Advertisement

Simple answer.

topic posted Thu, November 15, 2007 - 3:57 PM by  kyle
Share/Save/Bookmark
I just want to say. God created evolution people. please stop arguing. Yes there is an intelligence involved in the creation of life. ;that intelligence is god. It just so happens that god is smart enough to understand extremly complex processes that seem random like evolution. the problem in this debate is not whether or not God exists; many evolutionists believe in god, and it has been proven that evolution does exist. the real problem is that some Christians feel that if they admit that not everything in the bible is to be taken literally they aren't good Christians. the real problem is that if they admit that some of the bible is simply metaphor, then they'd have to give in on other issues to like gay mariage. after all gay sex isn't adultery if their married is it? but i digress. God doesnt usually like to just snap his/ her fingers and poof things into existance. God is responsible for creation but he/she likes to basicaly let it develop on its own hence freewill. we are of god but god lets us make our own choices. after all even omnipotent entities must get tired of doing everything so god lets us have some freewill.
it truely amazes me that there is soo much debate on this issue yet no one that ive heard on tv etc has even suggested that god might be responsible for evolution.
What do you guys think?
posted by:
kyle
Portland
Advertisement
  • Re: Simple answer.

    Thu, November 15, 2007 - 4:20 PM
    kyle,

    I'm afraid you don't understand the intense feelings of individuals like modern-day fundamentalist evangelicals of the creationist movement. ESPECIALLY what scientists refer to as young-earth creationists, or YEC-ers. These people will stop at NOTHING to advance their agenda, including threatening people with their lives and well-being as was done to the Fitzmillers prior to the Fitzmiller vs. Dover Board of Education case. I've had my professional integrity maligned, I've been threatened, I've even been struck by one of these zealots.

    Their agenda is to advance the idea of young-earth creationism so that their literal interpretation of the Bible can remain intact, plus the fact that they don't like the feeling that man descended from apes. It doesn't make them special in their own eyes as they feel that God created man to be just that - special and above all other creatures. They advance the agenda by mass printings of lies such as those advanced by the AiG website (to name one) and the so-called Discovery Institute. They also file lots of lawsuits, and attempt to take over local school boards, and advance a book called "Of Pandas and People" which brings into question all of the foundation theories of science as theories, and is particularly harsh when it comes to evolution and the science of geology.

    They've tried it here. I've had others with me, and we've fought them successfully without having to resort to countersuits and other legal means. The thing is, if you disagree with them, you get threatening phone calls at 2 in the morning, you're the subject of a church-sponsored letter-writing campaign, and your business (if you own one) is picketed or boycotted. This stuff no longer happens to us, thankfully, as the surrounding community has been wise to their tactics.

    I will not allow my tax dollars to advance their narrow-minded, fundamentalist-only view of science to pollute real science in the classroom. That's promotion of religion by the government, something that's prohibited by the US Constitution. THAT is what the separation of church and state is all about. How I practice religious belief is MY business, and I don't want these individuals dictating MY beliefs through their DISTORTIONS of the truth.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Simple answer.

      Sat, November 17, 2007 - 3:55 PM
      Rhino: These people will stop at NOTHING to advance their agenda, including threatening people with their lives and well-being as was done to the Fitzmillers prior to the Fitzmiller vs. Dover Board of Education case. I've had my professional integrity maligned, I've been threatened, I've even been struck by one of these zealots.

      yes, Kyle, they will burn done your houses, rape your children and steal your money. You must kill them all right now before it is too late. "kill the beasts"!:-)

      Rhino, you are a joke and so is your rhetoric. And who in there right mind would strike a big guy like you anyway? They would have to be crazy. Oh that's right, we are crazy:-) You're silly.
      • Re: Simple answer.

        Sat, November 17, 2007 - 9:59 PM
        Welcome back, Dan. Obviously you didn't get the point.....again. My point was that the creationist movement will continue making distortions of science in order to advance their agenda. It's a typical 'gray propaganda' tool that creationists use. You tell enough of the actual truth in order to make your 'science' believable, and then you distort the remainder.

        Every explanation that creationists use for the Grand Canyon and its formation has a hole in it big enough to drive a truck through. They think that such a canyon can be cut in a year, and then justify it with observations made in unconsolidated sediments. There's a huge difference between cutting down through solid rock, and washing away soil.

        Nonetheless, it becomes more creationist credibility that gets washed away.


        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Simple answer.

          Mon, November 19, 2007 - 7:19 AM
          Rhino: Welcome back, Dan. Obviously you didn't get the point.....again. My point was that the creationist movement will continue making distortions of science in order to advance their agenda.

          If that was your "point", you embellished it a bit with non truths. You characterized Creation Scientists as people who will stop at nothing to distort the truth, including violence. To characterize a whole bunch of people in this light is unconscionable. I personally have encountered some fairly nasty evolution believing professors and I have read about others who are overt liars and deceivers, I would never resort to a mass characterization of all evolutionists as violent people who will stop at nothing to advance their agenda. Why? Because this is fallacious reasoning designed to get the reader to approach this issue emotionally. In short, it is a lie.

          Rhino: It's a typical 'gray propaganda' tool that creationists use. You tell enough of the actual truth in order to make your 'science' believable, and then you distort the remainder.

          Again, this is nonsense. Creation scientists are scientists, they are not pretending to be scientists in order to distort the issue. Science poses huge problems for evolution believers such as yourself and there is no getting around it.

          Rhino: Every explanation that creationists use for the Grand Canyon and its formation has a hole in it big enough to drive a truck through.

          This statement really says nothing. Why not state your case for how the Grand Canyon was carved out over millions of years by the colorado river? Why not explain to readers here how cocino sandstone represents a desert environment which could not have been formed by a flood? Simply stating someone is "wrong" does not advance an argument, but it appears to be the best one you have at present.

          Rhino: They think that such a canyon can be cut in a year, and then justify it with observations made in unconsolidated sediments. There's a huge difference between cutting down through solid rock, and washing away soil.

          I notice that you are more interested in challenging Creationist notions here than plugging the huge gaping hole in evolutonist beliefs. Yes, there is a difference between cutting through solid rock and washing away soil Rhino. Both evolutionists and creationist posit water as the factor which eroded these canyons. And yes, water can cut through solid rock!

          Rhino: Nonetheless, it becomes more creationist credibility that gets washed away.

          Uniformatarian geology is at a loss to explain the Grand Canyon. The colorado river did not gradually erode this canyon as even some evolution believing geologists are now acknowledging:

          www.answersingenesis.org/creat...on.asp

          A perfect example of the bias of modern geologists impeding science can be found in the "Great Scablands Debate". It appears that a non creationist was scorned by fellow scientists for suggesting that this formation was catastrophically produced in "a day or two". Even Stephen Jay Gould recounts the event and the role wrong head uniformitarians played in the fiasco:

          "Consider Harlan Bretz. For years and years, he studied the “Channeled Scablands” of eastern Washington, a area of 15,000 miles2 (40,000 km2). It looks as if a giant, braided stream cut channels up to 900 feet (250 m) deep in hard basaltic lava (much harder to cut than most of the Grand Canyon layers). Bretz postulated that a tongue of glacial ice blocked off what we now call the Columbia River near Spokane, damming up a huge body of water called glacial Lake Missoula. Then the ice-dam broke. And, according to Bretz, the stupendous drainage from that lake cut the essential features of those channels 900 feet (250 m) deep over 15,000 miles2 (40,000 km2) in—one or two million years?—no, in “a day or two.” That’s the conclusion presented by the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) in its pamphlet51 “The Channeled Scablands: the Story of the Great Spokane Flood.”

          At first, the “slow and gradual” school of evolutionary thought (“uniformitarians”) laughed Bretz to scorn. But after examining his evidence, a team of geologists decided Bretz was right after all, and they gave him geology’s highest award, the Penrose Medal. In accepting the award, Bretz said that his greatest contribution to geology was reviving the idea that great catastrophes have shaped the physical features of the earth (“neo-catastrophism”)."

          www.answersingenesis.org/home/...sp#r52

          See Also: Gould, S.J., The great Scablands debate, Natural History LXXXVII(7):12–18, 1975.
          • Re: Simple answer.

            Mon, November 19, 2007 - 8:03 AM
            >>"A perfect example of the bias of modern geologists impeding science can be found in the "Great Scablands Debate". It appears that a non creationist was scorned by fellow scientists for suggesting that this formation was catastrophically produced in "a day or two". Even Stephen Jay Gould recounts the event and the role wrong head uniformitarians played in the fiasco"<<

            Facts that seem to be ignored in this account: Science was never impeded. Bretz was initially questioned because his theory was out of the mainstream, but when his data was presented, it quickly became "textbook" geology. Questioning a theory and demanding good evidence is normal science and cannot be construed as "impeding" science. This good example of catastrophic flooding shows us what kinds of features one should expect to see in catastrophic floods. These models have been applied to understanding some of the features seen on Mars. None of the features seen the the Scablands, appear in the Grand Canyon, where Dan seems to want to apply this model. Much of the cutting was done in glacial loess, a type of deposit that by itself eliminates Dan's 6000 year Earth history; it is also something easily eroded. The rest of the cutting was done in columnar basalt, a type of hard rock far easier to erode than igneous, metamorphic, or even consolidated sedimentary rocks. The rocks of the Grand Canyon can unequivaically be demostrated to have been consolidated before they were eroded. The Vishnu schist and Zoraster granite at the bottom of the Grand Canyon are igneous and metamorphic rocks that would be extremely hard to erode and could clearly have been nothing but what they are now when the erosion occured. Recent work on the "Scablands" indicates that there were actually a series of floods, perhaps as many as 100, separated by 50-100 years. Here is a good description and explanation of Scabland geology:

            www.uwsp.edu/geo/project...ablands0.HTM

            A few quotes:

            ...concerning the basalt: "Both flood transport and glaciation easily fragment the long narrow columns. Thus the colonnade tends to be the zone of greatest flood scour. It also tends to be the zone of easiest weathering, and it is fairly common to see grottoes where the collonade has weathered away leaving overhanging entablature.

            "...Bretz came to realize that there had been at least six floods. More recent work by Waite has identified up to 100, with the earliest and largest separated by 50-100 years and the last and smallest by only a few years. It is difficult to imagine excavating something like Grand Coulee with one or a few large floods, however huge, but several dozen make the task more manageable.

            Some of the best evidence for flood chronology comes from areas that were flooded but not scoured. In these relatively quiet areas, backflood deposits record distinct flood events.

            There are other interpretations of the floods. Some workers argue that Lake Missoula alone did not have enough water to flood the Scablands and that an additional source was necessary. They point to subglacial outbursts from beneath the Cordilleran Ice sheet, which may have ruptured the ice dam to Glacial Lake Missoula and allowed it to discharge as well. "
          • Re: Simple answer.

            Mon, November 19, 2007 - 8:30 AM
            >>"Uniformatarian geology is at a loss to explain the Grand Canyon."<<

            The Grand Canyon is easy to explain by conventional geology. From:

            www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/...H581.html

            "There is a perfectly satisfactory gradual explanation for the formation of the Grand Canyon that avoids all these problems. Sediments deposited about two billion years ago were metamorphosed and intruded by granite to become today's basement layers. Other sediments were deposited in the late Proterozoic and were subsequently folded, faulted, and eroded. More sediments were deposited in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, with a period of erosion in between. The Colorado Plateau started rising gradually about seventy million years ago. As it rose, existing rivers deepened, carving through the previous sediments (Harris and Kiver 1985, 273-282)."

            and here the problems with Dan's model that he chooses to ignore:

            "1 We know what to expect of a sudden massive flood, namely:

            * a wide, relatively shallow bed, not a deep, sinuous river channel.
            * anastamosing channels (i.e., a braided river system), not a single, well-developed channel.
            * coarse-grained sediments, including boulders and gravel, on the floor of the canyon.
            * streamlined relict islands.


            The Scablands in Washington state were produced by such a flood and show such features (Allen et al. 1986; Baker 1978; Bretz 1969; Waitt 1985). Such features are also seen on Mars at Kasei Vallis and Ares Vallis (Baker 1978; NASA Quest n.d.). They do not appear in the Grand Canyon. Compare relief maps of the two areas to see for yourself.

            2 The same flood that was supposed to carve the Grand Canyon was also supposed to lay down the miles of sediment (and a few lava flows) from which the canyon is carved. A single flood cannot do both. Creationists claim that the year of the Flood included several geological events, but that still stretches credulity.

            3 The Grand Canyon contains some major meanders. Upstream of the Grand Canyon, the San Juan River (around Gooseneck State Park, southeast Utah) has some of the most extreme meandering imaginable. The canyon is 1,000 feet high, with the river flowing five miles while progressing one mile as the crow flies (American Southwest n.d.). There is no way a single massive flood could carve this.

            4 Recent flood sediments would be unconsolidated. If the Grand Canyon were carved in unconsolidated sediments, the sides of the canyon would show obvious slumping.

            5 The inner canyon is carved into the strongly metamorphosed sediments of the Vishnu Group, which are separated by an angular unconformity from the overlying sedimentary rocks, and also in the Zoroaster Granite, which intrudes the Vishnu Group. These rocks, by all accounts, would have been quite hard before the Flood began.

            6 Along the Grand Canyon are tributaries, which are as deep as the Grand Canyon itself. These tributaries are roughly perpendicular to the main canyon. A sudden massive flood would not produce such a pattern.

            7 Sediment from the Colorado River has been shifted northward over the years by movement along the San Andreas and related faults (Winker and Kidwell 1986). Such movement of the delta sediment would not occur if the canyon were carved as a single event.

            8 The lakes that Austin proposed as the source for the carving floodwaters are not large compared with the Grand Canyon itself. The flood would have to remove more material than the floodwaters themselves.

            9 If a brief interlude of rushing water produced the Grand Canyon, there should be many more such canyons. Why are there not other grand canyons surrounding all the margins of all continents?"
          • Re: Simple answer.

            Mon, November 19, 2007 - 11:36 AM
            >>"The colorado river did not gradually erode this canyon"<<

            Here is a good exploration of Grand Canyon geology, showing how it fails to fit creationist models in every way:

            www.jwoolfden.com/gc_intro.html

            A couple of quotes:

            "I also want to make it clear that I'm interested in one thing only: do the rocks themselves support the creationist theory? I'm not interested in what the Bible says. If the physical evidence fails to support the theory, then no written words will change that. Humans can be fallible, humans can be deceptive, but the rocks cannot lie. Nature is often complex, but never dishonest. The geologic record shows what actually happened, and there's no way around that."

            "Summary and Conclusions

            So, now we've looked at the geology of the Colorado Plateau and the geology of the Grand Canyon cut into the Plateau. We've looked at the explanations offered for each of these: the Young-Earther explanation, and the explanation offered by conventional geology. Which position better explains the observed features of the Colorado Plateau and the Grand Canyon?

            I don't think there can be any doubt that Steven Austin's young-Earth, catastrophic model for the formation of the Colorado Plateau and the Grand Canyon fails in a great many ways. It does not explain the known facts, despite calling on a number of unjustifiable ad hoc hypotheses. It is internally contradictory, as well as inconsistent with the known evidence. Quite simply, it doesn't work, and there doesn't appear to be any way to salvage it so that it does work. Rationally, the only conclusion is that Austin's model fails, and it must be discarded.

            By contrast, the conventional theory for the formation of the rocks of the Colorado Plateau works quite well. There are one or two unexplained anomalies, but these are relatively minor and may well be explained by further research. The conventional theory for the formation of the Canyon is not on nearly as firm ground; it seems incomplete at best, but the general outline seems to match and there does seem to be some maneuvering room where the model can be adjusted to better fit the available evidence. The conventional theory isn't perfect, but it definitely is far better than the catastrophist theory, so it should stay unless and until someone can come up with something better.

