Kansas finds sanity again

[Azi Tohak]

It's always heartwarming to see the natives of faraway exotic places like Kansas join the ranks of civilization nations.

I do rather like it when people from places such as France think of my home as exotic.

To be sure, it does have beautiful sunsets, and some fantastic two-legged scenery (especially in Manhattan and Lawrence), but the overpowering pong of cows in the western part of the state, and the amazing idiocy of the people from the most populous region of the state (the far NE) keep it from truly being a paradise.

But thanks!
Azi

[wolftrapper78]

Ice,
Thank you for responding.

Basically there is no 'progressive' change. All of the supposed 'apemen' are just humans or apes. Variations within a kind. That is all. Just as human as you or me or Adam. Or they like "Lucy" they are apes. Variation within a kind and evidence of a common Designer.
All of the animals that we see fossilized are animals, or very rarely humans, that died in the Flood. Don't get me wrong there are many extinct animals that are found in the fossil record that are not around any more, that is why they are called extinct. For radiometric dating see here

2. and 3. if we are so much like animals, then how come we have the ability to think like a human. Really, do you think that Human's ability to concieve of great inventions and read, write, and theorize, like what we are doing right now. Does that separate us from animals. Similar body structure is just evidence that we have a common Designer.

4. and 5. thanks for your evolutionist, secular humanistic-thumping articles

Sorry, I gotta go. I will write more later.

[Ice]

Evolution should not be defined as evolving favorable traits. That is putting the cart before the horse. Cause then effect not effect then cause.


Favorable traits is what is selected, not what causes the change nor what does the selection.

In Natural Selection it is the environment that does the selection which results in the species best suited for the current environment to propagate over the ones that are less suited for the current environment.

In Artificial Selection it is humans (a self aware sub-component of the environment) which selects which set of organisms will get to propagate the next generation.

What causes the change in the organisms is the combination of genes. Just combining genes in different combinations allows variation in organisms. Mutation of genes can then allow totally new organisms to come about.

I didn't mean favorable traits, but mutations. Sorry about the mix up.

[Papewaio]

Thats fine you probably understand more about biology then I do... like always scientists and fanboys of science in other fields make some nasty critics... but we do keep each other honest... when not purposely undermining each others interests for the limited funds.

I should do a paper titled.

"The selection pressures on research funds and the evolution of titles and abstracts."

[Ice]

Ice,
Thank you for responding.

Basically there is no 'progressive' change. All of the supposed 'apemen' are just humans or apes. Variations within a kind. That is all. Just as human as you or me or Adam. Or they like "Lucy" they are apes. Variation within a kind and evidence of a common Designer.
All of the animals that we see fossilized are animals, or very rarely humans, that died in the Flood. Don't get me wrong there are many extinct animals that are found in the fossil record that are not around any more, that is why they are called extinct. For radiometric dating see here

2. and 3. if we are so much like animals, then how come we have the ability to think like a human. Really, do you think that Human's ability to concieve of great inventions and read, write, and theorize, like what we are doing right now. Does that separate us from animals. Similar body structure is just evidence that we have a common Designer.

4. and 5. thanks for your evolutionist, secular humanistic-thumping articles

Sorry, I gotta go. I will write more later.

1. They are all humans or apes, eh? Nothing in between? One or the other? Why are all these "humans" and "apes" so different from the ones that exist today? Varation? Different species... not just varation. Could they have maybe... evolved?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-add.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth.




2/3. We have developed higher brain functions that allow us to do all these things. We are very similar to many of them.

4/5. Anytime. I'm happy to base my logic on reason, observation, and facts rather than a 2000 year old book.

[wolftrapper78]

So what if I get my logic and reasoning from this 2000 year old (or 3000+, if you are talking about the Torah), does that make it any less reliable than some 150 year old book (Origin of Species)? If anything I would look at the 3000 year old book as the more reliable source, since we are arguing about things in the past and they were a lot closer to it than we are.

[Papewaio]

So what if I get my logic and reasoning from this 2000 year old (or 3000+, if you are talking about the Torah), does that make it any less reliable than some 150 year old book (Origin of Species)? If anything I would look at the 3000 year old book as the more reliable source, since we are arguing about things in the past and they were a lot closer to it than we are.

So if age of information is valuable then fossils, geology and stars trump any book written.

Fossils are far older then the written word, older then the oral tradition too.
Mountains are older then humanity.

