the ultimate Source or
> Sink? Does he follow black body radiation laws?
>
"God is a consuming fire" Heb. 12:29
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>> How cool is that!
>>
>>>> He has found evidence,
>>>> both scientific and scriptural, that cooling of the earth by the
>>>> expansion of the cosmos may have occurred simultaneously with the heat
>>>> produced by accelerated decay.
>>
>> Very cool, but not Godly. God could have said, let the heat
>> vanish and it did.
>
> What *are* God's thermodynamic properties? Is He the ultimate Source or
> Sink? Does he follow black body radiation laws?
>
Mark
osugeography
Feb 25, 2013, 11:21:57 PM2/25/13
to
shift with the Polish diaspora.
Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com
J. J. Lodder J. J. Lodder
Feb 26, 2013, 4:51:50 AM2/26/13
to
John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > >How cool is that!
> >
> > >> He has found evidence,
> > >> both scientific and scriptural, that cooling of the earth by the
> > >> expansion of the cosmos may have occurred simultaneously with the heat
> > >> produced by accelerated decay.
> >
> > Very cool, but not Godly. God could have said, let the heat
> > vanish and it did.
>
> What *are* God's thermodynamic properties? Is He the ultimate Source or
> Sink? Does he follow black body radiation laws?
Zero entropy as a consequence of infinite improbability,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > >How cool is that!
> >
> > >> He has found evidence,
> > >> both scientific and scriptural, that cooling of the earth by the
> > >> expansion of the cosmos may have occurred simultaneously with the heat
> > >> produced by accelerated decay.
> >
> > Very cool, but not Godly. God could have said, let the heat
> > vanish and it did.
>
> What *are* God's thermodynamic properties? Is He the ultimate Source or
> Sink? Does he follow black body radiation laws?
Jan
Kermit
Feb 26, 2013, 11:47:19 AM2/26/13
to
Yahweh covered up the evidence of his miraculous genocide with dozens
of other, greater miracles, then what was the purpose of the Flood?
kermit
Mark Buchanan
Jun 18, 2013, 1:45:15 PM6/18/13
to
presentation has disappeared from the conference web page. To explain
the geological column he has turned to a moon sized object zipping by
the earth during the great flood. At least his imagination is working well.
http://creationicc.org/more.php?pk=42
From the abstract:
* * * "
As an initial working hypothesis, horizontal accelerations required to
achieve water velocities of 100-250 m/s arise from a sequence of large
tides produced by repeated near approaches of a moon-sized body with the
earth. An illustrative calculation shows that with plausible parameter
choices a single tide 2500 m in height produces a blanket of sediment
some 150 m thick on average over the continental surface in the span of
only a few days. Based on this result, it is proposed that six near
encounters with a moon-sized body temporarily captured by the earth can
plausibly account for the six mega-sequences that are so prominent in
the Phanerozoic sediment record. In particular, such large impulsive
tides conceivably might explain the global erosional unconformities that
define the mega-sequence boundaries.
* * * "
Wonder how the ark would have held together with this happening?
For the latest in runaway plate tectonics there is this talk at the
conference as well:
http://creationicc.org/more.php?pk=52
Baumgardner teams up with a couple of others (both engineers - could it
be the Salem Hypothesis) on this one including Jesse A. Sherburn.
Sherburn's bio can be found here:
http://www.mbbc.edu/online/faculty/online-faculty-biographies/jesse-sherburn/
Yikes, he works for the military!
Mark
Robert Carnegie
Jun 18, 2013, 3:36:07 PM6/18/13
to
On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 18:45:15 UTC+1, Mark Buchanan wrote:
> "Based on this result, it is proposed that six near
> encounters with a moon-sized body temporarily captured
> by the earth can plausibly account for the six
> mega-sequences that are so prominent in
> the Phanerozoic sediment record."
Amuse me. Where is this moon-sized body now?
> "Based on this result, it is proposed that six near
> encounters with a moon-sized body temporarily captured
> by the earth can plausibly account for the six
> mega-sequences that are so prominent in
> the Phanerozoic sediment record."
I mean, clearly it /isn't/ the moon, because God
had already made that (if you believe /that/
part of Genesis; I don't). And if Earth had it
"captured" a few thousand years ago, it should
still be somewhere around here.
Also, is this just Velikovsky's stuff refusing
to die? (In which case, I think the story is
that it's Venus, and it also provided the plagues
of Egypt and the manna from heaven. According
to Carl Sagan. Sort of.)
drose...@yahoo.com
Jun 18, 2013, 4:13:31 PM6/18/13
to
On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:36:07 PM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 18:45:15 UTC+1, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>
> > "Based on this result, it is proposed that six near
> > encounters with a moon-sized body temporarily captured
> > by the earth can plausibly account for the six
> > mega-sequences that are so prominent in
> > the Phanerozoic sediment record."
> Amuse me. Where is this moon-sized body now?
> I mean, clearly it /isn't/ the moon, because God
> had already made that (if you believe /that/
> part of Genesis; I don't).