            The majesty of the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River stands as a mute monument to the vast depths of time: time represented by the rocks, and time represented by the canyon through those rocks. No model of Earth history can be accepted unless it explains the Grand Canyon. The facts given in this article demonstrate clearly that Steve Austin's young-Earth model for the Grand Canyon is a complete failure. Further, it shows that the same questions and objections which kill Austin's model will also kill any other model that only allows a few thousand years for the history of the Plateau and the Canyon. No young-Earth model will ever survive the test of the Grand Canyon, and that means that no young-Earth model of Earth history can ever be accepted at all.
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: Simple answer.

              Mon, November 19, 2007 - 1:42 PM
              Rene: The facts given in this article demonstrate clearly that Steve Austin's young-Earth model for the Grand Canyon is a complete failure.

              The "facts" offered in your article do nothing of the sort. What is funny here is again a geologist consults a non scientist, Mr. Jon Woolf, to show why YEC cannot explain the formation of the Grand Canyon. No mention is made as to how the colorado river carved this canyon over "millions and millions" of years. I guess Rene doesn't wish to tackle this problem.

              From Mr. Woolf's article:

              "1. How was the Colorado Plateau formed?

              2. How was the Grand Canyon formed?

              "For both questions, the available evidence is the same: the rocks, fossils, and landforms of the Colorado Plateau and the Grand Canyon, and evidence derived from those sources, such as radiometric dates.

              Dan's Response: I am not even sure that this is a sentence, much less and answer to the questions above. If Radiometric dates are what Mr. Wolf is banking on his faith is on shifting sand.

              www.answersingenesis.org/creat...on.asp


              "Only the interpretation is different. My goal in this article is to explore both interpretations, that of creationist Flood geology and that of conventional geology, and try to determine which one gives a better explanation for all the available evidence. I won't be able to tell for sure which one is right this way, because there may be a third alternative I'm not considering, but I should be able to tell if one (or both) is definitely wrong."

              Good thing Mr. Woolf give himself an "out" here as current explanations are wrong.

              www.answersingenesis.org/home/...on.asp

              The Grand Canyon was not carved by a lot of time, it was carved by a lot of water!

              (From the above link)
              "When Biblical creationists/Flood geologists offer explanations for the rock layers in Grand Canyon, they appeal neither to Biblical authority (the Bible doesn’t mention Grand Canyon!) nor to mystical or supernatural processes. They appeal, instead, directly to the evidence we can see, touch, and measure. That evidence seems to suggest that processes we do understand, like turbidity currents, explain what we see—except that the evidence also tells us that the scale was regional, continental, or even global, not just local."

              Notice the inconsistencies of evolution believers demonstrated by observations of Mars.

              "Consider this dramatic statement from the secular (evolutionary) textbook by Levine that I have used with my college Earth Science classes.
              "Many channels on Mars dwarf our own Grand Canyon in size, and in order to form, would have required torrential floods so spectacular as to be hard to visualize by earth standards.""

              Evolution believers "strongest" argument is the sequence of organisms in these rocks from "simple" to complex. Dispite the fact that many invertebrates are not "simple" in the least, including trilobites, this sequence has nothing to do with evolution.

              "A professor debating me in Australia put it this way: “If God created everything in six days, why don’t we find mice with trilobites in Cambrian rocks?” My simple reply: “Because mice don’t live on the sea floor.” Ecology, not evolution, is the key. (He then said he meant his question only as a joke.)"

              Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind." John 9:39. How guys like Rhino and Rene cannot see evidence for a massive worldwide flood can only be explained by brain "washing" and willfull blindness.

              "Many people have the completely mistaken notion that the Biblical Flood covered the whole earth almost instantly, stirred everything up, and then suddenly dumped it all. Not at all! According to the Biblical record, Noah was in the Ark for over a year. It was about five months before “all the high mountains under the whole heavens” were covered, and it took several more months for the water to subside as “the mountains rose up and the valleys sank down” at the end of the Flood. As the Flood waters “slowly” rose over the earth, plants and animals were buried in a sort of ecologic series: sea-bottom creatures, near-shore forms, lowland plants and animals, then upland (with sea creatures deposited from bottom to top, as the sea eventually covered everything). Evolutionists and Flood geologists may agree that the fossil-bearing rocks were laid down in “short periods of terror,” but Flood geologists see the “long periods of boredom” between layers as minutes or months, not millions of years!"

              More problems for evolution believers:

              "Indeed, once the rock layers at Grand Canyon began to stack up, it seems they “forgot” all about “evolutionary time.” In one small step (especially small with a heavy backpack!), a hiker can step right across “150 million years” of “missing evolutionary times”! I’m talking about the contact between the Muav and Redwall Limestones (Fig. 34)."

              "The Muav is Cambrian (supposedly, “evolution stage 1”), while the Redwall is Mississippian or lower Carboniferous (“evolution stage 5”). If Grand Canyon is assumed to represent stages in evolution laid out for all to see, where are evolutionary stages 2, 3, and 4 (Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian)? Evolutionists recognize that’s a serious question. Grandparents can’t have grandchildren without first having children, and plants and animals can’t evolve directly from stage 1 to stage 5 without evolving through stages 2, 3, and 4 first. Everyone agrees that in any “chain of life,” you can’t skip generations!"

              Is this due to erosion?

              "When a rock layer is eroded slowly and gradually by streams and rivers, as discussed earlier, an irregular surface is produced. When sediment later accumulates on this surface and hardens, the wavy contact line produced is called a disconformity, and often old stream beds may be identified along its surface. That’s not what we find at the Redwall/Muav (Mississippian/Cambrian) contact. Over hundreds of miles of exposure in and out of various side canyons, the two rock layers are in smooth, horizontal contact. There are occasional small erosional dips called Temple Butte Devonian, but the regional picture is clear: it looks like one rock layer was deposited directly on top of the other with very little time break. According to the evidence, those 150 million years never existed at all"

              Hey Rhino and Rene, I have a theory, perhaps a Neanderthal bulldozed this layer off real smooth in preparation for a city he was planning to build:-)

              Since evolution believers cannot explain the evidence, perhaps creating a new word will help?:-)

              "If there were strong evidence for 150 million years of erosion, geologists would call the contact a disconformity. Because the evidence suggests, instead, smooth, continuous deposition with little time break, the contact should be called a conformity. But admitting a 150-million-year “hole” in evolutionary theory would be far too difficult for most evolutionists, so they use the contact term we discussed earlier: paraconformity. Flood geologists just accept the evidence as it stands: no 150 million years. But evolution requires 150 million years at that point. Hence, the term “paraconformity” is offered, not as a solution to the problem of all that missing time, but as a label for a problem to be solved by future research."

              Time is always the "savior" of evolution theory, both past time and future.
              Problems keep mounting:

              "There’s further evidence to encourage Flood geologists to think that they have made the correct scientific choice. If individual sediment layers were hardened, uplifted, eroded, then covered again with water, it’s likely that the lower hardened layers would crack in a pattern different from cracks formed in layers above them, and produced and moved millions of years later. In other words, there should be “buried faults,” cracks through one layer not continuing into the layer above. But there are virtually no buried faults above the Precambrian in the Canyon. There are faults, all right, but they cut continuously through the whole sequence of Paleozoic layers present (Cambrian, Mississippian, Pennsylvanian, and Permian), not just part of it. That evidence suggests the whole “layer cake” was formed rapidly and continuously, without a major break in time—just as you would expect from understanding Grand Canyon in terms of what the Bible says about Noah’s Flood."

              Looks like evolution believers have overlooked the above observational facts. I wonder whose "fault" this was?

              "But then we come to the Coconino Sandstone. Above the Redwall are several other major layers (Supai Group, Hermit Shale, Coconino Sandstone, Toroweap Formation, and Kaibab Limestone, as shown in Fig. 34). All these were obviously laid down as water-borne sediment (i.e., flood deposits)—except the Coconino. The Coconino is a cross-bedded sandstone usually interpreted as a huge desert dune deposit."

              oh oh? Looks like R&R have us on this one, or do they?

              "dunes also form underwater. Ripple marks in sand at the beach are just “mini-dunes,” and my students and I have actually watched much bigger dunes form and travel underwater while on scuba dives (in rough seas) to the Florida Keys. The weight of evidence now favors the formation of the Coconino as an underwater dune deposit. Most telling is the work by Dr. Leonard Brand on the abundant animal trackways for which the Coconino is famous."

              So where did the Canyon come from?

              "One thing for sure: the Colorado River did not do it. The Colorado River starts about 12,000 feet (ca. 3,500 m) up in the Rocky Mountains of western Colorado. By the time it gets to the Grand Canyon area, it’s at about 5,000 feet (1,500 m). And that’s the problem. Grand Canyon is definitely not a lowland valley. The North Rim of the Canyon is over 8,000 feet (2,500 m) high! For the Colorado River to carve the Canyon, it would first have to hack its way half a mile (over 700 m) uphill! Water just doesn’t do that, especially when there’s the opportunity to flow downhill in a different direction. For this and several other reasons, even evolutionary geologists no longer believe that the River slowly cut the Canyon over 60 million years."

              oh dam!:-)

              "The Kaibab upwarp (monocline) through which the Canyon is cut seems to have dammed up a great deal of water. It is possible to map the outlines of a giant “fossil lake” that once covered parts of Arizona, Colorado, and Utah. Since there seems to be no renewable source for such a vast amount of water, it may have been “leftover” Flood water trapped as the mountains rose and valleys sank.

              Then the dam broke! The Grand Canyon area is crisscrossed with earthquake fault lines, so it might have been some sort of rift or fault that tore a breach in the dam. The water impounded by the dam would have rushed through the crack, probably cutting the essential features of the Canyon very rapidly indeed. The Colorado River (which is not even able to move the boulders at the mouths of its side canyons) is just a modest trickle caught in the twists and turns where the dam was breached. The Canyon came first; the River came second.50"

              Aren't there any honest evolution believers out there who can admit to these facts? As it turns out, there are!

              "Consider Harlan Bretz. For years and years, he studied the “Channeled Scablands” of eastern Washington, a area of 15,000 miles2 (40,000 km2). It looks as if a giant, braided stream cut channels up to 900 feet (250 m) deep in hard basaltic lava (much harder to cut than most of the Grand Canyon layers). Bretz postulated that a tongue of glacial ice blocked off what we now call the Columbia River near Spokane, damming up a huge body of water called glacial Lake Missoula. Then the ice-dam broke. And, according to Bretz, the stupendous drainage from that lake cut the essential features of those channels 900 feet (250 m) deep over 15,000 miles2 (40,000 km2) in—one or two million years?—no, in “a day or two.” That’s the conclusion presented by the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) in its pamphlet51 “The Channeled Scablands: the Story of the Great Spokane Flood.”

              At first, the “slow and gradual” school of evolutionary thought (“uniformitarians”) laughed Bretz to scorn. But after examining his evidence, a team of geologists decided Bretz was right after all, and they gave him geology’s highest award, the Penrose Medal. In accepting the award, Bretz said that his greatest contribution to geology was reviving the idea that great catastrophes have shaped the physical features of the earth (“neo-catastrophism”).52"

              It appears that old false ideas perpetuated by ideological positions do not die easily in the face of hard evidence. Oh well. we will keep working with R&R anyway:-)

              So what is the conclusion here?

              "In short, evolution is a faith that the facts have failed. Biblical Christianity is a faith that fits the facts."

              Rene: I've deliberately tried to keep this at as simple a level as possible, to show that anyone, whether they have any geologic training or not, can see and understand what the Grand Canyon has to show us."

              Thanks Rene, but your simplistic explanations fell short of providing evidence for the Colorado River Thesis.
              • Re: Simple answer.

                Mon, November 19, 2007 - 2:39 PM
                >>" What is funny here is again a geologist consults a non scientist, Mr. Jon Woolf, to show why YEC cannot explain the formation of the Grand Canyon."<<

                Actually Dan, I used Mr. Woolf's article because he presented everything in a simple, straight forward way that anyone should be able to easily understand. I hoped that might include you, since you appear to be unable to grasp the simplest geologic concepts. I guess I was wrong about that. No expert would really want to waste time commenting on all this nonsense you present in any case. The experts have better things to do.

                ">>No mention is made as to how the colorado river carved this canyon over "millions and millions" of years.<<

                This was discussed in the article. You apparently did not read deep enough, or not at all.

                Again most of what you present in shear nonsense that fits none of the facts. Let us discuss a couple of examples, just to make the point:

                ">>As the Flood waters “slowly” rose over the earth, plants and animals were buried in a sort of ecologic series: sea-bottom creatures, near-shore forms, lowland plants and animals, then upland (with sea creatures deposited from bottom to top, as the sea eventually covered everything)"<<

                This description in no way resembles what is actually observed. To claim that it does is to display complete ignorance of the facts.

                >>"That’s not what we find at the Redwall/Muav (Mississippian/Cambrian) contact. Over hundreds of miles of exposure in and out of various side canyons, the two rock layers are in smooth, horizontal contact. There are occasional small erosional dips called Temple Butte Devonian, but the regional picture is clear: it looks like one rock layer was deposited directly on top of the other with very little time break. According to the evidence, those 150 million years never existed at all" "<<

                Most unconformities display similar characteristics. Uplift and tilting are required to produce angular unconformities which are more noticeable. Without this uplift and tilting which would be caused by a plate collision any layers will remain roughly horizontal, exactly as they were laid down.

                >>"That evidence seems to suggest that processes we do understand, like turbidity currents, explain what we see—except that the evidence also tells us that the scale was regional, continental, or even global, not just local." "<<

                The layering in the Grand Canyon in no way, shape, or form resembles turbidity current deposits which are well known and well studied, as many of them make excellent oil reservoirs.

                >>"The weight of evidence now favors the formation of the Coconino as an underwater dune deposit."<<

                This is simply a lie, if not total ignorance of the many studies that unequivically identify the Coconino as the result of a desert dune field such as the modern Sahara desert. There are many more attributes of the formation besides the large scale cross-bedding that force one to this conclusion. Read the literature.

                I could go on, but it should be clear by now, that as usual Dan's sources offer nothing but total ignorance, b.s, and absurd claims without any justification.
                • Unsu...
                   

                  Re: Simple answer.

                  Mon, November 19, 2007 - 6:45 PM
                  Rene: Actually Dan, I used Mr. Woolf's article because he presented everything in a simple, straight forward way that anyone should be able to easily understand. I hoped that might include you, since you appear to be unable to grasp the simplest geologic concepts. I guess I was wrong about that. No expert would really want to waste time commenting on all this nonsense you present in any case. The experts have better things to do.

                  :-) Of course, your experts do not wish to be confronted with problems and contradictions, they prefer to pontificate to true believers only...

                  ">>No mention is made as to how the colorado river carved this canyon over "millions and millions" of years.<<

                  Rene: This was discussed in the article. You apparently did not read deep enough, or not at all.

                  Actually, no it was not. I just went back to the article and found "river" mentioned only once in the opening paragraph and no mention of the notion that it eroded the canyon over millions of years or how this could explain what is known about the canyon. Funny thing is, neither have you. I did a search for Colorado and found it mentioned twice, again no mention of it carving the canyon over millions of years. Perhaps it is you who did not read the article Rene. This was a childs critique of creationist interpretation of the Grand Canyon and does not come close to answering any questions. You should be ashamed of yourself for offering it as evidence for anything.

                  Rene: Again most of what you present in shear nonsense that fits none of the facts. Let us discuss a couple of examples, just to make the point:

                  ">>As the Flood waters “slowly” rose over the earth, plants and animals were buried in a sort of ecologic series: sea-bottom creatures, near-shore forms, lowland plants and animals, then upland (with sea creatures deposited from bottom to top, as the sea eventually covered everything)"<<

                  Rene: This description in no way resembles what is actually observed. To claim that it does is to display complete ignorance of the facts.