The light from stars... well our galaxy is 100,000 light years across. So light from the other side of the galaxy is going to take about 80,000 years to reach us (we are about 2/3rds of the way out).

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well since I did Physics, Geophysics as majors, astrophysics as a minor and chemisty core units as an easy elective I might have a good answer which will lead to my ex-communication by my scientific bretheren.

Physics, Chemisty and Geology are referred to in different groups as the Physical Sciences, the Pure Sciences or the Hard Sciences. Biology is considered the impure, fluffy and girly one... mainly because physics courses are 90% male while biology are 90% female... is it a sexist statement?... well it would be until you hear the bitter jealously the undergrads make the statements with.

So in a fit of jealousy the physical scientists arranged a consipiracy where they divereted the fundies attention from themselves and sicced them onto the ones with all the girl germs ... well actually the ones with all the germs.

Don't worry - my father, who is a chemist, has long suffered the ignominy of having his eldest son become a 'softie' biologist.

The excuse of girls didn't impress him much either

[Papewaio]

The thing is because biology has so many unanswered questions it is very much in vogue as the in thing of science.

[wolftrapper78]

The fact remains that we really don't know when the written word was created or invented. To me, God created it or it was invented by Adam, since he, specifically was created in God's image and that would make him the most perfect human ever, which would put writing as - older than fossils (created by Flood) and a few days younger than the stars. Mountains are hard to say, but certainly writing is older than the mountains that we see today, since the Flood covered the top of every mountain.

None of us were there and so none of this can be observed. Science cannot prove a negative, and by my observations, Young Earth Creationism is more evident by the facts (which are indisputable, we really only differ on interpretation) than evolution.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The fact remains that we really don't know when the written word was created or invented. To me, God created it or it was invented by Adam, since he, specifically was created in God's image and that would make him the most perfect human ever, which would put writing as - older than fossils (created by Flood) and a few days younger than the stars. Mountains are hard to say, but certainly writing is older than the mountains that we see today, since the Flood covered the top of every mountain.

None of us were there and so none of this can be observed. Science cannot prove a negative, and by my observations, Young Earth Creationism is more evident by the facts (which are indisputable, we really only differ on interpretation) than evolution.

Wow. I'm mean, really wow.

I'm intrigued, Thomas. Do you have to observe something personally to believe it?

[Papewaio]

Where has all the water gone that covered the earth?

Why are the fossils in different layers? If they died at the same time they should be in the same layer. Why also do the different layers have different aged fossils? And why are the layers the same age around the world?

And why are you confusing Evolution with Geology?

[Ice]

So what if I get my logic and reasoning from this 2000 year old (or 3000+, if you are talking about the Torah), does that make it any less reliable than some 150 year old book (Origin of Species)?

My logic isn't just based on one book that is 150 years old. It is based on many, logical, and realible sources.

If anything I would look at the 3000 year old book as the more reliable source, since we are arguing about things in the past and they were a lot closer to it than we are.

They also weren't as educated as we are today and didn't know what caused things to work. Thus, creationism was very popular.

The fact remains that we really don't know when the written word was created or invented.

We have a good general idea though. Complex writing was found around 4000 BC.

It's impossible to designate a clear winner in the race to invent writing, because writing wasn't invented in a day. Instead, it slowly developed from the earliest primitive hash marks to count. People were using such hash marks as early as 50,000 BC. Around 4000 BC, a number of civilizations were making more complex marks to record various interesting bits of information. The Indus River civilization made some interesting marks on its pottery, but they were not quite writing.

http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/Hi...n/Writing.html

None of us were there and so none of this can be observed. Science cannot prove a negative, and by my observations, Young Earth Creationism is more evident by the facts (which are indisputable, we really only differ on interpretation) than evolution.

Much of these things are not disputable. You just refuse to awknowledge the logical way they exist or came about.

To me, God created it or it was invented by Adam, since he, specifically was created in God's image and that would make him the most perfect human ever, which would put writing as - older than fossils (created by Flood) and a few days younger than the stars. Mountains are hard to say, but certainly writing is older than the mountains that we see today, since the Flood covered the top of every mountain.

Have any evidence for this flood? Oh wait, I'm guessing since it's in the bible it must be true. I'm so sick of people ignoring logical evidence in facts just because it says otherwise in some 2000 year old book.

Edit: 1000th post!

[Big_John]

Where has all the water gone that covered the earth?

god.

Why are the fossils in different layers?

god.

If they died at the same time they should be in the same layer.

god.