He wasn't referring to a moon of earth. He was referring to a moon of
> On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 18:45:15 UTC+1, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>
> > "Based on this result, it is proposed that six near
> > encounters with a moon-sized body temporarily captured
> > by the earth can plausibly account for the six
> > mega-sequences that are so prominent in
> > the Phanerozoic sediment record."
> Amuse me. Where is this moon-sized body now?
> I mean, clearly it /isn't/ the moon, because God
> had already made that (if you believe /that/
> part of Genesis; I don't).
Jupiter. Venus, which was ejected by Jupiter, happens to be the same
size of a few moons of Jupiter.
Or is that moon-size object really Mars?
I would really like to see those "numerical calculations" and the
physical hypotheses they are based on. Historical hypotheses don't count.
I want to see physical hypotheses.
If it involves quantum mechanics, then it will be really interesting.
Robert Carnegie
Jun 18, 2013, 4:56:14 PM6/18/13
to
On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 21:13:31 UTC+1, drose...@yahoo.com wrote:
> He wasn't referring to a moon of earth. He was referring to a moon of
> Jupiter. Venus, which was ejected by Jupiter, happens to be the same
> size of a few moons of Jupiter.
Is it? And, is Velikovsky out of copyright, then?
> He wasn't referring to a moon of earth. He was referring to a moon of
> Jupiter. Venus, which was ejected by Jupiter, happens to be the same
> size of a few moons of Jupiter.
John Stockwell
Jun 18, 2013, 5:16:39 PM6/18/13
to
sorting the fossils to give the appearance of faunal succession, while simultaneously not disturbing delicate trace fossils.
Can that sonofabitch honestly believe the horseshit he is shoveling?
Mark Isaak
Jun 18, 2013, 6:00:09 PM6/18/13
to
are not copyrightable. It is considered good form to credit the source
of one's ideas, but even that is unnecessary for flood geologists. At
least, Whitcomb & Morris did not credit George McCready Price.
--
Paul J Gans
Jun 18, 2013, 7:15:38 PM6/18/13
to
were here many years ago) of the law of conservation
of angular momentum.
Mike Painter
Jun 18, 2013, 9:50:33 PM6/18/13
to
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:45:15 -0400, Mark Buchanan
<marklynn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An illustrative calculation shows that with plausible parameter
>choices a single tide 2500 m in height "
>
<marklynn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An illustrative calculation shows that with plausible parameter
>choices a single tide 2500 m in height "
>
>Wonder how the ark would have held together with this happening?
This inane idea does not follow the bible stories for several reasons.
Arrarat for example is 5137 m high.
If it was a single tide then the Ark would have to have been near the
mountain at the time the tide passed and the resulting wave probably
would have smashed the boat to little pieces.
I suspect that the more they use "science" to try to prove (sic) their
ideas, the more people they will loose.
Mark Buchanan
Jun 19, 2013, 9:49:42 AM6/19/13
to
purchasing the papers after the the fact. It's $25 for a CD of past
conferences.
His web page is here:
http://www.globalflood.org/
but it doesn't look like he updates it or has contact information.
Mark
Mark Buchanan
Jun 19, 2013, 10:02:51 AM6/19/13
to
On 6/18/2013 9:50 PM, Mike Painter wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:45:15 -0400, Mark Buchanan
> <marklynn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> An illustrative calculation shows that with plausible parameter
>> choices a single tide 2500 m in height "
>>
>> Wonder how the ark would have held together with this happening?
>
>
> This inane idea does not follow the bible stories for several reasons.
> Arrarat for example is 5137 m high.
>
But it's less inane than his gyrating earth.
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:45:15 -0400, Mark Buchanan
> <marklynn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> An illustrative calculation shows that with plausible parameter
>> choices a single tide 2500 m in height "
>>
>> Wonder how the ark would have held together with this happening?
>
>
> This inane idea does not follow the bible stories for several reasons.
> Arrarat for example is 5137 m high.
>
> If it was a single tide then the Ark would have to have been near the
> mountain at the time the tide passed and the resulting wave probably
> would have smashed the boat to little pieces.
>
geologic column.
> I suspect that the more they use "science" to try to prove (sic) their
> ideas, the more people they will loose.
>
to work with. It's every creationist for themselves making up whatever
they want and using whatever science they want as proof. (Some
creationists are at least honest enough to admit that this is an issue.)
It is a hopeless mess and many of the the theories are not even biblical.
Mark
Malte Runz
Jun 19, 2013, 12:17:14 PM6/19/13
to
"John Stockwell" skrev i meddelelsen
news:6354c15c-f009-404a...@googlegroups.com...
"Baumgardner has a Ph.D. in geophysics and space science from the University
of California at Los Angeles and works at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory, ..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baumgardner
Just like Andrew Snelling, who also has a legitimate degree from a real
university, Baumgardner knows he is lying, and he doesn't give a damn that
non-creationists have called his bluff. He knows his target audience are
uneducated and ready to believe anything, and he is fully aware of the fact,
that the people he is lying to don't want to know the truth.
(snip)
--
Malte Runz
news:6354c15c-f009-404a...@googlegroups.com...
of California at Los Angeles and works at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory, ..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baumgardner
Just like Andrew Snelling, who also has a legitimate degree from a real
university, Baumgardner knows he is lying, and he doesn't give a damn that
non-creationists have called his bluff. He knows his target audience are
uneducated and ready to believe anything, and he is fully aware of the fact,
that the people he is lying to don't want to know the truth.