                  Well, it is hard to argue with those facts. I guess you have me now:-)

                  >>"That’s not what we find at the Redwall/Muav (Mississippian/Cambrian) contact. Over hundreds of miles of exposure in and out of various side canyons, the two rock layers are in smooth, horizontal contact. There are occasional small erosional dips called Temple Butte Devonian, but the regional picture is clear: it looks like one rock layer was deposited directly on top of the other with very little time break. According to the evidence, those 150 million years never existed at all" "<<

                  Rene: Most unconformities display similar characteristics. Uplift and tilting are required to produce angular unconformities which are more noticeable. Without this uplift and tilting which would be caused by a plate collision any layers will remain roughly horizontal, exactly as they were laid down.

                  so you say, but Dr. Parker disagrees with you and simple logic would seem to be on his side. Why would these layers be so horizontal and not show a more wavy pattern if they were layed down after "millions and millions" of years Rene? (Rene doesn't say, "just shut up and accept what I say as truth, I am a geologist":-))

                  >>"That evidence seems to suggest that processes we do understand, like turbidity currents, explain what we see—except that the evidence also tells us that the scale was regional, continental, or even global, not just local." "<<

                  Rene: The layering in the Grand Canyon in no way, shape, or form resembles turbidity current deposits which are well known and well studied, as many of them make excellent oil reservoirs.

                  ok, your word against Parkers. I will go with Parker.

                  www.answersingenesis.org/docs2...gc.asp Shows pic of the folding of layers which happened before the sediment hardened into Rock.

                  >>"The weight of evidence now favors the formation of the Coconino as an underwater dune deposit."<<

                  Rene: This is simply a lie, if not total ignorance of the many studies that unequivically identify the Coconino as the result of a desert dune field such as the modern Sahara desert. There are many more attributes of the formation besides the large scale cross-bedding that force one to this conclusion. Read the literature.

                  It is not a lie, you are simply not willing to consider the problems with your view, such as the angles of these dunes which are greater than what we find in deserts. They were formed underwater. In addition, tetrapod tracks are found should there prints with feet facing backwards as they attempted to swim against the current. Here is an article detaling this:

                  www.answersingenesis.org/creat...od.asp

                  Rene: I could go on, but it should be clear by now, that as usual Dan's sources offer nothing but total ignorance, b.s, and absurd claims without any justification.

                  more of the usual...

                  More on bent strata:

                  www.answersingenesis.org/creat...on.asp

                  Comparisons between modern lime muds with limestone in the Grand Canyon: www.answersingenesis.org/creat...ne.asp

                  The above article shows that fossils in these limestones are dominant oriented indicating they were formed in a current.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Simple answer.

                    Mon, November 19, 2007 - 9:04 PM
                    >>"Actually, no it was not. I just went back to the article and found "river" mentioned only once in the opening paragraph and no mention of the notion that it eroded the canyon over millions of years or how this could explain what is known about the canyon."<<

                    Here is the part of the article you missed:

                    www.jwoolfden.com/gc_canyon.html

                    Here are a few quotes detailing the many problems with the model you seem to favor:

                    "Austin fails to explain why the drainage from Hopi Lake flowed northwest and then west across the entire width of the Colorado Plateau, instead of turning south and flowing down the Plateau's southern flank. He cannot explain why the Canyon looks like a dendritic drainage basin, not a flood drainage. His explanation for the lava dams of the western Canyon seems rather like another ad hoc hypothesis, with rapid cooling and erosion rates postulated simply to save the young-Earth model. He offers no explanation for why the Canyon is wider on the north side of the river.

                    Nor does Austin offer any explanation for the side-canyons like Bright Angel Canyon. These canyons enter the main river at river level, not as "hanging valleys" like those found in the Channeled Scablands. They look like the main canyon, cut the same rock to the same depth, and end at the Colorado River with no sign that they ever went anywhere else. In Austin's model they can't be much older than the main canyon because the main canyon formed shortly after the Flood. They can't be much younger than the main canyon either, because then there's no way to explain how a small creek like Bright Angel Creek could cut a canyon as deep as the furious rush of water from Canyonlands and Hopi lakes. The only choice left is that they formed at the same time as the main canyon was being cut by the water from the breached lakes. But even here there's a problem. How could water flowing from breached dams to the east and northeast cut canyons that look for all the world as if they had been cut by streams running down from the North Rim?

                    Figure 2.6: Another of the north-side tributary canyons, taken from an overlook on the West Rim Drive. You can clearly see how this tributary canyon cuts down through the Tapeats Sandstone and into the Vishnu Schist below. A bit of the Colorado River is visible near the bottom of the photo. The river's flow runs right-to-left. It certainly looks like this canyon was cut by water flowing down from the North Rim, doesn't it? Can you see any sign of the enormous rush of floodwater Austin claims came from the east (right) side of the picture? How could a torrent of water flowing east to west cut a canyon that trends north to south?

                    ...But perhaps most damning of all is that Austin's 'breached dam' model offers no explanation, not even a hint of an explanation, for the temples and buttes that stand far out in the Canyon. These must have been formed by the rushing lakewater if Austin is correct, for certainly three thousand years is not enough to form such massifs as the Vishnu Temple by gradual erosion. Yet the temples don't look even remotely like flash-flood relics. Their sides are not smoothed as by running water, nor are their shapes oriented toward where the water flow would have been coming from. Look again at the photograph of the Vishnu Temple, above. Or look at the photo below, which is the Vishnu Temple from another angle. Do you see any signs of erosion by large amounts of fast-moving water? The flood from Hopi and Canyonlands Lake, carrying a tremendous load of abrasive sediment, would have hit this massive butte almost broadside-on. How could the Vishnu Temple survive such punishment from a rush of water powerful enough to excavate the whole Grand Canyon in a matter of days or weeks? This is pretty hard rock, so there should still be some evidence of such massive water erosion. But there isn't any.

                    Even some of the evidence Austin does manage to offer seems suspect. He claims that Grand Canyon does not contain the large amount of talus one would expect if it was very old, but the photograph he offers as evidence of this (Figure 5.21, p. 101) shows many talus-covered slopes in the Canyon. The only slopes in that photo that don't have talus are the very steep cliffs such as the Redwall Limestone, which is too steep for talus to form under any circumstances. This doesn't mean the argument is wrong, but it does mean that the evidence provided doesn't support the argument."

                    This actually is a fairly balanced approach, giving Austin's silly ideas more credit than they deserve, but still demonstrating they fail to align with any actual facts. It also discusses some of the problems with current models for how the Colorado river and Grand Canyon developed into their present form.

                    Here is a good explanation of how the canyon was carved aimed at your mental age bracket:

                    www.teachersdomain.org/resour...ex.html

                    (Don't miss the video)

                    The details of how the current Colorado river formed are still being debated. This is a brief summary of a lot of different possible theories (the biblical flood not being one of them):

                    www.grandcanyontreks.org/geology2.htm
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Simple answer.

                    Mon, November 19, 2007 - 9:50 PM
                    >>"Why would these layers be so horizontal and not show a more wavy pattern if they were layed down after "millions and millions" of years Rene?"<<

                    Your ability to envision simple geologic features is truly lacking Dan. Did you fail that Intro Geology course that you claim to have taken? Where you live in Southeastern Indiana is fairly hilly and has been exposed to erosion for millions and millions of years. Imagine if tomorrow we dumped 200 feet of sediment on top of this landscape. Now imagine cutting down through the new sediment and the old surface with a stream valley. Go and look at the contact. What do you think that you will see? At the scale you would be viewing the contact it is going to look basically horizontal- just like the Redwall-Cambrian contact. It would wavy or hilly on a larger scale, but this is not what you would see. That there is significant topography on this surface is attested to by the remnants of the Devonian (The Temple Butte formation) that is sometimes found preserved in the low areas of the old Cambrian surface.

                    Now of course the top of the Redwall is another unconformity. Here we have evidence of karst development (an ancient cave system). Some of the karst sinkholes are filled with debris from the overlying Supai formation and are known as the Surprise Canyon formation. Neither of these surfaces can be fit into your flood model, as both require consolidation and significant erosion before the deposition of the overlying rocks. This is also, of course true of the angular unconformity on the top of the Precambrian sedimentary rocks. This link contains a nice simple cross section showing these formations and their relationships:

                    www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/...andcan.htm
                    • Unsu...
                       

                      Re: Simple answer.

                      Tue, November 20, 2007 - 5:27 AM
                      Rene: Your ability to envision simple geologic features is truly lacking Dan. Did you fail that Intro Geology course that you claim to have taken?

                      Actually Rene, I got an A.

                      Rene: Where you live in Southeastern Indiana is fairly hilly and has been exposed to erosion for millions and millions of years. Imagine if tomorrow we dumped 200 feet of sediment on top of this landscape. Now imagine cutting down through the new sediment and the old surface with a stream valley. Go and look at the contact. What do you think that you will see? At the scale you would be viewing the contact it is going to look basically horizontal- just like the Redwall-Cambrian contact.

                      huh? I don't think so. It would look hilly, just as it was preserved by the deposition, not flat. Where I live you would have trouble finding a place to stand where both feet are level.

                      Rene: It would wavy or hilly on a larger scale,

                      It was the "larger scale" which Parker et el were referring to Rene.
                      "Over hundreds of miles of exposure in and out of various side canyons, the two rock layers are in smooth, horizontal contact. There are occasional small erosional dips called Temple Butte Devonian, but the regional picture is clear: it looks like one rock layer was deposited directly on top of the other with very little time break. According to the evidence, those 150 million years never existed at all!"

                      Sorry Rene, but this picture is not at all similar to where I live, not in the least.


                      Rene: That there is significant topography on this surface is attested to by the remnants of the Devonian (The Temple Butte formation) that is sometimes found preserved in the low areas of the old Cambrian surface.

                      See above. This topography which you imagine to represent 'million and millions" of years was layed down rapidly in the flood waters of the Noahic flood. Erosion, took place under water, followed by more deposition. I know this is upsetting to you, but that is the way it was.

                      Rene: Neither of these surfaces can be fit into your flood model, as both require consolidation and significant erosion before the deposition of the overlying rocks.

                      nearly everything in the Grand Canyon can be explained by two floods, the Noahic flood which layed it all down (with periods of underwater erosion) and a later flood which carved it all out. Rivers do not erode canyons like we see here. The Colorado was reponsible from very little of the erosion. Those steep walls were washed out in a relative instant, just as we have seen elsewhere.

                      Using the evolutionist logic we would expect canyons to be the norm and non canyons to be the exception.
                      • Re: Simple answer.

                        Tue, November 20, 2007 - 7:38 AM
                        It would look hilly, just as it was preserved by the deposition, not flat. Where I live you would have trouble finding a place to stand where both feet are level.

                        Even in a relatively hilly place, most of the time you are nearly horizontal if you walk this surface, so generally speaking if you view the contact on such a surface it will appear horizontal and not "wavy". Perhaps you can imagine there are places not so hilly as where you live, places like West Texas, the Gulf Coast, Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska, where for hundreds of miles there is little relief. If the rocks in these places which have been eroded for millions and millions of years were again covered with sediment, the contacts would be nearly horizontal for hundreds and hundreds of miles- like you seem to think the Redwall/Temple Butte contact with the Cambrian appears, so even if this were the case, it hardly justifies the conclusion you reach. But the fact is there is discernible topographic relief on this Cambrian surface with the Temple Butte formation filling in the topographic lows.

                        >>"nearly everything in the Grand Canyon can be explained by two floods, the Noahic flood which layed it all down (with periods of underwater erosion) and a later flood which carved it all out. Rivers do not erode canyons like we see here. The Colorado was reponsible from very little of the erosion."<<

                        If we flooded the world with water right now there is no reason to suppose much sediment would be deposited. Little erosion would occur as the water engulfed the land, as there would be no time for wave erosion and any channels would also not have time to do much erosion. If somehow what little sediment there was was magically suspended in the water, it would simply rain a thin blanket of sediment over the submerged land with coase material falling out first and then finer and finer material. Such a flood deposit might exist, but not one has yet identified it. This potential flood deposit, in no way resembles the sedimentary record that we are able to observe. Assuming the water magically receded, although there is no where for it to go, It would require a very deep basin at a higher elevation than the canyon, a significant dam to hold the water right at the head of the canyon, something to break the dam and then a massive flow of water at high velocity to begin to cut the canyon. There is no evidence of any of these things. Additionally, if you actually calculated what would be the necessary amount of water, the necessary velocity etc, it would certainly be totally unrealisitic. Danny Boy, why invent impossible natural processes that are unsupported by any data or observations to try to explain something easily explainable by natural processes? It would be far simpler and much more believable to just say "God did it". This statement basically captures your essential belief, so why twist your poor mind into a pretzel trying to pretend you have a scientific explanation for what we observe, when in fact you have nothing even remotely close to this.
                        • Unsu...
                           

                          Re: Simple answer.

                          Tue, November 20, 2007 - 2:32 PM
                          Rene: If we flooded the world with water right now there is no reason to suppose much sediment would be deposited.

                          that is crazy. You ascribe more power to a river than a world of moving water. The bible makes it clear that the caverns of the deep were broken up, there was volcanic activity and continent spitting, mountain building activity. Sediment would be moved bud!

                          Rene: Little erosion would occur as the water engulfed the land, as there would be no time for wave erosion and any channels would also not have time to do much erosion.

                          Even in a tranquil flood stuff gets moved Rene, but we are not positing a tranquil flood here, but a world wide catastophic event like no other before or since. I don't know what you are sipping on but it aint science I can tell you that much:-)

                          Rene: If somehow what little sediment there was was magically suspended in the water, it would simply rain a thin blanket of sediment over the submerged land with coase material falling out first and then finer and finer material. Such a flood deposit might exist, but not one has yet identified it.

                          I have identified it. Go and read about it in Genesis 6-9 and other places in Psalms etc. Start building a model based upon a historical reality backed up by data from every civilization known to man and toss your silly speculations about the past which are mostly made up.

                          Rene: This potential flood deposit, in no way resembles the sedimentary record that we are able to observe.

                          And of course, Rene is an expert on Global floods as he has been through a fair number of them:-) He defines a global flood in his own terms and then rejects it out of hand. Can you say "straw man fallacy" real quick?

                          Rene: Assuming the water magically receded, although there is no where for it to go, It would require a very deep basin at a higher elevation than the canyon, a significant dam to hold the water right at the head of the canyon, something to break the dam and then a massive flow of water at high velocity to begin to cut the canyon.

                          Of course, no one was there and the bible says nothing directly about the formation of the GC. What we know is that the rocks were layed down in water by the flood mainly and something major happened to form this canyon catastrophically. Give it up Rene, no way this happened over "millions and millions" of years nor does you B.S. degree give you any crystal ball which provides a window to this period. Here is a senario which is consistant which what we know biblically and what we observe at the site:

                          "The Kaibab upwarp (monocline) through which the Canyon is cut seems to have dammed up a great deal of water. It is possible to map the outlines of a giant “fossil lake” that once covered parts of Arizona, Colorado, and Utah. Since there seems to be no renewable source for such a vast amount of water, it may have been “leftover” Flood water trapped as the mountains rose and valleys sank.

                          Then the dam broke! The Grand Canyon area is crisscrossed with earthquake fault lines, so it might have been some sort of rift or fault that tore a breach in the dam. The water impounded by the dam would have rushed through the crack, probably cutting the essential features of the Canyon very rapidly indeed. The Colorado River (which is not even able to move the boulders at the mouths of its side canyons) is just a modest trickle caught in the twists and turns where the dam was breached. The Canyon came first; the River came second.50"

                          Rene: There is no evidence of any of these things. Additionally, if you actually calculated what would be the necessary amount of water, the necessary velocity etc, it would certainly be totally unrealisitic. Danny Boy, why invent impossible natural processes that are unsupported by any data or observations to try to explain something easily explainable by natural processes?