Why also do the different layers have different aged fossils?

ooh.. hmm... not sure, let me think.. oh, it was god.

And why are the layers the same age around the world?

god.

And why are you confusing Evolution with Geology?

god.

anymore questions?

[InsaneApache]

Yes. Who did Cain marry and who was out to get him for killing his brother?

[Big_John]

Yes. Who did Cain marry and who was out to get him for killing his brother?

god?

[InsaneApache]

I think I'm getting the hang of this religion malarky.

[Big_John]

I think I'm getting the hang of this religion malarky.

it's deceptively simple.

[Ice]

it's deceptively simple.

Big_ John according to the , you are going to....


HELL

[Big_John]

i'm going to hell even according to the origin of species.. i can't win.

[Mithras]

god?

I'm afraid I'll have to correct you here

The answer is in fact "God and if you fundementlist evolutionists (ho-ho) disagree you're going to hell these facts are undesputed becouse I say so."


On a side note authority is now derived from age....which makes my grandad right about blacks since he's a 100



http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/creationism/

[Ironside]

I know none of you listen to me because you all think I'm nuts, so may I present a real scientist who has dedicated his life to this. He shall debunk all your pro-evolutionist ideas far better and more cordially than I am capable of doing. I just noticed that he's allowed his book to be placed online for free reading.

Enjoy receiving your debunkings!

http://www.creationism.org/books/Tay...sMen/index.htm

Well starting with chapter 4 as I red some geology recently. Not much of large research for my points here though. I could probably do better otherwise.

First he works very hard to debunk Charles Lyell (who was a creationist BTW) and well forgets most of the time that geology has moved a bit since 1875, and that the age of the earth had been pushed back far in time long before Lyell.

Then he comments:

The common textbook explanation for the mineralization process is that mineral-containing water has seeped into interstices in the fossil, dissolving the bone and at the same time depositing the silica-based minerals from the water -- a molecule-by-molecule replacement process (Schuchert and Dunbar 1950, 38). This may sound plausible, but a moment's consideration shows what any physical chemist knows: such a process is self-stifling; once even the thinnest silica film has been formed, this glass-like material prevents further diffusion of both the mineral-containing water inwards or the dissolved carbonaceous material outwards.

As almost every mineral is silica based and many of them is pourous and not glass-like, we can wonder what he really talks about. To make it better, he then talks about the agate, a mineral that only resmebles petrified trees.

About the ice ages, he forgets to mention that valleys shaped by glaciers looks different from those shaped by water. Therefore it is needed to been ice on several places that is currently not ice-covered. An ice age so to say.

The mammoth survived the flood BTW according to him.

Now I'm not that sure if the been running all radiometric data from the fossile layers as mention there, but it's interesting that the layers are still consistant by thier radiometric data even if they're supposed to came from the same period.

However, it is true that solid rock can be bent without cracking when under strong confining pressure; this is the principle of pre-stressed concrete construction. It is explained that this confining pressure was provided by the weight of thousands of feet of rock above the area where the folding initially took place. However, when folded and un-cracked rocks are found at the surface, it is argued that erosion has removed all those thousands of feet of rock. However, any engineer could tell the geologist that removing the confining pressure would release the tensile forces and shatter the rock from one end to the other. No, the more rational explanation for bent rocks, which Lyell rejected, should be considered.

He conviniently forgets to mention heat in here. And mentions it later on... Ever bent wood for example? And his counter theory that it happened rapidly while the strata was soft, makes the undisturbed stratas a quite impressive happening.

The Coelacanth have actually changed, espcially compared to thier older ancestors.

Those human footprints does have some oddities about them (thier toes for example).

The flood doesn't explain how the layers is discordant (it's when older layers is cut in an angle and newer layers in a different angle lays on top of it) on several places and having discordance in the newer layer too. It's only been one flood right?

[wolftrapper78]

Where has all the water gone that covered the earth?

Why are the fossils in different layers? If they died at the same time they should be in the same layer. Why also do the different layers have different aged fossils? And why are the layers the same age around the world?

And why are you confusing Evolution with Geology?

I am confusing evolution with any idea that thinks that the Earth is Billions of years old. They are one and the same.

The water is in the oceans and the mountains weren't created until after the Flood. Plenty of water out there to cover the whole earth.