(snip)
--
Malte Runz
Mark Buchanan
Jun 19, 2013, 1:19:12 PM6/19/13
to
anymore as that was back in Feb. and the original talk is no longer part
of the conference.
>
> "Baumgardner has a Ph.D. in geophysics and space science from the University
> of California at Los Angeles and works at the Los Alamos National
> Laboratory, ..."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baumgardner
>
> Just like Andrew Snelling, who also has a legitimate degree from a real
> university, Baumgardner knows he is lying, and he doesn't give a damn that
> non-creationists have called his bluff. He knows his target audience are
> uneducated and ready to believe anything, and he is fully aware of the fact,
> that the people he is lying to don't want to know the truth.
>
> (snip)
>
>
creationist in the pew wouldn't have the ability to understand what he
is talking about. For a conference the peer review is not in place as it
would be for even creationist journal (even though it's hard to really
tell what kind of peer review those journals have). Basically he can be
as loopy as he wants at the conference but it's unlikely that this kind
of thing would make it into a creationist journal.
Also, he likely actually believes what he is saying. As incredible as it
sounds most creation scientists - even the ones with legitimate degrees
- are sincere.
Mark
Malte Runz
Jun 19, 2013, 4:52:05 PM6/19/13
to
"Mark Buchanan" skrev i meddelelsen news:kpsot2$flh$1...@dont-email.me...
> His target audience is other creation scientists. ...
It's my impression that they're paid to act as if they're do honest science.
I have not doubt that those people are cynical enough to pull a scam of such
proportions. It's a billion dollar business.
> ... The average creationist in the pew wouldn't have the ability to
produce?
>
> Also, he likely actually believes what he is saying. As incredible as it
> sounds most creation scientists - even the ones with legitimate degrees -
> are sincere.
A guy like Ray Comfort might be sincere (he's certainly in a league of his
own), but take Snelling, who worked for years as a geologist in Australia.
He's got a BsC and even a PhD. He simply must know, that the Earth is more
than 6.000 years old.
When I was a young teen we had hypnotist doing a show at our school. 6-8
students got on stage, I was one of them, and he hypnotized' us. He made us
do all sort of silly things and everybody laughed. But none of us were
really 'under the influence'. We just played along, too embarrassed to bail
out during the show, but later we all admitted, that we had faked it. Now,
why did I think of that story...
--
Malte Runz
It's my impression that they're paid to act as if they're do honest science.
I have not doubt that those people are cynical enough to pull a scam of such
proportions. It's a billion dollar business.
> ... The average creationist in the pew wouldn't have the ability to
> understand what he is talking about. For a conference the peer review is
> not in place as it would be for even creationist journal (even though it's
> hard to really tell what kind of peer review those journals have).
> Basically he can be as loopy as he wants at the conference but it's
> unlikely that this kind of thing would make it into a creationist journal.
Do you mean there is a limit to the idiocy modern creationist 'science' can
> not in place as it would be for even creationist journal (even though it's
> hard to really tell what kind of peer review those journals have).
> Basically he can be as loopy as he wants at the conference but it's
> unlikely that this kind of thing would make it into a creationist journal.
produce?
>
> Also, he likely actually believes what he is saying. As incredible as it
> sounds most creation scientists - even the ones with legitimate degrees -
> are sincere.
own), but take Snelling, who worked for years as a geologist in Australia.
He's got a BsC and even a PhD. He simply must know, that the Earth is more
than 6.000 years old.
When I was a young teen we had hypnotist doing a show at our school. 6-8
students got on stage, I was one of them, and he hypnotized' us. He made us
do all sort of silly things and everybody laughed. But none of us were
really 'under the influence'. We just played along, too embarrassed to bail
out during the show, but later we all admitted, that we had faked it. Now,
why did I think of that story...
--
Malte Runz
Rolf
Jun 19, 2013, 5:22:37 PM6/19/13
to
"Mark Buchanan" <marklynn...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:kpq61v$gp1$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> For the latest in runaway plate tectonics there is this talk at the
> conference as well:
>
> http://creationicc.org/more.php?pk=52
>
> Baumgardner teams up with a couple of others (both engineers - could it be
> the Salem Hypothesis) on this one including Jesse A. Sherburn. Sherburn's
> bio can be found here:
>
> http://www.mbbc.edu/online/faculty/online-faculty-biographies/jesse-sherburn/
>
> Yikes, he works for the military!
>
> Mark
>
brain is rotating and won't stop becase it is isolated against gravitational
forces, being cased inside the thick creationist skull.
Rolf
Jun 19, 2013, 5:26:12 PM6/19/13
to
"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> skrev i melding
news:kpqpmq$ld1$8...@reader1.panix.com...
Mark Buchanan
Jun 19, 2013, 6:58:04 PM6/19/13
to
few who know how to bring in significant funds. Creationism in America
didn't become big business until he started is museum - then was
promptly sued by ICR. Most creation scientists are not in it for the
money. Jason Rosenhouse (Among the Creationists) vouches for their
sincerity - and he has spent quite a bit of time getting to know them.