                          Well Reney boy, I have data, historical data written in the Bible. It is you are are looking rather silly explaining how the colorado carved bluffs with 90 degree angles:-)

                          Rene: It would be far simpler and much more believable to just say "God did it".

                          Its easy to do also, God did it. Common Rene, try it, it beats the fairy tales, circular reasoning and willful ignorance that you are forced to live with daily as an atheist evolution believer.

                          Rene: This statement basically captures your essential belief, so why twist your poor mind into a pretzel trying to pretend you have a scientific explanation for what we observe, when in fact you have nothing even remotely close to this.

                          Why pretend that what you are offering is anymore than conjecture which doesn't hold up to observational science, just like all of the other stuff you believe. You didn't discover any of this stuff on your own. Others spoon fed this gruel to you in college and you were more than eager to eat it since it took you to where you already wanted to go. I have seen more than enough of your "facts" and bluffs over the last year to know that you have no more of a clue than anyone else. You just write better:-)
                          • Re: Simple answer.

                            Sun, November 25, 2007 - 4:22 PM
                            >>"that is crazy. You ascribe more power to a river than a world of moving water. The bible makes it clear that the caverns of the deep were broken up, there was volcanic activity and continent spitting, mountain building activity. Sediment would be moved bud!"<<

                            This is all nothing but "arm waving". You have no viable natural processes or forces to do the work you propose is done. Why don't you just admit you are simply invoking supernatural and not natural causes at all? You have two problems that are totally unresolved by your arm waving: (1) How do you make the sediment? How do you move the sediment to where it now resides, with the geometric forms, sequences, facies relationships, and sedimentary structures that we observe? Your arm waving does not address these in any meaningful way. In contrast, we can explain every aspect of the sedimentary record with our conventional sedimentary models. The models are built from observing modern sediments. The models fit all the observed data. These models allow for accurate predictions that have economic significance. If our models where absolutely wrong we would know it. If you actually had a viable, workable depositional model other than the ones we employ, you could make millions in the energy and mining industries, but what you have is arm waving which is worth nothing at all.
                            • Unsu...
                               

                              Re: Simple answer.

                              Mon, November 26, 2007 - 5:48 AM
                              Rene: This is all nothing but "arm waving". You have no viable natural processes or forces to do the work you propose is done.

                              You are correct, I don't. I do not believe in a naturalistic explanation for all phenomenon Rene, you do. I believe in a naturalistic explanation for "most" phenomena but the Flood and creation would be massive exceptions to the general rule.

                              Rene: Why don't you just admit you are simply invoking supernatural and not natural causes at all?

                              I just did. I am a bible believer Rene and a supernaturalist when it comes to the creation week, the flood and other bible miracles. I have never suggested anything otherwise!

                              Rene: If our models where absolutely wrong we would know it. If you actually had a viable, workable depositional model other than the ones we employ, you could make millions in the energy and mining industries, but what you have is arm waving which is worth nothing at all.

                              You greatly exaggerate the importance of evolutionary faith to the discovery of coal and oil, there is no relationship. Anyone through trial and error can make observations which improve the odds of finding fossil fuels.
                              • Re: Simple answer.

                                Mon, November 26, 2007 - 6:59 AM
                                >>"You greatly exaggerate the importance of evolutionary faith to the discovery of coal and oil"<<

                                The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the depositional models we employ. I do not exaggerate at all the importance of these depositional models in conjunction with an understanding of structural geology in the importance to the discovery, and exploitation of mineral resources. In the early history of oil exploration, the importance was of geology was far less than it is today. In our modern world where we are trying to squeeze the last drop of oil out of very mature oil fields, exploring in basins at great depths and in deeper water at enormous cost, a good understanding of all aspects of the geology of oil reservoirs is absolutely critical to success.
                                • Unsu...
                                   

                                  Re: Simple answer.

                                  Mon, November 26, 2007 - 8:13 AM
                                  Rene: In our modern world where we are trying to squeeze the last drop of oil out of very mature oil fields, exploring in basins at great depths and in deeper water at enormous cost, a good understanding of all aspects of the geology of oil reservoirs is absolutely critical to success.

                                  Geology has nothing to do with evolution. Believing in "millions and millions" of years is not necessary to find oil "in basins at great depths".

                                  www.answersingenesis.org/creat...nk.asp

                                  "Another possible application comes to mind, that of oil exploration. Palaeontologists sometimes study microfossils in down-hole cuttings or cores to correlate beds or discern the direction to the ancient shoreline. These data are couched in evolutionary, old-earth language. But is that necessary?

                                  Not at all. Oil exploration consists primarily of the search for a particular underground geometry where oil might be trapped in the rocks. 'Oil is where you find it', as they say. The age of the rocks or the source of the oil is not of importance.

                                  Without doubt, beds can be correlated by studying microfossils, but this has nothing to do with age or evolutionary ideas. Certain spatial patterns have been noted, but they fit just as well, if not better, into a catastrophic Flood framework as they do into a uniformitarian (evolutionary) concept."
                                  • Re: Simple answer.

                                    Mon, November 26, 2007 - 8:28 AM
                                    >>"Geology has nothing to do with evolution."<<

                                    I believe I said that.

                                    >>"Believing in "millions and millions" of years is not necessary to find oil "in basins at great depths". "<<

                                    This is not true at all. The sedimentary models we use are based on modern analogs and require millions of years to produce what we actually see. Additionally the structural geometries and patterns, facies relationships, reservoir distributions, traps for oil all are based on accurate models with predictive power which all require millions of years to act in the manner we observe.

                                    >>"Certain spatial patterns have been noted, but they fit just as well, if not better, into a catastrophic Flood framework as they do into a uniformitarian (evolutionary) concept."<<

                                    This is a completely false statement. There is no aspect of the geologic record that fits into a catastrophic Flood framework and this model has no predictive power at all. There are no flood pseudo-geololgists in the oil patch and you can be assured there never will be- they would be broke, or those that employed them would be broke in two minutes.
                                    • Unsu...
                                       

                                      Re: Simple answer.

                                      Mon, November 26, 2007 - 8:40 AM
                                      Rene: This is a completely false statement. There is no aspect of the geologic record that fits into a catastrophic Flood framework and this model has no predictive power at all. There are no flood pseudo-geololgists in the oil patch and you can be assured there never will be- they would be broke, or those that employed them would be broke in two minutes.

                                      There must be plenty of broke evolutionary geologists also Rene as more wells come up dry then wet, in spite of their vast evolutionary "wisdom". If there were scriptural geologists in the "oil patch" they would do no worse.
                                      • Re: Simple answer.

                                        Mon, November 26, 2007 - 2:02 PM
                                        >>"There must be plenty of broke evolutionary geologists also Rene as more wells come up dry then wet, in spite of their vast evolutionary "wisdom". If there were scriptural geologists in the "oil patch" they would do no worse."<<

                                        It is quite true that when we drill in new areas (wildcat) success rates are low. This is because we rarely have enough data to pinpoint potential oil fields- we have too many unknown variables. This is particularly true in the past, but less true now. Recent advances in seismic technology have brought success rates in some plays up above 50%, sometimes even up to 80% or more. Intrepreting the seismic data requires good geologic models for both sedimentary and structural configurations. Even without good seismic data prospects have a far higher success rate when based on good geologic models. Random drilling (or "scriptural geology) might give you something like a 5% chance of success or less, whereas a propect with good geology will have anywhere from 15-25% chance of success or more, depending basically on how much data you have to define the prospective area. This difference in success rate has great economic impact. In the early days there were many "pure" wildcatters, drilling wells on hunches. Most of them went broke. A few became rich. Companies that employed geologists were far more successful and even the "pure" wildcatters relied on geologists and engineers to develop the fields once they were found. Exploitation geology is the field of study employed after fields are found and we have a lot of data to understand and delineate the field. Here geologic models are employed, usually resulting in 90-100% success rates. Also geologic models and a good understanding of the stratigraphy and depositional environments allows new zones within old fields to be found and developed. Oil fields lose pressure and go into decline after they have produced for awhile. When this occurs we often infill drill and inject water in certain wells to restore pressure and reverse the declining production. Good geologic models and an understanding of the reservoir are critical at this stage in order to design an effective waterflood pattern. The success or failure of the waterflood will depend on this.

                                        When waterflooding is no longer effective because we have already produced a good portion of the oil in place, we sometimes inject CO2 to free up oil that is otherwise held too tightly by the reservoir rock to be produced. At this stage good geologic models are even more important than in waterflooding and we often produce 3D computer models of the reservoirs and run simulations to predict the response to CO2, help design the CO2 flood and determine if it will be economic to do. None of these things can possibly be done effectively without depositional models that allow us to predict the geometry of all the beds involved, their porosity and permeability, and oil saturation. Cores are often taken, at great expense to supplement the physical measurements taken by various logging tools which are run after drilling of any well that measure such things as resistivity, sonic velocity, natural gamma ray, and porosity. The cores are critical to undersanding the depositional environments which we can understand better from sedimentary structures, fossils, bedding planes, etc. that cannot be seen by the logging tools.

                                        Needless to say none of this very effective and productive work has ever been based on your utterly ridiculous, simplistic, and basically stupid catastrophic flood model. Needless to say oil companies are in the business of making money; they would not be employing thousands of geologists, if the models they use did not increase the bottom line. Needless to say they do in fact increase the bottom line and without the work of these geologists you can be quite sure, that the world would have far less oil to use than it now has. Instead of $100/barrel, it might be more like $5000/barrel and the world would already be running on some alternative energy source.
                                        • Unsu...
                                           

                                          Re: Simple answer.

                                          Mon, November 26, 2007 - 2:12 PM
                                          Rene: Needless to say none of this very effective and productive work has ever been based on your utterly ridiculous, simplistic, and basically stupid catastrophic flood model.

                                          ok, now that hurt:-). It is not "my flood model" Rene, it is all of ours since it is history, not stories about a mythological time before time. Again, I respect your expertise in geology, but don't really think you can any longer discern the difference between models based upon observable realities and those based upon stories of the unverifiable past. I stand by the view that scriptural geologists would do just as well.

                                          Rene: Needless to say oil companies are in the business of making money; they would not be employing thousands of geologists, if the models they use did not increase the bottom line.

                                          Even Nancy Reagan consulted witches, I wonder if it helped her "bottom line" somehow?:-) Seriously, I think a geologist, whatever their persuasion, can be helpful finding oil based upon their experience, knowledge of strata, rock types etc. This is not surprising, but in no way does this confirm vast ages or evolution.
                                          • Re: Simple answer.

                                            Mon, November 26, 2007 - 3:29 PM
                                            >>"It is not "my flood model" Rene, it is all of ours since it is history"<<

                                            Dan, you know very well the bible says nothing at all about how the sedimentary rocks, or any rocks actually were laid out and deposited. It just says there was a big flood. If it happened that would be the history recorded and nothing more. The crazy flood models for sedimentary geology that you seem to accept are not in the bible in any way, shape, or form. They are simply the product of some simple-minded fools who don't know even 1/100th of what most geologists know about the rock record and really serve no purpose, particularly since they do not fit the data and observations we have in any way, shape, or form. Additionally, the bible says nothing at all about the amount of time since the creation, so accepting millions and millions of years of earth history in no way, shape, or form contradicts the bible. These are just ridiculous prejudices you maintain that force you to ignore far more scientific data than you accept.
                                            • Unsu...
                                               

                                              Re: Simple answer.

                                              Tue, November 27, 2007 - 7:23 AM
                                              Rene: Dan, you know very well the bible says nothing at all about how the sedimentary rocks, or any rocks actually were laid out and deposited.

                                              I do know that it bears witness to the fact that a world wide flood catastrophy occurred and that sedimentary deposits are laid down in flood waters and that we have huge amounts of these deposits around the world, just as one would expect if a world wide flood occurred. I also know that the fossil record is "unmageably rich" containging millions upon millions of fossils which demand an instant burial, not a gradual one. No, I don't know all of the details by reading the Bible, but many things can be deduced from it which make perfect sense to me such as fossil graveyards, marine fossils in my backyard, polystrate trees etc.

                                              Rene: It just says there was a big flood.

                                              It says much more than this, you simply have turned a deaf ear to it. It speaks of the "fountains of the deep being broken up". It speaks of 40 days and nights of rain, followed by more flooding which eventually reached 20 ft over the tallest mountians of Noah's day. It speaks of a flood which lasted over 1 year and more. It is completely appropriate to make deductions from this historical fact rather than induce uniformitarian assumptions on rock layers we see in the present.

                                              Rene: If it happened that would be the history recorded and nothing more. The crazy flood models for sedimentary geology that you seem to accept are not in the bible in any way, shape, or form. They are simply the product of some simple-minded fools who don't know even 1/100th of what most geologists know about the rock record and really serve no purpose, particularly since they do not fit the data and observations we have in any way, shape, or form.

                                              May I say here Rene that you are extremely hypocritical. You love to call people "simple-minded", "fools", "ignorant" etc., even those from your side who disagree with you get the same treatment, yet you criticise me when I attack your ideas.

                                              Rene: Additionally, the bible says nothing at all about the amount of time since the creation, so accepting millions and millions of years of earth history in no way, shape, or form contradicts the bible.

                                              Here you reveal your own ignorance, but how can a 49 year old bible believer and reader refute an atheist theologian such as yourself?:-) Detailed geneologies can be used to date the creation very accurately, certainly to withing thousands of years. Jesus himself stated man was created at the beginning of creation so for me to accept Jesus as divine, which I do, requires that he knows what he is talking about. You know very well that evolution and old ages do not allow for the creation of man at the "beginning of creation" but rather billions and billions of years later! Old earth creationists and Christians are wrong, they simply and foolishly wish to "suck up" to "scientists" in order to feel good about their faith. There is no reason to assert the authority of fallible people and interpretations over the clear teaching of biblical history, None whatsoever.

                                              Rene: These are just ridiculous prejudices you maintain that force you to ignore far more scientific data than you accept.

                                              From my discussions with you Rene I have found that it is you who rejects observational data more often that I do. You are always defaulting to future hopes and expectations to support your failing beliefs. I accept the data here and now and am very satisfied with the direction that it is pointing. Yes, I have prejudices, just like you. I accept the bibles account of history axiomatically, just as you do blind random chance and materialism. And I am 100% certain that you will one day acknowledge your mistake.
                                              • Re: Simple answer.

                                                Tue, November 27, 2007 - 11:52 AM
                                                >>"It says much more than this, you simply have turned a deaf ear to it. It speaks of the "fountains of the deep being broken up". It speaks of 40 days and nights of rain, followed by more flooding which eventually reached 20 ft over the tallest mountians of Noah's day. It speaks of a flood which lasted over 1 year and more. It is completely appropriate to make deductions from this historical fact rather than induce uniformitarian assumptions on rock layers we see in the present."<<

                                                Right- like I said; it just says there was a big flood, some of the water from below, some from above- that's it, nothing about sedimentation at all. As I have already told you if you modeled such a flood, there would not be much erosion, nor would it produce many of the multiple types of rock we see; limestone, dolomite, chalk, chert, evaporites, coal. It might produce a bit of silt, sand, and mud- "clastic" rocks and nothing more, but not in the sequences and geometries that are observed. You are adding all sorts of non-biblical inferences that in no way follow from the flood you believe happened.
                                                • Unsu...
                                                   

                                                  Re: Simple answer.

                                                  Tue, November 27, 2007 - 2:30 PM
                                                  Rene: As I have already told you if you modeled such a flood, there would not be much erosion,

                                                  this is patently false and I do have to say I don't think you really believe this.