The different layers has to do with the increased volcanism during the Flood resulting in mega-tsunamis and and the like. We understand this through Gen 7:11 - "Now the springs of the deep burst forth"
For more info see here

By asking about dates you are really asking about how fossils can have different rates of radiometric decay. Since I do not believe in uniformitarianism, it is obvious that the rate of decay today is different from the past. See Here

Actually the layers are not the same all over the earth. The only place where the geologic time scale exists in the entire world is in your textbooks. Nowhere does it exist, not even in the Grand Canyon, nowhere.

Again, I see nothing new here and I wouldn't mind if some of you guys started looking in the links to find the answers to your questions.

[wolftrapper78]

Yes. Who did Cain marry and who was out to get him for killing his brother?

Apache, see here

And remember to take off your anti-God uniformitarian glasses.

"We have a good general idea though. Complex writing was found around 4000 BC."

It is funny that you would say that, because that is about the exact time that I would, using the Bible and something similar to your 'logic', date the beginning of writing. Roughly the same time as the creation of the universe.

i'm going to hell even according to the origin of species.. i can't win

Big John, I sure hope that you are not. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life." John 3:16

[Banquo's Ghost]

The water is in the oceans and the mountains weren't created until after the Flood. Plenty of water out there to cover the whole earth.

OK, so there were at least two acts of creation right? The first when He did the 'let there be light' trick, and the second, after all those bad people got drowned? When He did mountains?

Just two creations, or were there any more? Enquiring minds want to know.

Again, I see nothing new here and I wouldn't mind if some of you guys started looking in the links to find the answers to your questions.

I would, and have done so, but there's only so much hilarity a man can take.

[wolftrapper78]

Banquo,
If we are going to argue about semantics, then yes, there were two 'creations'. But in reality nothing 'new' was created. Mountains, for example, the Himalayas, were created when India rammed into Asia. No doubt about that, the question is when and I would say near the end of the Flood. I hope that your 'enquiring' mind is satisfied.

Also, I am glad that I can reproduce the same humor for you guys that I get from your articles.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Banquo,
If we are going to argue about semantics, then yes, there were two 'creations'. But in reality nothing 'new' was created. Mountains, for example, the Himalayas, were created when India rammed into Asia. No doubt about that, the question is when and I would say near the end of the Flood. I hope that your 'enquiring' mind is satisfied.

OK, thanks. Now, you maintain that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old, and that complex writing had been created at the same time. I imagine that Noah must have lived, what about 1,000 years or so after the creation (to allow time for the bad people to grow a decent population, and then turn away from God).

When India rammed into Asia (I assume therefore it was created separately at first, so something - God? - decided to change the original plan and start ramming) did anyone notice? I mean, you'd have thought that India, or China, both reasonably advanced civilisations at the time, might have made a note or two about, you know, an enormous mountain range springing up one Sunday afternoon, about tea-time? Must have made a fair bang too. Maybe they have a creation myth about it that I haven't come across?

I'm keen to see the records of the event. Got one of those links handy?

[Tribesman]

I would, and have done so, but there's only so much hilarity a man can take

Why is it that everytime this ridiculous subject comes up you always find someone linking to the same rubbish site that is full of contradictions and saying "look read this" as if it is some big revelation .
Would it not be easier if the mods could make sticky for the topic of cretinism where all the refutations for answeringgenesis can be put in one handy place .

[InsaneApache]

Well I read that article. Fascinating stuff. However it didn't say where Cain got his missus from. If Adam and Eve were the first two humans, where did Cains missus come from? Also who were going to smite him for killing his brother? His mum and dad?

[wolftrapper78]

Oh course, I have a few links.

See Here Sorry but you will have to scroll down to "How do creation and global flood legends from different cultures compare to the biblical account?"

Also a simple Google search with "chinese flood noah" will yield some interesting results.

Banquo, you have to understand the the term "catastrophe" is a good one here. Everything changes after God unleashed the Flood. That is why looking for the Garden of Eden is such an absurd thing.

I am not saying the India smashing into Asia was ever observed. It happened when there were only 8 people in the entire world and they were on the ark.

Tribesman, I don't care what happens. I find these threads interesting and I somewhat enjoy them. To me, the creation-evolution debate allows me to throw in the occasional "good news" which is what the Bible is all about. The story is so important to good theology to be almost necessary. The creation and flood story shows that even though man had turned its back on God that the needed to be punished, he would give man an ark, which is a type. Only through the ark would people be saved. In the same way only through Jesus, will people be saved from the promised second global catastrophe, which will come, not by water, but from fire.