I've read his book but this should be a good summary:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-rosenhouse/atheist-learns-from-creationists_b_1343147.html
>> ... The average creationist in the pew wouldn't have the ability to
>> understand what he is talking about. For a conference the peer review is
>> not in place as it would be for even creationist journal (even though it's
>> hard to really tell what kind of peer review those journals have).
>> Basically he can be as loopy as he wants at the conference but it's
>> unlikely that this kind of thing would make it into a creationist journal.
>
> Do you mean there is a limit to the idiocy modern creationist 'science' can
> produce?
creationist journals there is a bit of control.
>
>>
>> Also, he likely actually believes what he is saying. As incredible as it
>> sounds most creation scientists - even the ones with legitimate degrees -
>> are sincere.
>
> A guy like Ray Comfort might be sincere (he's certainly in a league of his
> own), but take Snelling, who worked for years as a geologist in Australia.
> He's got a BsC and even a PhD. He simply must know, that the Earth is more
> than 6.000 years old.
>
sincere but there are some statements he makes that are very hard to
think he isn't lying. When he makes a statement like, 'Evolutionary
geologists have no explanation for xyz . .', it's simply to much to
think that he doesn't know of the explanation that mainstream scientists
have for xyz. Unless he is incredibly incompetent he just might be lying.
Mark
Malte Runz
Jun 19, 2013, 8:18:36 PM6/19/13
to
"Mark Buchanan" skrev i meddelelsen news:kptcoe$ue$1...@dont-email.me...
You're right. I was speaking about religion in general in North America.
Lots of tax free cash to be collected.
> ... Most creation scientists are not in it for the money. Jason Rosenhouse
science?
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-rosenhouse/atheist-learns-from-creationists_b_1343147.html
As it turns out, not really.
"Though my conversation partners typically spoke with great confidence on a
variety of scientific topics, it was rare that they really understood much
about the theory they so despised."
That's because they're fed strawmen and untruths.
"At virtually every conference one or more speakers would warn of the
seductions of "the world's" wisdom, which is to say the world outside of
their own tiny enclave."
They're not interested in learning the truth about the world and of nature.
Knowledge is dangerous and unwanted.
"Conflicts with Scripture were certainly an issue, and these concerns arose
almost inevitably if the conversation persisted long enough. They were never
the paramount concern, however."
They believe, probably sincerely, that there are scientific reasons to
dismiss the Theory of Evolution and embrace divine design and creation. But
since most of them lack both the education and the will to study the subject
themselves, they choose to rely on people like Snelling and Ham and
Baumgardner and Comfort and Hovind and Juby, and those pricks are lyi...
they have difficulties distinguishing between reality and wishful thinking.
>
> >> ... The average creationist in the pew wouldn't have the ability to
> >> understand what he is talking about. For a conference the peer review
> >> is
> >> not in place as it would be for even creationist journal (even though
> >> it's
> >> hard to really tell what kind of peer review those journals have).
> >> Basically he can be as loopy as he wants at the conference but it's
> >> unlikely that this kind of thing would make it into a creationist
> >> journal.
> >
> > Do you mean there is a limit to the idiocy modern creationist 'science'
> > can
> > produce?
>
> There isn't a limit to the lunacy they come up with but for 'respected'
> creationist journals there is a bit of control.
I like that AIG finds it neccessary to produce a list of arguments
creationist shouldn't use anymore. Too bad that so many of our local talents
haven't read it.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Also, he likely actually believes what he is saying. As incredible as
> >> it
> >> sounds most creation scientists - even the ones with legitimate
> >> degrees -
> >> are sincere.
> >
> > A guy like Ray Comfort might be sincere (he's certainly in a league of
> > his
> > own), but take Snelling, who worked for years as a geologist in
> > Australia.
> > He's got a BsC and even a PhD. He simply must know, that the Earth is
> > more
> > than 6.000 years old.
> >
>
> I've met Snelling ...
How did he react when you kicked him in his shins? And poked a finger in his
eye? Gave him a wedgie?
> ... and had the chance to ask a couple of questions. He is sincere but
(snip)
--
Malte Runz
>
> On 6/19/2013 4:52 PM, Malte Runz wrote:
> > "Mark Buchanan" skrev i meddelelsen news:kpsot2$flh$1...@dont-email.me...
> >>
> >> On 6/19/2013 12:17 PM, Malte Runz wrote:
(snip)
> >> His target audience is other creation scientists. ...
> >
> > It's my impression that they're paid to act as if they're do honest
> > science.
> > I have not doubt that those people are cynical enough to pull a scam of
> > such
> > proportions. It's a billion dollar business.
> >
>
> According to R. Numbers (The Creationists) Ken Ham is one of the very few
> who know how to bring in significant funds. Creationism in America didn't
> become big business until he started is museum - then was promptly sued by
> ICR. ...
> On 6/19/2013 4:52 PM, Malte Runz wrote:
> > "Mark Buchanan" skrev i meddelelsen news:kpsot2$flh$1...@dont-email.me...