                                                  Rene: nor would it produce many of the multiple types of rock we see; limestone, dolomite, chalk, chert, evaporites, coal.

                                                  It could have produced all of these things. Creationists counter that the pure chalk for example would not have every been produced by your uniformitarian model. It would show contaminents if created over millions of years. Mount Saint Helens provides a model by which coal could be produced in a flood. Rafts of biomass which span many

                                                  Rene; It might produce a bit of silt, sand, and mud- "clastic" rocks and nothing more, but not in the sequences and geometries that are observed. You are adding all sorts of non-biblical inferences that in no way follow from the flood you believe happened.

                                                  We know there was a world wide flood Rene, so it is perfectly exceptable to interpret much of what we find in geology as the result of this catastrophy. Not everything, but most things. We also know that death came due to sin, so we know that the massive amount of fossil evidence must have been largely produced as a result of the flood, gradualism could never account for the enormous amount of fossils we find in rock layers around the world. This stuff is not happening today to any degree like it did in the past, so the present is NOT the key to the past, the Bible is. Why do you suppose we must find every detail to develop a model? this is crazy reasoning. The point is that for the biblical creationist, he/she cannot suggest a model with contradicts the biblical facts and yet supports what we observe, that is the only constraint.
                                                  • Re: Simple answer.

                                                    Tue, November 27, 2007 - 3:05 PM
                                                    >>"gradualism could never account for the enormous amount of fossils we find in rock layers around the world."<<

                                                    This again displays your total ignorance about geology. There are enormous volumes of research related to modern environments. The sediments and the fossil content and no different today than they are in ancient sediments.

                                                    >>"chalk for example would not have every been produced by your uniformitarian model"<<

                                                    Again- pue ignorance on your part. The coccolithic, pelagic ooze found in the deep ocean today resembles in every way the chalk deposits in ancient sediments, except the coccoliths are not exactly the same- they have evolved over time. Additionally, it is totally impossible to produce the sheer volume of coccoliths found in all the ancient chalk deposits in the ridiculous time scale you propose.

                                                    >>"Rene: As I have already told you if you modeled such a flood, there would not be much erosion,

                                                    "Dan: this is patently false and I do have to say I don't think you really believe this. "<<

                                                    There is no doubt about this at all. If your pseudo-scientists were actually capable of mathmatically modeling this, they would already know it. You don't have viable processes; as I said, what you have is a lot of arm waving.
                                                  • Re: Simple answer.

                                                    Wed, November 28, 2007 - 7:26 AM
                                                    >>"...we know that the massive amount of fossil evidence must have been largely produced as a result of the flood, gradualism could never account for the enormous amount of fossils we find in rock layers around the world.

                                                    What we actually know is that there is no way all the fossil material in the sedimentary record could have been alive at one time on the earth, then killed and deposited in the manner you imagine.

                                                    I think it is about time you became educated about fossils. Rapid burial is not a condition commonly associated with fossilization. In fact the reverse is true. Where we have rapid burial and rapid sedimentation today there are few fossils. This would be in places like the mouth of the Mississippi river where large amounts of sediment are being dumped into the sea. The reason there are few fossils is because there are few organisms. Turbid waters are not conductive to the proliferation of life. Most fossils are the calcareous hard parts of organisms and nothing about rapid burial makes these hard parts any more likely to be preserved. The conditions that make for abundant fossils, such as those in your backyard, are shallow marine waters where we have the highest organic productivity and an abundance of organisms with calcareous hard parts. These are conditions of relatively slow sedimentation and most of the sediment is actually produced in place, as it consists of the broken remains of calcareous organisms that are not transported very far. By far the largest percentage of fossils found and known are the remains of organisms that lived in shallow marine waters. These same types of organisms live in shallow marine waters today and in modern sediments this is where we find the most abundant remains of dead organisms. The abundance of life in shallow marine waters is attested to by an aspect of modern sediments that we also find in ancient shallow marine sediments- abundant burrowing. We have a name for this aspect of these sediments; we say they are bioturbated. Bioturbation only occurs within a short distance of water/sediment interface, so rapid burial precludes this happening and where we have rapid sedimentation, there is in fact little bioturbation. In all modern shallow marine environments we have intensive bioturbation. These same features are present in ancient sediments considered to be deposited in shallow marine environments.

                                                    The idea that rapid burial is a necessary condition for fossilization that you and some other creationists have does not mesh with reality. This idea gives us a glimpse into the strange and twisted way creationists latch onto certain ideas that seem to them to have a scientific basis, and then make a case that in no way corresponds to any actual facts. In a few cases that I know of where soft parts or organisms are preserved, some have ascribed this exceptional preservation to rapid burial. The idea is that without rapid burial, the soft parts would be quickly decayed and nothing would remain. Of course, this would have no effect on hard parts, which make up most fossils, so one must wonder how truly simple-minded creationists are to try to apply this idea about soft parts to hard parts. This idea about soft parts actually does not seem to apply to most cases where we have exceptional preservation of fossils. In most of these cases, it is more likely that anoxic conditions were present which delayed the decay of the soft parts long enough for some fossil impressions to form and rapid burial had nothing to do with the preservation.

                                                  • Re: Simple answer.

                                                    Wed, November 28, 2007 - 7:30 AM
                                                    >>"Mount Saint Helens provides a model by which coal could be produced in a flood."<<

                                                    Coal is produced from peat which accumulates in swamps. I am not sure how any sane person actually acquainted with the facts here could doubt this. There is nothing about any of the volcanic sediments around any volcano that resemble in any way the abundant coal deposits we have throughout the world.
                                                    • Unsu...
                                                       

                                                      Re: Simple answer.

                                                      Wed, November 28, 2007 - 7:43 AM
                                                      Rene: Coal is produced from peat which accumulates in swamps. I am not sure how any sane person actually acquainted with the facts here could doubt this. There is nothing about any of the volcanic sediments around any volcano that resemble in any way the abundant coal deposits we have throughout the world.

                                                      You were not there during the formation of coal, you simply believe coal formation is formed in swamps from slow peat accumulation. However it was formed as the result of the raging Noahic flood waters. Mt St Helens deposit a huge amount of logs in Spirit Lake after the eruption which in turn is deposit peat. Logs which were transported to the lake are found standing straight up under the water and are being trapped in sediment. (in a few thousand years, evolution believers will reject history in favor of the view that these logs grew into place and actually represent millions of years of forest growths which were buried gradually:-).)

                                                      www.answersingenesis.org/creat...mp.asp

                                                      "Dramatic confirmation of the processes postulated by Dr. Austin was provided by the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. The volcano sent mud and debris hurtling down into Spirit Lake, sloshing a wave nearly 900 feet (300 m) up its initially tree-studded slopes. The wave sheared off trees with enough lumber to make all the houses in a large city! The trees were sheared off their roots and stripped of their leaves, branches, and bark. The “forest” of denuded logs floated out over the huge lake. As they water-logged, many sank vertically down into and through several layers of mud on the lake bottom. Many features of the lake-bottom deposits are reminiscent of coal deposits. A fantastic video describing both the eruption of Mt. St. Helens and his original research has been prepared by Dr. Austin41 and ought to be seen!

                                                      On a small scale, you can see the process that may have started the formation of coal deposits when a typhoon rips up mats of vegetation and floats them out to sea. But some coal seams run from Pennsylvania out across Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois into Iowa and down to Oklahoma! What kind of storm could be involved in the formation of that kind of coal seam? Answer: Catastrophic flooding on a scale like that described in the Bible for Noah’s Flood!"

                                                      www.answersingenesis.org/home/...st.asp
                                                      • Re: Simple answer.

                                                        Wed, November 28, 2007 - 7:07 PM
                                                        >>"You were not there during the formation of coal, you simply believe coal formation is formed in swamps from slow peat accumulation."<<

                                                        I might as well have been there, as the weight of evidence for this model is overwhelming. This link discusses the evidence:

                                                        www.geocities.com/earthhist...igcoal.htm

                                                        A couple of quotes:

                                                        ...:careful observation of the root systems and attached rootlets ('stigmaria') attached to upright lycopod trunks at the base of many Carboniferous (and later) coals show that they grew on site and were not "washed into place" from some other location (Gastaldo 1984, 1999). In situ trunks and deep root traces are known from the Devonian (Driese et al. 1997; Retallack 1997) and all subsequent geologic periods, but not from earlier periods. Several multi-level buried 'fossil forests' have been documented also, some of which are associated with coals and some which are not. Some examples include 3 sand-buried Eospermatopteris stump horizons with roots penetrating underlying mudstones documented in the Devonian Catskill 'delta' in eastern New York (Banks et al. 1985, p. 133), 10 successive conifer forests from the mid-Jurassic of Curio Bay New Zealand (Pole 2001) and several others from Kawhia Harbour (Thorn 2001), a buried Cretaceous conifer/angiosperm forest with roots penetrating underlying paleosols from Alexander Island, Antarctica (e.g. Cantrill and Lang 2001).

                                                        The root system of the lycopod trees which are the dominant trees in most paleozoic coals consisted of four main axes which departed the base of the trunk and dichotomozed several times. These root systems intertwined with the root systems of other trees, forming a giant network of roots. The underground portion of the roots bear helically-arranged "rootlets," giving stigmaria a bottle-brush-like 3-dimensional structure. In many cases, these root systems can be seen branching outward from upright trunks, and the delicate appendages extend outward from these roots into the surrounding sediments."

                                                        "Soils are complex geologic/minerological structures formed by the physical, chemical and organic weathering of some parent material, which could be anything from crystalline igneous rocks to soft, unconsolidated sediments. Numerous studies of pedogenic (soil-forming) processes operating in natural environments show that well-developed soils require hundreds to thousands of years to form, depending upon climate, intensity of weathering, type of parent material and so on (Buol et al., 1989, pp. 175-188). Obviously soils could not form during a flood. However, numerous paleosols exist in the geologic record (e.g. Retallack 1990; Meyer 1997; Martini and Chesworth 1992; Reinhardt and Sigleo 1988), including, among other soil types, vertisols, calcisols, oxisols, spodosols, ultisols, argillosols, and gleysols.

                                                        Coals are often found directly above fossil soils. Most paleosols underlying Carboniferous coals are only weakly-developed, others are exceptionally "mature." The most frequently observed variety of paleosol underlying coal seams are so-called "underclays." These paleosols typically lack strong horizonation and display pedogenic characteristics similar those found today in peat-accumulating environments. As an example, evidence of pedogenesis in the underclay beneath the Upper Elkhorn Coal in eastern Kentucky include features such as roots and/or root traces, downprofile decrease in kaolinite/mica ratio, mica thickness, and vermiculite content, up-profile decrease in chlorite, and the presence of siderite nodules (Gardner et al. 1988). Jonathon Clarke describes an early Carboniferous paleosol from South Wales, which occurs in association with thin coal seams."

                                                        ..."Gastaldo (1999) illustrates another type of flood-sorting problem by comparing the Cretaceous-Paleocene lignites of the Wilcox trend in Texas and Louisiana with the early Pennsylvanian bituminous coals of the Black Warrior basin. The Wilcox trend contains several coal seams within a 3500ft thick section, and the Black Warrior basin contains about 40 seams within a 12,000ft section. Although these two coal groups are seperated by only about 200 miles of relatively flat-lying land in north central Alabama, both coal groups contain *entirely* different floral compositions throughout their lateral extent."

                                                        "Conclusion

                                                        Diluvial models of coal formation are inconsistent with a wide variety of observations, and can be dismissed as untenable. Criticisms of autochthonous models made by AiG and other creationists are based largely on factual errors, misleading statements, and failure to consider all data. Moreover, given the strong evidence for autochthony and the slow pace of peat accumulation even under near ideal conditions (less than 1cm or so) (e.g. Diemont and Supardi 1987), the presence of numerous thick autochthonous coals in the geologic record is yet another indication that the earth is far older than young-earthers would like to believe."
                                                  • Re: Simple answer.

                                                    Wed, November 28, 2007 - 7:43 AM
                                                    >>"Why do you suppose we must find every detail to develop a model? this is crazy reasoning."<<

                                                    This is what is called science, Dan; making every obervable detail fit your model, along with calibrating your proposed processes mathmatically and calculating the effects they might be capable of producing. But as we know creationsists are not scientists but pseudo-scientists, so I guess we should not expect this of them.

                                                    >>"The point is that for the biblical creationist, he/she cannot suggest a model with contradicts the biblical facts and yet supports what we observe, that is the only constraint."<<

                                                    Science is not constrained as you suggest. Proposing some narrow model and ignoring all data that does not fit this mold is not science, but pseudoscience. But as far as geology goes, the bible says nothing about it, so it would be impossible for any geologic model to contradict the bible to begin with. Your entire worldview is one absurdity built upon another built upon another until what you have is the ugliest monstrosity that I have ever seen.
                                                    • Unsu...
                                                       

                                                      Re: Simple answer.

                                                      Wed, November 28, 2007 - 7:53 AM
                                                      Rene: This is what is called science, Dan; making every obervable detail fit your model, along with calibrating your proposed processes mathmatically and calculating the effects they might be capable of producing. But as we know creationsists are not scientists but pseudo-scientists, so I guess we should not expect this of them.

                                                      You missed the point entirely. The question was meant to imply "why do we need to find all aspects of the model in the bible". There is no need. We could have invented it completely or discovered it in the bagavagita! It makes no difference, as long as it explains what we actually observe, which it does!

                                                      >>"The point is that for the biblical creationist, he/she cannot suggest a model with contradicts the biblical facts and yet supports what we observe, that is the only constraint."<<

                                                      Rene: Science is not constrained as you suggest.

                                                      It most certainly is. Scientists have been trying to explain the origin of the universe by the big bang model for many years, in spite of the fact it contradicts known data. Those who originate models attempt to defend them, they are constrained to do so. Over time, poor models are abandoned or modified. The flood is a historical fact, it does not need to be abandoned. Explaining how the flood produced what we see is necessary, but abandoning history for the conjecture of nutty evolution believers is silly.

                                                      Rene: Proposing some narrow model and ignoring all data that does not fit this mold is not science, but pseudoscience. But as far as geology goes, the bible says nothing about it, so it would be impossible for any geologic model to contradict the bible to begin with.

                                                      Just like this sentence of yours contradicts itself perhaps:-)

                                                      Rene: Your entire worldview is one absurdity built upon another built upon another until what you have is the ugliest monstrosity that I have ever seen.

                                                      well isn't that the pot calling the kettle black:-) I am debating an atheist believer who tells me my beliefs are absurd, go figure!
                                                      • Re: Simple answer.

                                                        Wed, November 28, 2007 - 9:54 PM
                                                        >>"Rene: Science is not constrained as you suggest."

                                                        Dan: "It most certainly is."<<

                                                        Science seeks the truth, whatever it may be. No one has the expectation they already know it and so there are no limits or constraints on potential models. In contrast you hope to constrain your models to what is contained in a ancient set of myths developed by some primitive nomads, believing beyond reason that this set of myths is the "Truth". The nomads tales don't say anything about how rocks were deposited and yet you unreasonably hope to explain a vast body of data; the geologic record of earth history, by one small incidental part of the myth. To me this appears to border on insanity.