> >>
> >> On 6/19/2013 12:17 PM, Malte Runz wrote:
(snip)
> >> His target audience is other creation scientists. ...
> >
> > It's my impression that they're paid to act as if they're do honest
> > science.
> > I have not doubt that those people are cynical enough to pull a scam of
> > such
> > proportions. It's a billion dollar business.
> >
>
> According to R. Numbers (The Creationists) Ken Ham is one of the very few
> who know how to bring in significant funds. Creationism in America didn't
> become big business until he started is museum - then was promptly sued by
You're right. I was speaking about religion in general in North America.
Lots of tax free cash to be collected.
> ... Most creation scientists are not in it for the money. Jason Rosenhouse
> (Among the Creationists) vouches for their sincerity - and he has spent
> quite a bit of time getting to know them. I've read his book but this
> should be a good summary:
How dare you! Is this going to ruin my preconceived ideas about creationist
> quite a bit of time getting to know them. I've read his book but this
> should be a good summary:
science?
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-rosenhouse/atheist-learns-from-creationists_b_1343147.html
As it turns out, not really.
"Though my conversation partners typically spoke with great confidence on a
variety of scientific topics, it was rare that they really understood much
about the theory they so despised."
That's because they're fed strawmen and untruths.
"At virtually every conference one or more speakers would warn of the
seductions of "the world's" wisdom, which is to say the world outside of
their own tiny enclave."
They're not interested in learning the truth about the world and of nature.
Knowledge is dangerous and unwanted.
"Conflicts with Scripture were certainly an issue, and these concerns arose
almost inevitably if the conversation persisted long enough. They were never
the paramount concern, however."
They believe, probably sincerely, that there are scientific reasons to
dismiss the Theory of Evolution and embrace divine design and creation. But
since most of them lack both the education and the will to study the subject
themselves, they choose to rely on people like Snelling and Ham and
Baumgardner and Comfort and Hovind and Juby, and those pricks are lyi...
they have difficulties distinguishing between reality and wishful thinking.
>
> >> ... The average creationist in the pew wouldn't have the ability to
> >> understand what he is talking about. For a conference the peer review
> >> is
> >> not in place as it would be for even creationist journal (even though
> >> it's
> >> hard to really tell what kind of peer review those journals have).
> >> Basically he can be as loopy as he wants at the conference but it's
> >> unlikely that this kind of thing would make it into a creationist
> >> journal.
> >
> > Do you mean there is a limit to the idiocy modern creationist 'science'
> > can
> > produce?
>
> There isn't a limit to the lunacy they come up with but for 'respected'
> creationist journals there is a bit of control.
creationist shouldn't use anymore. Too bad that so many of our local talents
haven't read it.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Also, he likely actually believes what he is saying. As incredible as
> >> it
> >> sounds most creation scientists - even the ones with legitimate
> >> degrees -
> >> are sincere.
> >
> > A guy like Ray Comfort might be sincere (he's certainly in a league of
> > his
> > own), but take Snelling, who worked for years as a geologist in
> > Australia.
> > He's got a BsC and even a PhD. He simply must know, that the Earth is
> > more
> > than 6.000 years old.
> >
>
How did he react when you kicked him in his shins? And poked a finger in his
eye? Gave him a wedgie?
> ... and had the chance to ask a couple of questions. He is sincere but
> there are some statements he makes that are very hard to think he isn't
> lying. When he makes a statement like, 'Evolutionary geologists have no
> explanation for xyz . .', it's simply to much to think that he doesn't
> know of the explanation that mainstream scientists have for xyz. Unless he
> is incredibly incompetent he just might be lying.
The fact that he's got a PhD points towards the latter.
> lying. When he makes a statement like, 'Evolutionary geologists have no
> explanation for xyz . .', it's simply to much to think that he doesn't
> know of the explanation that mainstream scientists have for xyz. Unless he
> is incredibly incompetent he just might be lying.
(snip)
--
Malte Runz
John S. Wilkins
Jun 20, 2013, 4:22:44 AM6/20/13
to
Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 6/18/13 1:56 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 21:13:31 UTC+1, drose...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> He wasn't referring to a moon of earth. He was referring to a moon of
> >> Jupiter. Venus, which was ejected by Jupiter, happens to be the same
> >> size of a few moons of Jupiter.
> >
> > Is it? And, is Velikovsky out of copyright, then?
>
> It is not (IIRC, _Worlds in Collision_ was published in 1950), but ideas
> are not copyrightable. It is considered good form to credit the source
> of one's ideas, but even that is unnecessary for flood geologists. At
> least, Whitcomb & Morris did not credit George McCready Price.
Is that because the latter was an Adventist, and therefore a heretic?
> On 6/18/13 1:56 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 21:13:31 UTC+1, drose...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> He wasn't referring to a moon of earth. He was referring to a moon of
> >> Jupiter. Venus, which was ejected by Jupiter, happens to be the same
> >> size of a few moons of Jupiter.
> >
> > Is it? And, is Velikovsky out of copyright, then?