                                                        >>"The flood is a historical fact, it does not need to be abandoned."<<

                                                        The flood is a myth, but even if it were a myth based on fact, there is nothing about geology that would force you to abandon it. The bible says nothing about what resulted from the flood, so anything reasonable is open to your narrow constraint. I will suggest some reasonable possibilities. (1) The flood deposited quite a bit of sediment, or more likely a thin veneer, which was quickly reworked and redeposited, so that it appears exactly like the near modern sediments we observe. (2) The flood deposited a thin veneer of sediment that no no has been able to identify. (3) No sediment at all was deposited. This might happen if the water rose very quickly. If everything was under water there would be no hydraulic head to move water, any currents would be too shallow to affect the rock at the bottom of the world ocean. One should understand that we have a flooded world; three quarters of it is flooded and not much is happening underneath all that water. Sedimentation tends occurs where the water meets dry land; if there is no dry land, there would be very little or no sedimentation. Instead of these reasonable possibilities, you want to invoke impossibilities that no amount of water could accomplish; creating, moving, depositing miles of sedimentary rock in sedimentary basins all over the world that contain sediments that give away their manner of deposition in all cases, by a set of easily identifiable characteristics. Then you must compact, consolidate, deform, uplift and differentially erode the rocks in these basins, invoking a flood that would have no potential to do any of the above. It is sheer madness.
                                                        • Unsu...
                                                           

                                                          Re: Simple answer.

                                                          Thu, November 29, 2007 - 10:19 AM
                                                          For a full discussion on the flood catastrophy and biblical verses refuting a "tranquil flood" theory go here:

                                                          www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v1...he.asp

                                                          the bible speaks of huge cedars being snapped in half and skipped along in the flood like a pebble. People being "swept away (up)" in the flood waters etc.. Biblical exegesis requires a catastrophy of monumental proportions which was accompanied by "mountians going up and valleys going down" to accommodate the removal of the flood waters from the land after this 150 day flood. Rene's attempt to win me over by throwing a bone of a tranquil flood is laughable and "old". This was the deceiver "Charles Lyell" trick. Rene has been employing any trick he can lately including offering christian compromisers as evidence. When will he learn that the problem is not Dan but Rene, a blind geologist who fails to see what is in front of his face?
                                                          • Re: Simple answer.

                                                            Thu, November 29, 2007 - 11:32 AM
                                                            >>"Rene has been employing any trick he can lately including offering christian compromisers as evidence."<<

                                                            Evidence? I offer some non-scientist's opinions, some with Christian perspectives because I thought they might speak your language. You seem unable to grasp most simple scientific concepts, no matter how much it is simplified for you. All of the articles do in fact discuss a lot of evidence that you choose to ignore.

                                                            Charles Lyell- "the deceiver"... The depth of your delusion is difficult to fathom. Is the sky blue for you or some other color?
                                                            • Unsu...
                                                               

                                                              Re: Simple answer.

                                                              Thu, November 29, 2007 - 12:29 PM
                                                              Rene: Evidence? I offer some non-scientist's opinions, some with Christian perspectives because I thought they might speak your language.

                                                              I am not interested in Scientists "opinions". What makes you think I would be any more interested in a Christians "opinion". Let me make this clear for you Rene, I am only interested in the Bibles "opinion". Christian compromisers are a dime a dozen, we have been dealing with them since Judas kissed Jesus on the cheek.

                                                              Rene: You seem unable to grasp most simple scientific concepts, no matter how much it is simplified for you. All of the articles do in fact discuss a lot of evidence that you choose to ignore.

                                                              Cute, I taught science for 8 years and had 18 years of public eduction which includes a degree in science. I am humble enough to admit that I am no scientist, but the idea that I don't understand "simple scienific concepts" is just a baseless attack which evolution believers like to use of anyone with whom they disagree.

                                                              Rene: Charles Lyell- "the deceiver"... The depth of your delusion is difficult to fathom. Is the sky blue for you or some other color?

                                                              today it is blue actually, but my accusation is no delusion, it is historical fact with which you are unfamiliar, as you are many things.

                                                              "What Lyell wrote in Principles of Geology about what he saw on his trip to Niagara Falls was sufficient to satisfy the curiosity of most readers. But what he omitted would have undermined his age estimate to any alert reader. The old adage of ‘never let the facts spoil a good theory’ seems to apply here.

                                                              Lyell ignored the reports from Mr Blackwell that residents had observed the Falls recede by more than one metre (three feet) a year. At that rate the gorge would be less than 12,000 years old, which was in the ballpark of the biblical chronology, given the uncertainties in the estimates. That was not old enough for Lyell, who was looking to promote his slow-and-gradual geological theories. So he chose to disregard the data and conducted his own investigation of the residents.

                                                              Lyell does not explain how he did it, but strangely, he arrived at a reduced rate of 0.3 metres (one foot) a year. This ‘conjecture’, as he called it, much better suited his purpose. Since the gorge was 35,000 feet long, he concluded that it must be 35,000 years old!2 This estimate further undermined people’s confidence in the biblical chronology. And Lyell saw the Bible as the major obstacle to the general acceptance of his geological theories.

                                                              Lyell’s conclusion was wrong. Later analysis of eyewitness reports from 1842 to 1927 confirmed the high rate of erosion — 1.2 to 1.5 metres (four to five feet) a year.6 The residents of Lyell’s day had been conservative! This rate places an upper limit of 7,000 to 9,000 years for the gorge."

                                                              Now for an "ends justify the means" atheist such as yourself Rene, I am sure you have no moral objection to Lyells lies, but I come from the "old school" where telling whoppers is always wrong, regardless of the 'cause'.

                                                              www.answersingenesis.org/creat...ls.asp

                                                              Let's see what atheist marxist evolution believer Stephen Jay Gould had to say about Lyell the liar:

                                                              "Gould, Stephen Jay, Professor of Paleontology and Geology at Harvard, in ‘Natural History’ Feb 1975 p.16.

                                                              ‘Charles Lyell was a lawyer by profession, and his book is one of the most brilliant briefs published by an advocate. … Lyell relied upon true bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology. First, he set up a straw man to demolish. … In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to require catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hardnosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists.’

                                                              "True bits of cunning" and impossing ones "imagination upon the evidence" sounds a lot like lieing Rene? I think Dr. Gould would have agreed, even if you do not. Of course it turns out Lyell the liar was a lawyer and lawyers are renowned for lying, so that a lying lawyer turned geologist such as Lyel existed, should come as no surprise.
                                                          • Re: Simple answer.

                                                            Thu, November 29, 2007 - 11:56 AM
                                                            >>For a full discussion on the flood catastrophy and biblical verses refuting a "tranquil flood" theory go here<<

                                                            Thanks for this Dan- it is the most laughable piece of total b.s. that I have seen in a long time. It the final analysis it seems to support my view. The bible says lots about the destruction and death of animals, particularly land animals, but nothing at all about the erosion, formation, and deposition of sediments.

                                                            The conclusion sparks a hopeful note...:

                                                            >>"There is a great need to gather scientists from all disciplines to consider the problems that have been rightly brought to the attention of the biblical creationist community—problems such as footprints of dinosaurs above vast stretches of sediment and dinosaur eggs at high positions in the strata. The role of sedimentology and the flow of heterogeneous mixtures requires hydraulic engineers, fluid dynamicists as well as geologists to carefully unravel these difficulties."<<

                                                            as it seems to recognize that all they have at this point is a bunch of arm waving and it calls for meaningful study. Of course any meaningful study would quickly enlighten them that their models are ridiculous, so that is not really going to happen, is it Dan?
                                                            • Unsu...
                                                               

                                                              Re: Simple answer.

                                                              Thu, November 29, 2007 - 12:35 PM
                                                              The biblical narrative is concerned primarily about people and animals Rene, so naturally it doesn't dwell heavily upon rocks and strata formation. What it does do is provide a "model" from which we can better understand what we see in the rock layers and why we see it. Yes, creationists readily admit they don't have all of the explanations for observations that we see, but like you Rene, they are confident that explanations exist so are not giving up faith in God word the bible as a result. This is a sensible approach. An assinine approach is to start the assumption that all we see in the geologic record can be explained by present processes extrapolated over millions and millions of years.
                                                              • Re: Simple answer.

                                                                Tue, December 4, 2007 - 9:53 PM
                                                                >>"Yes, creationists readily admit they don't have all of the explanations for observations that we see, but like you Rene, they are confident that explanations exist so are not giving up faith in God word the bible as a result."<<

                                                                The models you referred us to don't offer valid explanations for any geologic observations. They are utterly ridiculous and absurd. Equally absurd is your idea that is is necessary to give up "faith in God word the bible" in order to recognize that modern geology has good models that are able to fit all observations and explain nearly every aspect of the rock record quite adequately. The bible has nothing at all to say about geology, so it is impossible for any geologic model to contradict the bible.
                                              • Re: Simple answer.

                                                Tue, November 27, 2007 - 6:47 PM
                                                >>"Detailed geneologies can be used to date the creation very accurately, certainly to withing thousands of years."<<

                                                ... and yet many, perhaps most Christians don't buy your silly young earth story.

                                                From:

                                                www.godandscience.org/youngea...sis.html

                                                "Introduction

                                                "The day-age (progressive) creation account is non-literal and contradicts the clear teaching of Genesis." I hear or see this complaint quite often, although the statement is incorrect regarding both accusations. I take all of the biblical creation accounts literally. Nothing is symbolic. The Hebrew word yom1 has three literal meanings - a 12-hour period of time (sunrise to sunset), a 24-hour period of time from sunset to sunset (the Hebrew day), and an indefinite period of time. The day-age interpretation of Genesis does not require the use of symbolism to explain the creation account."

                                                ...Conclusion

                                                We are left with only one interpretation for the days of Genesis one. The literal, clearly indicated, meaning of yom for Genesis one must be an unspecified, long period of time. This is why I believe that the day-age Genesis one interpretation is the only biblically sound interpretation for the creation of the world and life on it.

                                                From:

                                                www.godandscience.org/youngea...rth.html

                                                ..."the young-earth interpretation of creation is not the "only biblical view" of creation. Not only does the currently popular young-earth interpretation have major scientific discrepancies, but it contradicts much of what the Bible actually says."
                                                • Unsu...
                                                   

                                                  Re: Simple answer.

                                                  Wed, November 28, 2007 - 7:31 AM
                                                  >>"Detailed geneologies can be used to date the creation very accurately, certainly to withing thousands of years."<<

                                                  Rene... and yet many, perhaps most Christians don't buy your silly young earth story.

                                                  So what? What you fail to understand is this is not a popularity contest. Most Jews didn't believe Jesus was the Christ. Most Germans and many Americans loved Hitler. The issue is not what most Christians "buy", it is what the bible teaches. Ignorance abounds in Christian circles, just as it does in atheist circles. What we are talking about here Rene is a concept called "conviction". I do not follow other Christians, I follow the scriptures. And I could care less what some "christian" web site has to say about young earthers.

                                                  "The day-age (progressive) creation account is non-literal and contradicts the clear teaching of Genesis." I hear or see this complaint quite often, although the statement is incorrect regarding both accusations. I take all of the biblical creation accounts literally. Nothing is symbolic. The Hebrew word yom1 has three literal meanings - a 12-hour period of time (sunrise to sunset), a 24-hour period of time from sunset to sunset (the Hebrew day), and an indefinite period of time. The day-age interpretation of Genesis does not require the use of symbolism to explain the creation account."


                                                  This author is a nut case. Yom is to be interpreted based upon the context in which it is found. That Genesis 1 can only be interpreted as 24 hour days is without question. There is no possible interpretation other than 24 hour days! Evening and morning are dead giveaways, the numerical sequence is a dead giveaway. Moses explanation as to the reason for 6 24 hour days is clear (Exodus 20:11), it is to provide a pattern for our work week, a pattern which inexplicably survives to this day. The order of creation makes no sense in an evolutionary context. I have debated idiots like Ricardo on Unplugged from Christianity before. He, like this guy, is a lunatic. I would hope that an atheist who has no investment in the issue one way or another would at least grant that the literal position demands 7 24 hour days. But no, this atheist is now jumping on the compromising christian bandwagon. If there is a better reason for rejecting this idiotic theology I cannot think of what it would be. Christian fundamentalists own the theology Rene, this has been admitted by such liberal theologians as Dr. Kirsop Lake:

                                                  "It is a mistake, often made by educated persons who happen to have but little knowledge of historical theology, to suppose that Fundamentalism is a new and strange form of thought. It is nothing of the kind: it is the partial and uneducated survival of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians. How many were there, for instance, in Christian churches in the eighteenth century who doubted the infallible inspiration of all Scripture? A few, perhaps, but very few. No, the Fundamentalist may be wrong. I think that he is. But it is we who have departed from the tradition, not he, . . . The Bible and the corpus theologicum [body of theology] of the Church is on the Fundamentalist side [The Religion of Yesterday and Tomorrow, 1925, by Kirsopp Lake, pp. 61, 62]. "



                                                  Rene's quote: "We are left with only one interpretation for the days of Genesis one. The literal, clearly indicated, meaning of yom for Genesis one must be an unspecified, long period of time. This is why I believe that the day-age Genesis one interpretation is the only biblically sound interpretation for the creation of the world and life on it."

                                                  This is stupidity. What he really is trying to say, or trying to hide, is that he fears that science has disproven the bible so a clear reading of Genesis is indefensible. Everyone from a 7 year old to a 90 year old knows what Genesis is saying. Day age theories do not harmonize with scripture or evolutionary philosophy.

                                                  www.answersingenesis.org/home/...ng.asp

                                                  Rene: From:

                                                  www.godandscience.org/youngea...rth.html

                                                  ..."the young-earth interpretation of creation is not the "only biblical view" of creation. Not only does the currently popular young-earth interpretation have major scientific discrepancies, but it contradicts much of what the Bible actually says."

                                                  The young earth position is 100% in line with biblical exegesis and contradicts no observational science either. Day agers are deceptive rascals just like the evolution believers are. Here is a contrast between both views (day age vs. calendar day).

                                                  www.answersingenesis.org/docs2...OE.asp
  • Re: Simple answer.

    Thu, November 15, 2007 - 7:07 PM
    >>"no one that ive heard on tv etc has even suggested that god might be responsible for evolution"<<

    Have you ever heard of Pope John Paul II. Before he died he strongly espoused exactly this approach and much was made of it the media. It is actually a longstanding Catholic tradition to align religion with science and not espouse ideas contrary to observed facts. Fundamentalist extremists are mostly responsible for the idea that evolution is contrary to religious belief. There is no basis for this and many very religious people accept both the idea of God and the idea of evolution. They are not in any way incompatible. When it comes to the origin of life, theists will split from those who chose to seek natural explanations, but at this time, there is no solid theory or observational evidence of how life might have originated, so this is really just a matter of speculation. In my view, everyone should clearly label speculation as speculation. Here again, the theist will split from those who chose to seek natural explanations- they like to label their speculation as something substantial that should be believed as a matter of faith. Your definitive statement; "yes there is intelligence involved in the creation of life" is typical of this attitude. You speak as if you know something and there is no doubt that it is true, when in fact, it is really the wildest speculation imaginable; positing that "intelligence" is a necessary prerequisite for the origination of life. One has to wonder, if this is the case, why "intelligence' would not be a prerequisite for this creative intelligence to exist? Thus we have turtles all the way down- not a meaningful picture my friend; endless regress.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Simple answer.

      Sat, November 17, 2007 - 4:03 PM
      Rene: There is no basis for this and many very religious people accept both the idea of God and the idea of evolution. They are not in any way incompatible.

      Of course they are not. Truth is, nothing is compatible with atheism, it makes no sense on any level. But now I digress. The reason evangelicals reject evolution is A) they accept the authority of the bible and the testimony of eye witness accounts over the notions of fallible men and women who were not there and don't know everything. B) evolution has not been "proved" as Kyle asserts, it has been debunked as nothing more than a myth, a fairy tale for Rhino's and Rene's. Why anyone would believe that DNA would have created itself (abiogenesis) and then proceeded to add billions of information gaining mutations to create the observable biosphere (neo darwinian theory), is beyond all rational explanation. They are simply non thinking individuals, brainwashed or commmitted to a philosophy of materialism.
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: Simple answer.