>
> It is not (IIRC, _Worlds in Collision_ was published in 1950), but ideas
> are not copyrightable. It is considered good form to credit the source
> of one's ideas, but even that is unnecessary for flood geologists. At
> least, Whitcomb & Morris did not credit George McCready Price.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Mark Buchanan
Jun 20, 2013, 8:48:28 PM6/20/13
to
lying. The last line above would give them the benefit of doubt. I stick
by my opinion in my very first post to this NG (several years ago) that
most creationists are not lying but tend to be ignorant, arrogant, and
lazy. There is also Morton's demon presented to this very NG over 10
years ago:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html
The bias filter against anything contrary to what they believe is simply
to strong to overcome. This can make discussion next to impossible, the
most well presented arguments simply don't register.
Malte Runz
Jun 21, 2013, 4:10:12 AM6/21/13
to
"Mark Buchanan" skrev i meddelelsen news:kq07jb$oka$1...@dont-email.me...
> lying. ...
Not neccessarily only the leaders, and not all of them. But many apparently
do. The ones who do hold legitimate degrees from universities have no
excuses. If they no longer believe what they said and wrote in order to get
their diplomas, they should return them and stop using them to impress the
sheep. Snelling should come out and say, that 'everything' he learned at
university is false, and his PhD has been used to clean up the surrounding
area of his new source of ideas about the world.
> ... The last line above would give them the benefit of doubt. I stick by
And I agree with you. But, after having debated quite a few here and in
other newsgroups, I also have the impression that many don't want to know
the truth if it is in conflict with their religous beliefs.
> ... There is also Morton's demon presented to this very NG over 10 years
arguments, convince a Flood-believer that the Flood never happened...
You may all laugh at me now.
(snip)
--
Malte Runz
>
> On 6/19/2013 8:18 PM, Malte Runz wrote:
> > "Mark Buchanan" skrev i meddelelsen news:kptcoe$ue$1...@dont-email.me...
(snip)
> On 6/19/2013 8:18 PM, Malte Runz wrote:
> > "Mark Buchanan" skrev i meddelelsen news:kptcoe$ue$1...@dont-email.me...
Not neccessarily only the leaders, and not all of them. But many apparently
do. The ones who do hold legitimate degrees from universities have no
excuses. If they no longer believe what they said and wrote in order to get
their diplomas, they should return them and stop using them to impress the
sheep. Snelling should come out and say, that 'everything' he learned at
university is false, and his PhD has been used to clean up the surrounding
area of his new source of ideas about the world.
> ... The last line above would give them the benefit of doubt. I stick by
> my opinion in my very first post to this NG (several years ago) that most
> creationists are not lying but tend to be ignorant, arrogant, and lazy.
> ...
> creationists are not lying but tend to be ignorant, arrogant, and lazy.
And I agree with you. But, after having debated quite a few here and in
other newsgroups, I also have the impression that many don't want to know
the truth if it is in conflict with their religous beliefs.
> ... There is also Morton's demon presented to this very NG over 10 years
> ago:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html
>
> The bias filter against anything contrary to what they believe is simply
> to strong to overcome. This can make discussion next to impossible, the
> most well presented arguments simply don't register.
I remember starting out, naively believing that I could, with rational
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html
>
> The bias filter against anything contrary to what they believe is simply
> to strong to overcome. This can make discussion next to impossible, the
> most well presented arguments simply don't register.
arguments, convince a Flood-believer that the Flood never happened...
You may all laugh at me now.
(snip)
--
Malte Runz
jillery
Jun 21, 2013, 6:28:31 AM6/21/13
to
committed to believing a Flood as described in the Bible, rational
argument simply doesn't address their reasons for believing it. It's
not that they misunderstand their world view, it's that their world
view isn't affected by rational argument.
Paul J Gans
Jun 21, 2013, 12:53:44 PM6/21/13
to
>committed to believing a Flood as described in the Bible, rational
>argument simply doesn't address their reasons for believing it. It's
>not that they misunderstand their world view, it's that their world
>view isn't affected by rational argument.
Which causes me to bring up my favorite creationism: why do they
>argument simply doesn't address their reasons for believing it. It's
>not that they misunderstand their world view, it's that their world
>view isn't affected by rational argument.
insist on looking for scientific proof for their beliefs? That is
basically asking for trouble because science is evidence based and
not belief based.
Robert Carnegie
Jun 21, 2013, 2:20:49 PM6/21/13
to
On Friday, 21 June 2013 17:53:44 UTC+1, Paul J Gans wrote:
be supported by scientific evidence. And in that case, they
could use that evidence to persuade other people to believe it.
Which they want to do.
> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >If someone is
> >committed to believing a Flood as described in the Bible, rational
> >argument simply doesn't address their reasons for believing it. It's
> >not that they misunderstand their world view, it's that their world
> >view isn't affected by rational argument.
>
> Which causes me to bring up my favorite creationism: why do they
> insist on looking for scientific proof for their beliefs? That is
> basically asking for trouble because science is evidence based and
> not belief based.
They recognise that if what they believe is true, then it may
> >If someone is
> >committed to believing a Flood as described in the Bible, rational
> >argument simply doesn't address their reasons for believing it. It's
> >not that they misunderstand their world view, it's that their world
> >view isn't affected by rational argument.