    Mon, November 19, 2007 - 1:58 PM
    Kyle: God created evolution people. please stop arguing.

    This is a debate forum, are you suggesting that we close it down because you don't have a stomach for agressive dialogue?

    Kyle: Yes there is an intelligence involved in the creation of life. ;that intelligence is god. It just so happens that god is smart enough to understand extremly complex processes that seem random like evolution.

    I am sure "god" appreciates this concession Kyle.

    Kyle: the problem in this debate is not whether or not God exists; many evolutionists believe in god, and it has been proven that evolution does exist.

    How does one prove the "evolution does exist" Kyle. I find this statement fascinating. For the record, science does not "prove" anything. It is an inductive process which "supports" theories but never proves them. Evolution, being history and thus outside empiracle observable science will never reach the level of anything other than an interesting "story". That you feel it "proved" is evidence of the woeful state of our public education institutions.

    Kyle: the real problem is that some Christians feel that if they admit that not everything in the bible is to be taken literally they aren't good Christians.

    If you exalt the unsubstantiated beliefs of men over the historical record of scripture you are certainly confused and misled and likely not a "good christian".

    Kyle: the real problem is that if they admit that some of the bible is simply metaphor, then they'd have to give in on other issues to like gay mariage. after all gay sex isn't adultery if their married is it?

    Oh really, and I guess you are pro gay marriage, adultry, stealing and killing also since these "metaphors" are all taught in scripture.

    Kyle: but i digress. God doesnt usually like to just snap his/ her fingers and poof things into existance.

    How do you know what "Good doesn't usually like" Kyle? Do you have some inside information the rest of us are not privy to? If you read your Bible you will find he speaks and things come into existance instantly!

    Kyle: God is responsible for creation but he/she likes to basicaly let it develop on its own hence freewill. we are of god but god lets us make our own choices. after all even omnipotent entities must get tired of doing everything so god lets us have some freewill.

    You reveal you don't understand theology or "free will"

    Kyle: it truely amazes me that there is soo much debate on this issue yet no one that ive heard on tv etc has even suggested that god might be responsible for evolution.

    It has been suggesting many times by many people. It is called theistic evolution.

    Kyle: What do you guys think?

    It is wrong, just like evolution is. Rhino believes this.
    • Re: Simple answer.

      Mon, November 19, 2007 - 2:03 PM
      Dan, you don't learn very well, do you? Don't call me a joke, and then put words in my mouth for me. I stated this once for all to see, and I guess I have to state it again. Please, let my religious belief be my own and private. You can criticize and critique all you want, but don't put words in my mouth. I am asking you as nicely as I can, Dan.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Simple answer.

        Mon, November 19, 2007 - 6:09 PM
        Rhino: Dan, you don't learn very well, do you? Don't call me a joke, and then put words in my mouth for me. I stated this once for all to see, and I guess I have to state it again. Please, let my religious belief be my own and private. You can criticize and critique all you want, but don't put words in my mouth. I am asking you as nicely as I can, Dan.

        When you make this comments without quoting the post in view, it makes it difficult for me Rhino as there are a lot of posts here. I don't know what you mean by "putting words in your mouth". Let's look at the post:

        "Rhino: These people will stop at NOTHING to advance their agenda, including threatening people with their lives and well-being as was done to the Fitzmillers prior to the Fitzmiller vs. Dover Board of Education case. I've had my professional integrity maligned, I've been threatened, I've even been struck by one of these zealots."

        This is your post Rhino which is very offensive and untrue. I have grown accustomed to this sort of thing from people on this tribe so I am no longer shocked but such blatent falsehoods. We all know that there are weirdo's in the world Rhino, but to imply that most creationists are spend their time threatening people with violence is out of line. I put no words in your mouth, they came directly from you.

        "yes, Kyle, they will burn done your houses, rape your children and steal your money. You must kill them all right now before it is too late. "kill the beasts"!:-)"

        This was of course a joke Rhino. The point was to exagerate your comments to see just how silly they really sound.

        "Rhino, you are a joke and so is your rhetoric. And who in there right mind would strike a big guy like you anyway? They would have to be crazy. Oh that's right, we are crazy:-) You're silly."

        So as not to be misconstrued, I don't really think you as a person are a joke Rhino, just some of your ideas, especially those on the creation/evolution issue. I think you are a smart guy, probably a competent geologist, but you are deceived into believing evolution is the best explanation for what we observe in observational science and you are dead wrong here. I don't see anything here about your religion. I believe I have read on other tribes that you are a theistic evolutionist such as your conversation with Peter on Christianity Unplugged. If I am wrong you may correct me. I said nothing about your religion here. The only thing I really know about your religion is that you are a believer in the unfounded ideology of evolutionism.
        • Re: Simple answer.

          Mon, November 19, 2007 - 6:36 PM
          So now you call me a liar?

          I said, PRECISELY, "I've had my professional interity malighned, I've been threatened, I've even been struck by ONE of these zealots." That's not untrue.

          Another thing, for your information, while I'm at it: I don't view evolution as a religion or as an ideology. You're wrong there. I view it as a means of scientifically explaining phenomena that can't be accounted for otherwise.

          Please don't distort me, or who I am., or what I believe. Please don't, if you don't mind horribly.

          Dan, I don't believe that you want to do that.
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: Simple answer.

            Mon, November 19, 2007 - 6:51 PM
            R: So now you call me a liar?

            You are distorting the truth about creationists. I have no way of judging whether you are lieing or not on the subject of being struck by a creationist, I was not there and have no knowledge of the circumstances. However you made untrue extrapolations in your comments most definitely. I am sure you believe these things to be true, but they are falsehoods nevertheless.

            Rhino: I said, PRECISELY, "I've had my professional interity malighned, I've been threatened, I've even been struck by ONE of these zealots." That's not untrue.

            Read above

            Rhino: Another thing, for your information, while I'm at it: I don't view evolution as a religion or as an ideology. You're wrong there. I view it as a means of scientifically explaining phenomena that can't be accounted for otherwise.

            I know what you believe, but I am trying to help you understand the truth. And the truth is that evolution is a metaphysical research programme and this has been acknowledge by evolutionist philosophers themselves. So you are simply wrong!

            Rhino: Please don't distort me, or who I am., or what I believe. Please don't, if you don't mind horribly.

            I have no interest or need to "distort you". Yet be careful not to throw rocks if you live in a glass house.

            Rhino: Dan, I don't believe that you want to do that.

            do what?
            • Re: Simple answer.

              Mon, November 19, 2007 - 7:12 PM
              Fine, Dan.

              I don't believe that I've been malicious in my dealings with you, and yet you decide to be malicious and patently offensive. I am not a liar. So, that's it. Bear false witness against thy neighbor. Be how you will.
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: Simple answer.

                Mon, November 19, 2007 - 9:38 PM
                Rhino: Fine, Dan.

                I don't believe that I've been malicious in my dealings with you, and yet you decide to be malicious and patently offensive. I am not a liar. So, that's it. Bear false witness against thy neighbor. Be how you will.

                Dan's Response: I have not being malicious with you Rhino, I have merely corrected your false statements. I have stopped short of calling you a liar or impugning your character or professionalism. You are a very sensitive person when you feel you are being attacked, but you have no revulsion when it comes to impugning creationists with who you appear to disdain.

                We are discussing ideas here Rhino, this is not about you or me or how we feel. If I was so easily offended I would have stopped participating in these discussions long ago. I encourage you to not take my posts personally. I hold no animosity toward you, it is our ideas I am attacking.
                • Re: Simple answer.

                  Tue, November 20, 2007 - 2:26 PM
                  Then what the heck have you done, Dan? It doesn't matter. Yes, I take offense. Yes, I was struck by a creationist at another place. Yes, I'm easily offended because of that and other reasons, which I will not go into here. I am leaving this tribe because of you. So, now I'll say it, one time and one time only.

                  You aim to hurt people by questioning their beliefs, and then look around with a "who,me?" sort of attitude when you impugn someone as you impugned me. I know damn well I'm a professional, and have worked extremely hard to get there, and have made many sacrifices in my personal life to reach that point. You say you hold no animosity towards me, but I think there's some silent gratification on your part that you've shut me up. So, to that I say: Goodbye, Dan.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     

                    Re: Simple answer.

                    Tue, November 20, 2007 - 2:51 PM
                    Rhino: Then what the heck have you done, Dan? It doesn't matter. Yes, I take offense. Yes, I was struck by a creationist at another place. Yes, I'm easily offended because of that and other reasons, which I will not go into here. I am leaving this tribe because of you. So, now I'll say it, one time and one time only.

                    It is not just that you are so easily offended which concerns me Rhino, it is that you take offense when others simply correct your extrapolations. You have associated all creationists by an experience you had with some nut case. This is an unfair thing to do as anyone reasonable would tell you. I have no fear of talking in person with any evolution believer, and I know most will be amicable. I have never really done anything to you. If you want to see me get nasty, invite billy bob from Lions Den over here or Krampass from fun with fundies. You will see nasty then. These guys excell at nasty and disgusting.

                    Rhino: You aim to hurt people by questioning their beliefs, and then look around with a "who,me?"

                    What is wrong with questioning others beliefs? You are free to question mine all you want. Surely it has been done by Rene and others ad naseum. Rene will tell you with a straight face that he is a better Christian than I am. I have found though that I can like and sometimes respect those who are different than me. I actually like you and Rene believe it or not. And my purpose here is not to offend as much as it is to challenge.

                    Rhino: sort of attitude when you impugn someone as you impugned me. I know damn well I'm a professional, and have worked extremely hard to get there, and have made many sacrifices in my personal life to reach that point.

                    I know who I am as well Rhino, which is why I can take a licking and still go on. I am secure in my beliefs and accomplishments in life. I think we can somehow be friends even though you find me obnoxious most of the time. Why not give it a chance?

                    Rhino: You say you hold no animosity towards me, but I think there's some silent gratification on your part that you've shut me up. So, to that I say: Goodbye, Dan.

                    Not at all. I have not "shut you up". You are free to express yourself here and you are free to criticise me as well. I do not pretend in any way to be perfect or know everything. I feel our dialogue is useful to each of us. We are not going to change each others minds perhaps, but maybe there are other benefits to being here. Stick around Rhino and don't be too hard on me or yourself. Look I know that I am the weird one here. I reject the beliefs of most scientists for goodness sakes! What is weirder than that?

                    Let's come to any understanding that we will disagree and on occasion disagreeably. I will try to be sensitive to your feelings, but will likely fail at times. Once again, please don't leave.
                    • Re: Simple answer.

                      Sun, November 25, 2007 - 4:02 PM
                      >>"Once again, please don't leave."<<

                      Rhino asked me to tell you, he has decided to leave this tribe. I understand why.
                      • Unsu...
                         

                        Re: Simple answer.

                        Mon, November 26, 2007 - 10:13 AM
                        Rhino: Rhino asked me to tell you, he has decided to leave this tribe. I understand why.

                        Why? I have read his posts on a number of other tribes (fund with fundies, crossroads, 2crossroads2, satans tasticles(?), bioevolution etc). While Rhino is overall a pleasant person to converse with, his sensitivity toward fundamentalists such as myself seems to be conspicuously absent. In short, he has no problem associating himself with those who hate, depise and ridicule bible believers within the confines of tribes where no heat will be directed back toward him, but cannot take it when the same hostility is offered to him in person (and truthfully, I have not been hostile toward him. Check out my exchanges with Bill from Lions Den or fundie "slayer" Krampass on 2crossroads2.com and you will know what I mean). I on the other hand, have taken the fight directly to those who wish to do battle and without hesitation, offering no quarter. This style upsets a lot of people, including those who might otherwise agree with my positions, yet it is fundamentally me. You know this very well yet you seem ok with engaging me anyway. Like you, I try to be friendly when I am treated in a friendly manner, sarcastic where appropriate, belligerent where I feel necessary.

                        Whatever Rhino may feel about me, I actually like him as I do you Rene. I just don't care for either of your beliefs much. As I stated before, I wish Rhino would have stayed.
                        • Re: Simple answer.

                          Mon, November 26, 2007 - 3:13 PM
                          >>"Why?" (did Rhino chose to leave this tribe)<<

                          Well Dan, I can't really claim to speak for Rhino, but I think I have some good ideas about why he finds you so offensive. Since you seem to have a sincere interest, I will offer up my speculation. Understand, if you can, that for Rhino and myself geology is our profession. This means we have spent our whole life studying geology and have a lifetime of experience and personal observations in this field of study. From my experience for most geologists, it is more than a profession; it is also our hobby and a matter of passionate interest. Now someone like you comes along and claims that everything we learned about geology is wrong, everything thousands of dedicated geologists over hundreds of years have learned is wrong and then they totally discount all of our personal experience and observations. This arrogant attitude we can clearly see is based on nothing- you have no valid observations or experience to contest what we know. You give credence to a group of pseudo-scientists that share your view and they appear to be just as ignorant, if not even moreso, than you. Although you don't seem to even realize it, this is insulting to the nth degree; nothing you could say about us would be more insulting, as arrogantly dismissing our professional integrity, our independent critical thinking and ability to analyze data; all the things that we a paid to do and know that we do very well.

                          I will provide a couple of examples to help you better understand this. Suppose there was a wood sculptor who had spent his entire life scuplting wood, having learned initially from a world renowned sculptor with whom he had apprenticed. This sculptor would have a lifetime of experience and many models in his head that help him pick the right wood, cut it and treat it in just the right way, and work it into the beautiful statues that he would create and sell. One day an accountant named Dan comes along, who knows nothing about wood or carving from personal experience, but he has an old book he calls "the book of knowledge". Dan claims this book tells him all about wood carving and that everything the sculptor thinks he knows about it is wrong. Can you understand how this might anger the sculptor? But it gets worse. The sculptor looks at the book and it is clear the book really says nothing at all about wood or wood carving and was never intended to be used as a guide to wood carving in any way, shape, or form. The sculptor points this out, but Dan, the accountant, is sure he knows better; he is sure that the sculptor's ideas about wood are wrong because they don't exactly jive with some obscure passage in his "book of knowledge". He goes on and on about this stupidly and idioticly, dismissing the sculptor, and the sculptor's mentor's wealth of knowledge and experience, along with the beautiful works of art that resulted from all this knowledge which pretty much are solid and indisputable proof he knows what he is doing with wood. Dan, the accountant, seems unaware of the massive insult he is hurling at the sculptor, unaware that he could call the scultor hundreds of horrible names, defile his ancestry, mother, father, brothers, sisters, aunts, cousins, wives, sons, and daughters, could call him a rapist, murderer, devil worshipper, and more and none of it would count nearly as much as to say he knows nothing about wood and how to carve it, because this is the essence of who he is and what he knows.

                          Another example might be closer to home for you, having many children. Let us suppose one of your children decides to do something which you feel is not going to be good for him. You talk to him and explain why it won't be good based on a lifetime of experience and personal knowledge, but he dismisses all that you know and remains unconvinced. Eventually, he goes ahead and does it anyway despite everything you told him. He had to learn it for himself and you sort of understand this, nevertheless the the thing that hurt the most is that he would dismiss your lifetime of knowledge and experience that might have let him avoid the unpleasant result, if only he had listened. The most frustrating thing here is to know that you are right, but still be unable to convince someone of what you know, basically because they really don't want to listen.

                          So there you go, Dan. Maybe you have learned something, but I really doubt it. You seem to be immune to this.
                          • Unsu...
                             

                            Re: Simple answer.

                            Tue, November 27, 2007 - 7:00 AM
                            Rene: So there you go, Dan. Maybe you have learned something, but I really doubt it. You seem to be immune to this.