>
> Which causes me to bring up my favorite creationism: why do they
> insist on looking for scientific proof for their beliefs? That is
> basically asking for trouble because science is evidence based and
> not belief based.
be supported by scientific evidence. And in that case, they
could use that evidence to persuade other people to believe it.
Which they want to do.
Paul J Gans
Jun 21, 2013, 6:23:44 PM6/21/13
to
which the evidence goes the other way.
After all, there are hundreds of religions and all are wrong
except at most one.
Arkalen
Jun 21, 2013, 6:59:57 PM6/21/13
to
are compatible with each other, surely at least one of those has a
cardinality higher than 1 ?
Mark Buchanan
Jun 22, 2013, 10:13:19 AM6/22/13
to
has to be interpreted' or 'the evidence doesn't speak for itself'. But
often they end up being hopelessly inconsistent.
A good example is the last ice age. Since the bible says nothing about
it they have to rely on standard geological evidence to even talk about
it. The most consistent approach would be to say nothing at all. I've
tried to point out the fact that the evidence they use to talk about the
last ice age is literally sitting right next to evidence for multiple
ice ages (this was for Snelling himself). They accept and rely on some
evidence and reject similar evidence with no justification. Snelling's
response was to dismiss contrary evidence as insignificant or even
non-existent.
Mark
Bob Casanova
Jun 22, 2013, 1:24:34 PM6/22/13
to
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 23:59:57 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Arkalen <ark...@inbox.com>:
I can't think of any two religions whose claims are
identical in every detail; can you? And even if the details
are what you and I would consider minor, many religions
wouldn't so consider them; the word "heresy" seems
appropriate.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
in talk.origins, posted by Arkalen <ark...@inbox.com>:
identical in every detail; can you? And even if the details
are what you and I would consider minor, many religions
wouldn't so consider them; the word "heresy" seems
appropriate.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Paul J Gans
Jun 22, 2013, 2:16:58 PM6/22/13
to
>>
>> After all, there are hundreds of religions and all are wrong
>> except at most one.
>>
Robert Carnegie
Jun 22, 2013, 2:23:08 PM6/22/13
to
On Saturday, 22 June 2013 18:24:34 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> I can't think of any two religions whose claims are
> identical in every detail; can you? And even if the details
> are what you and I would consider minor, many religions
> wouldn't so consider them; the word "heresy" seems
> appropriate.
I want to say that if Believer A makes the same religious
> I can't think of any two religions whose claims are
> identical in every detail; can you? And even if the details
> are what you and I would consider minor, many religions
> wouldn't so consider them; the word "heresy" seems
> appropriate.
claims as Believer B, then they are in the same religion.
But they may insist that they aren't.
Also, Believer A and Believer C may each believe that they
are in Religion M, and even that the other also is, while
they disagree about Doctrine L.
Finally, what if Believer D believes the same things as
Believer A but wears a different colour of traditional
head-dress from the one worn in Religion M in A's country?
And arguably that isn't right or wrong.
So I think the most that you can do is to point out to
Believer A that there /are/ religions distinct from theirs
in truth claims, that their believers are mostly just as
certain of, and most of the believers must be wrong,
so is A really so sure that she isn't one of those?
Mark Buchanan
Jun 23, 2013, 11:40:47 AM6/23/13
to
Journal' web page:
"Addressing the need to disseminate the vast fields of research
conducted by creationist experts in theology, history, archaeology,
anthropology, biology, geology, astronomy, and other disciplines of
science, Answers Research Journal will provide scientists and students
the results of cutting-edge research that demonstrates the validity of
the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of
�created kinds,� and other evidences that are consistent with the
biblical account of origins. The newly expanded research effort at
Answers in Genesis, with the establishment of its Research Department,
will facilitate this further venue for publication and dissemination of
the results of creationist research."
Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/call-for-papers
Questions could be directed to A. Snelling himself. I've never had the
pleasure of emailing Snelling directly as AIG likes to do a
communication two step most of the time. However, his email is available
on the last page of the 'Instructions to authors' PDF.
Is it standard procedure for the author of a paper to submit three
potential reviewers of their own choosing? Looks like the so called
'pier review process' for ARJ is rather friendly.
Mark
Bob Casanova
Jun 23, 2013, 2:33:07 PM6/23/13
to
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 11:23:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:
>On Saturday, 22 June 2013 18:24:34 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> I can't think of any two religions whose claims are
>> identical in every detail; can you? And even if the details
>> are what you and I would consider minor, many religions
>> wouldn't so consider them; the word "heresy" seems
>> appropriate.
>I want to say that if Believer A makes the same religious
>claims as Believer B, then they are in the same religion.
>But they may insist that they aren't.
If the claims differ, they are different religions, even to
a disinterested observer. But whether they are "the same
religion" can only be decided by the participants.
>Also, Believer A and Believer C may each believe that they
>are in Religion M, and even that the other also is, while
>they disagree about Doctrine L.
That was the issue prior to the Reformation, and resulted in
a schism as such doctrinal differences usually seem to; the
split of the Greek Orthodox Church from Catholicism is
another example. Are Shiites and Sunnis the "same religion"?
Generally, yes, as both are branches of Islam, but that
doesn't seem to prevent them from killing each other over
the differences, exactly as the fact that Catholics and
Protestants are both Christians didn't seem to prevent the
Thirty Years War.
>Finally, what if Believer D believes the same things as
>Believer A but wears a different colour of traditional
>head-dress from the one worn in Religion M in A's country?
What if he does? The issue will only be resolved when both
decide whether that constitutes a religious issue.
>And arguably that isn't right or wrong.
>
>So I think the most that you can do is to point out to
>Believer A that there /are/ religions distinct from theirs
>in truth claims, that their believers are mostly just as
>certain of, and most of the believers must be wrong,
>so is A really so sure that she isn't one of those?
It would be nice if you hadn't snipped the content to which
you seem to be referring. But if it was this...
"If we define all the sets of religions whose truth claims
are compatible with each other, surely at least one of those
has a cardinality higher than 1 ?"
....my question at the top of this post has yet to be
answered.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:
>On Saturday, 22 June 2013 18:24:34 UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> I can't think of any two religions whose claims are
>> identical in every detail; can you? And even if the details
>> are what you and I would consider minor, many religions
>> wouldn't so consider them; the word "heresy" seems
>> appropriate.
>I want to say that if Believer A makes the same religious
>claims as Believer B, then they are in the same religion.
>But they may insist that they aren't.
a disinterested observer. But whether they are "the same
religion" can only be decided by the participants.
>Also, Believer A and Believer C may each believe that they
>are in Religion M, and even that the other also is, while
>they disagree about Doctrine L.
a schism as such doctrinal differences usually seem to; the
split of the Greek Orthodox Church from Catholicism is
another example. Are Shiites and Sunnis the "same religion"?
Generally, yes, as both are branches of Islam, but that
doesn't seem to prevent them from killing each other over
the differences, exactly as the fact that Catholics and
Protestants are both Christians didn't seem to prevent the
Thirty Years War.
>Finally, what if Believer D believes the same things as
>Believer A but wears a different colour of traditional
>head-dress from the one worn in Religion M in A's country?
decide whether that constitutes a religious issue.
>And arguably that isn't right or wrong.
>
>So I think the most that you can do is to point out to
>Believer A that there /are/ religions distinct from theirs
>in truth claims, that their believers are mostly just as
>certain of, and most of the believers must be wrong,
>so is A really so sure that she isn't one of those?
you seem to be referring. But if it was this...
"If we define all the sets of religions whose truth claims
are compatible with each other, surely at least one of those
has a cardinality higher than 1 ?"
answered.
Paul J Gans
Jun 23, 2013, 4:08:26 PM6/23/13
to
>biblical account of origins. The newly expanded research effort at
>Answers in Genesis, with the establishment of its Research Department,
>will facilitate this further venue for publication and dissemination of
>the results of creationist research."
>Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/call-for-papers
>Questions could be directed to A. Snelling himself. I've never had the
>pleasure of emailing Snelling directly as AIG likes to do a
>communication two step most of the time. However, his email is available
>on the last page of the 'Instructions to authors' PDF.
>Is it standard procedure for the author of a paper to submit three
>potential reviewers of their own choosing? Looks like the so called
>'pier review process' for ARJ is rather friendly.
Well, "peer" does mean equal...
>Answers in Genesis, with the establishment of its Research Department,
>will facilitate this further venue for publication and dissemination of
>the results of creationist research."
>Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/call-for-papers
>Questions could be directed to A. Snelling himself. I've never had the
>pleasure of emailing Snelling directly as AIG likes to do a
>communication two step most of the time. However, his email is available
>on the last page of the 'Instructions to authors' PDF.
>Is it standard procedure for the author of a paper to submit three
>potential reviewers of their own choosing? Looks like the so called
>'pier review process' for ARJ is rather friendly.
Free Lunch
Jun 23, 2013, 4:16:23 PM6/23/13
to
On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 20:08:26 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com>
wrote in talk.origins:
So this other approach is to walk to the deep end of the pier and jump
in?
wrote in talk.origins:
in?
Burkhard
Jun 23, 2013, 4:21:58 PM6/23/13
to
On Sunday, June 23, 2013 4:40:47 PM UTC+1, Mark Buchanan wrote:
> On 6/22/2013 2:16 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>
<snip>
> On 6/22/2013 2:16 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>
> Is it standard procedure for the author of a paper to submit three
>
> potential reviewers of their own choosing? Looks like the so called
>
> 'pier review process' for ARJ is rather friendly.
>
>
>
> Mark
It is not too uncommon. Some journals encourage it, others make it even a condition for submission. Typically, you are asked to nominate more than needed, and the editor then chooses one of your nominees, and adds some independent ones. The idea is to get the best of both worlds - independence, but also on point expertise (it mitigates the sometimes seen practice that referees abuse their job to push an agenda, e.g.: I do not consider this entire field of research valid, therefore I dismiss the paper out of hand)
>
> potential reviewers of their own choosing? Looks like the so called
>
> 'pier review process' for ARJ is rather friendly.
>
>
>
> Mark
Paul J Gans
Jun 23, 2013, 7:43:04 PM6/23/13
to
0 new messages