                            Ok, I read your explanations and analogies but find that they fail to stand up Rene. First of all, if someone came to me who I did not know personally and told me that everything I know about risk managment, credit card processing and sales was foolish and wrong it would not bother me in the least. I would simply laugh and say, "go try to do it your own way and see what happens". I would realize that if they did they would eventually take a signicant loss and would have to pay the consequences of their own ignorance. In short, I would not take it personally in the way Rhino does unless I secretly felt they may be right and I might indeed be wrong to some degree or another. In that case I would have 2 choices. I could be humble and try to discern which elements of their opinions may be in fact correct and mine wrong, or, human nature being what it is, I might react in irrational defensiveness, hiding my own inadequacies behind my "education", the fact that "everyone agrees with me" and "you are ignorant, what could you possibly teach me? arrogance".

                            The other problem with your analogies is that they involve hands on observational, in the present knowledge. Sculpting is an art and a science to some degree. It is a craft which must be developed all within the life and experiences of the sculptor. The same is true for parenting. We learn by life experience what works and doesn't (including what is passed down to us from parents, the bible and other good books).

                            I have never ridiculed the trade of geology. Nor have I intended to be disrespectful of either of your lifes work in this field. I do not believe either of you are ignorant on the subjects you have applied yourselves and have stated this more than once. What I disagree with is the underlying assumptions (evolutionary uniformatarianism) to which you hold. Yes, I think these views are incorrect, foolish, silly and unsupported by the data, both in science and in history.

                            Evolution believers love to posture themselves as debating "flat earthers". But this doesn't make any sense. I would not debate a flat earther any more than I would debate a person who believes the moon is made of cheeze or that cows sometimes jump over it. In truth, many ignorant first tier evolution believers think this way, but more knowlegeable ones do not. They know full well that the well reasoned arguments of the creationists undermine their cherished beliefs, so they go to a considerable amount of trouble, energy and money combating it. Taking offense is nothing but a ruse, it deny's the fact that highly intelligent, well informed scientists disagree with your interpretations of the evidence, while not denying the evidence.

                            As much as you would like it to be different, creationists are a far cry from "flat earthers". In many areas they have evolution believers on the run, and informed evolutionists AND creationists know this very well, even if you and Rhino do not.:-)
                            • Re: Simple answer.

                              Tue, November 27, 2007 - 7:12 AM
                              >>"As much as you would like it to be different, creationists are a far cry from "flat earthers". In many areas they have evolution believers on the run, and informed evolutionists AND creationists know this very well, even if you and Rhino do not."<<

                              Actually Dan, I think "flat earthers" are far more reasonable than "creationists". They are sticking to their personal observations which can make some kind of sense. In contrast creationists have no observations at all that fit with their model. They have never seen or observed the powers and forces they hope to invoke to explain what we know. Like 'flat earthers", creationists ignore vast mountains of reliable data. Your idea that evolutionary theory is "on the run" only shows how truly deluded you are. Evolutionary theory is more accepted and has more evidence for it now than at any time in history and this grows daily.
                              • Unsu...
                                 

                                Re: Simple answer.

                                Tue, November 27, 2007 - 7:30 AM
                                Rene: Your idea that evolutionary theory is "on the run" only shows how truly deluded you are. Evolutionary theory is more accepted and has more evidence for it now than at any time in history and this grows daily.

                                It is true that more people except evolution today than before. This is not due to knowledge, but ignorance. 90% of evolution believers could not hold a discussion with either your or I on the subject, and both of us have only a laymans understanding of most of it. They simply have been deceived by the huge propaganda machine which includes deceitful texts, childrens movies, deceptive definitions and an overall lack of understanding. When I stated that evolutionists are "on the run", I was referring to those who really know the inadequacies of the hypothesis and the strength of the creationist position. Yet creationists, due in large part to Ken Ham and AIG, which reaches the average non scientist, are making inroads like never before.
                                • Re: Simple answer.

                                  Tue, November 27, 2007 - 11:43 AM
                                  >>"I was referring to those who really know the inadequacies of the hypothesis and the strength of the creationist position."<<

                                  That would be no one. I have seen all your creationist arguments and they are riddled with ignorance and misunderstanding of the basic facts known to science. Evolutionary theory really has no inadequacies at this point in time, although it had many when Darwin first proposed it. Since then mountains of evidence have been assembled that all support the theory. Nothing has been found that contradicts it. With the blossoming field of genetics, the theory is more vital and important now than ever. The time is not too far off when through genetic research we will pretty much totally understand the structure of the "tree of life". Perhaps when that time comes you and the "flat earthers" will share the same perch in the tree of history.

                                  >>"Yet creationists, due in large part to Ken Ham and AIG, which reaches the average non scientist, are making inroads like never before."<<

                                  AIG is really just a big joke. It puts out semi-plausible, pseudo-scientific arguments that sometimes impress the scientifically illiterate, particularly if they want to believe these ideas to start with. Anyone with a half-inch of critical thinking skills, or any discernible scientific knowledge recognizes that this material is basically a bad joke, riddled with ignorance, misunderstanding of scientific principles, and basic stupidity.
                                  • Unsu...
                                     

                                    Re: Simple answer.

                                    Tue, November 27, 2007 - 2:43 PM
                                    Rene: That would be no one. I have seen all your creationist arguments and they are riddled with ignorance and misunderstanding of the basic facts known to science.

                                    so you say, yet I have seen all of your evolution arguments and they are riddled with ignorance and misunderstanding of he basice facts of science and logic. So where does this leave us?

                                    Rene: Evolutionary theory really has no inadequacies at this point in time, although it had many when Darwin first proposed it.

                                    all bluff and bluster, there is absolutely no substance to this statement.

                                    Rene: Since then mountains of evidence have been assembled that all support the theory.

                                    As Ronald Reagon said of Walter Mondale, "There you go again":-)

                                    Rene; Nothing has been found that contradicts it. With the blossoming field of genetics, the theory is more vital and important now than ever.

                                    LOL, genetics is not your friend, it is your fierce enemy. Sorry to inform you.

                                    www.answersingenesis.org/creat...cs.asp

                                    Rene: The time is not too far off when through genetic research we will pretty much totally understand the structure of the "tree of life". Perhaps when that time comes you and the "flat earthers" will share the same perch in the tree of history.

                                    don't bet the farm on this my friend. With time evolution will keep reinventing itself by applying thicker and thicker applications of duck tape but those in the know can always count on Rene to defend the indefensible!

                                    >>"Yet creationists, due in large part to Ken Ham and AIG, which reaches the average non scientist, are making inroads like never before."<<

                                    Rene: AIG is really just a big joke. It puts out semi-plausible, pseudo-scientific arguments that sometimes impress the scientifically illiterate

                                    Which would be you!

                                    Rene: particularly if they want to believe these ideas to start with. Anyone with a half-inch of critical thinking skills, or any discernible scientific knowledge recognizes that this material is basically a bad joke, riddled with ignorance, misunderstanding of scientific principles, and basic stupidity.

                                    bla bla bla bla bla bla. Rene has given up debating issues here and has not resorted to "I am right and if you don't believe me I am not going to play with you". Go home to momma Rene, you need to take a nap.
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: Simple answer.

                Thu, December 6, 2007 - 2:05 PM
                Goodness Rhino. I stumbled accross "satans nipples" only to see you can't stop talking about me, I might add, negatively. Am I going to have to file a restraining order? You mention that if I came to this digusting forum I would bet a "verbal beating I would not soon forget"? Are you unaware that people have to ban me to get rid of me and that I never back down from a good quarrel? Surely this is more Rhino the whino bravado. Look, stop being a hypocrite, I will leave you alone if you will do the same, understood?:-)

                tribes.tribe.net/jesussave...1c3913b487
    • Re: Simple answer.

      Tue, November 20, 2007 - 4:01 PM
      hey dan thanks for your response.

      First of all I want you to know that I will not be upset by any of these responses. That is what i meant by please stop arguing. Discussion never goes anywhere when people get angry its useless.

      second I happen to respect both sides of the issue, and believe that each holds some truth. On one hand Life is so beautiful and complex that only an intelligent entity could have shaped it, on the other hand There is absolutely no doubt that species change over time. take humans for instance. just think of what we have accomplished in the last 50 years. in 1957 there were no computers or internet or jet fighters or any huge number of things and ideas simply didnt exist. So there is no question in my mind that things and people change over time. and why shouldnt they. if things didnt change there would be no time. As far as the semantics of the word proof well i see your point and raise you. Nothing can be proven completely. I should have said that Based upon available evidence i believe evolution is a process by wich nature operates. Just like i can say that based upon the evidence ive been provy too, I believe that God exists. Both things are really a belief. the point i was trying to make is that the two beliefs need not conflict.

      i do not consider myself to be republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, and from this vantage point i can see some interesting similarities and differences from both sides. Ive noticed that conservatives tend to do the wrong thing for the right reasons, and liberals tend to do the right thing for the wrong reasons lol . For example : It is wrong to teach religion in public schools because children are forced to attend, and in our country we have the freedom to choose our own religion, we can not force it on others. However i do understand the desire to pass on our beliefs to our children, that is a noble pursuit.

      Now as far as the " historical record of the bible" I admire your faith, however i submit that you may be on a slippery slope. After all how many times in history has a dictator or even priests taken the words of the bible, and twisted them to fit there own agenda. The answer is many many many. Let me put this another way. No matter how sacrosanct you feel the bible is. IT is made up of words. Language is always open to interpretation. for example. First of all the book was translated from greek and aremaic. If youve studied languages at all you would know that often the translator doesnt find a direct translation for something so they use the closest fit, second english syntax and grammer wasnt standardized untill the late 1700s. Furthermore trying to interpret olde english can be bothersome my its self. heres another example in this very discusion I said the word arguing, and you took that to include the term discusion. so you see two different people can have two distinctly different interpretations of the same word and still both be correct.
      Why do you think there are so many sects even in christianity? It is because there are that many different interpretations of the same words.
      In the end all we can do is take the advice of the bible and interpret it to the best of our ability, and have FAITH that it is enough.
      after all god created us in his image, but he made us all different. what does that tell you?

      ""Oh really, and I guess you are pro gay marriage, adultry, stealing and killing also since these "metaphors" are all taught in scripture.''''''

      Im afraid your reaching abit here. First of all gay marriage is not one of the ten comandments. Adultery is defined as::



      Main Entry:
      adul·tery Listen to the pronunciation of adultery
      Pronunciation:
      \ə-ˈdəl-t(ə-)rē\
      Function:
      noun
      Inflected Form(s):
      plural adul·ter·ies
      Etymology:
      Middle English, alteration of avoutrie, from Anglo-French avulterie, from Latin adulterium, from adulter adulterer, back-formation from adulterare
      Date:
      15th century

      : voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband; also : an act of adultery

      Doesnt say anything about gayness, but if gays cant marry that would count. Though technically it doesnt say anything about haveing sex with someone if you arent married. again we have multiple interperations of the same language.

      Also you have again misinterpreted what i said. I said that not everything in the bible should be taken literally. that doesnt mean that nothing in the bible should be taken literally. Thout shalt not steal is pretty straight forward. However Thought shalt not kill is again open to interpretation because after all everytime you eat, something had to die. and what about self deffence? If someone tried to kill my family i would certainly kill them first and i would not consider it a sin. so you see while the bible has some wonderful things to say it does not give all the answers to all the questions we can have. if it did it would be ten million pages long and life would be really boring. You see I believe that God has left some of those answers blank so we can exersize our own critical thinking. He wants us to figure it out for ourselves. after all do you learn better if all the answers are given to you or if you have to work at it to figure it out.

      """How do you know what "Good doesn't usually like" Kyle? Do you have some inside information the rest of us are not privy to? If you read your Bible you will find he speaks and things come into existance instantly! """"


      You do realize that this statement contridicts its self right? You sugest that I coudnt possibly know what god does and doesnt like yet you sugest that you do. hmm

      Have you ever heard god speak?? of course you havnt because the word speak is used as a metaphor for something we couldn't possibly understand. Just like the story of genesis is phrased the way it is because we couldn't possibly wrap our brains around what its like to create a universe. Think about it this way If your eight year old asks you were babies come from you dont say "Well son The male epidydymas contains seamen which upon ejaculation travels down the urethra of the penis where it is inserted into a womans vagina where it travels into her uterus to meet with an ovulated egg, which imediatly begins the process of endocytosys, etc, etc, no you say " when mommies and daddies love each other they give each other a special hug and they grow a baby in mommies tummy" Or something along those lines. This becomes even more evident in the language used. for example The entire universe was created in what 7 days. ok thats fine except that a day is one full rovolution of the earth. hmm well to be honest i dont remember which day the earth was created on but if it wasnt the first day then there werent any days yet. furthermore theyr are billions of planets in the universe, and they all have different length days. you see where im going with this? One day in the life of God is simply incomprehensible to us much less People at the time when it was written. They didn't even have a knowledge of other planets in the galaxy.

      The point is that its ok to think about your beliefs. Blind faith is how cults get started and its very dangerous. for example you believe your priest caries the word of god but if you walked into a church youve never been to and the priest tells you to casterate yourself and drink this kool-aid. That priest is a man and he could be anybody dressed up as a priest you dont know so your going to question. and if you have any sence you will leave imeadiatly even though he will question your faith and say " oh your going to hell if you dont do as i say im a priest. " Just because you have faith doesnt mean you have to believe everything said in the name of God. Many murders have been comited in the name of God in hopes people will accept them on faith. Even the bible says " beware false prophets" translation: Have faith but think for yourself. If you let others do your thinking for you you will get burned, probably at the stake.

      Anyway its been fun. I am enjoying our discussion.
      Please forgive the spelling.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Simple answer.

        Wed, November 21, 2007 - 5:35 AM
        Kyle: First of all I want you to know that I will not be upset by any of these responses. That is what i meant by please stop arguing. Discussion never goes anywhere when people get angry its useless.

        I don't think I have seen you around before Kyle, but I disagree that nothing results from arguing. I don't even have a problem with the occasional emotional outburst. It is inevitable. We are discussion beliefs here, not obserational science. And a vigorous discussion is always going to follow deeply held belief.

        Kyle: second I happen to respect both sides of the issue, and believe that each holds some truth.

        Both sides hold the same truth in terms of the facts or data, it is the interpretation of the data in which we differ. However, both evolution and creation cannot be true at the same time, they are mutually exclusive, naturalism vs. supernaturalism.

        Kyle: On one hand Life is so beautiful and complex that only an intelligent entity could have shaped it, on the other hand There is absolutely no doubt that species change over time.

        We both agree here.

        Kyle: take humans for instance. just think of what we have accomplished in the last 50 years. in 1957 there were no computers or internet or jet fighters or any huge number of things and ideas simply didnt exist. So there is no question in my mind that things and people change over time. and why shouldnt they. if things didnt change there would be no time. As far as the semantics of the word proof well i see your point and raise you. Nothing can be proven completely.

        We are talking scientific proof Kyle. Yet science is only one way of knowing. It highly effective for discerning observable, repeatable events but it does not prove anything, just supports hypotheses. Yet science is inadequate when it comes to non observable "pre" history. We are now in the world of conjecture and model building.

        Kyle: I should have said that Based upon available evidence i believe evolution is a process by wich nature operates. Just like i can say that based upon the evidence ive been provy too, I believe that God exists. Both things are really a belief. the point i was trying to make is that the two beliefs need not conflict.

        I agree that both creation and evolution are belief systems. Neither can be considered scientific. You are correct in suggesting that theistic evolution (God creating through evolution) is a possible explanation for the origin of life, however it is my belief that it is a wrong belief. In addition, one cannot be a consistant bible believing Christian and hold to such a notion. Furthermore, theistic evolution and just plain evolution are not discernably different since both involve a completely naturalistic process, "god" is more or less a "culligan man", not needed except perhaps as a catalyst here or there, assuming of course for sake of argument that molecules to man is possible, which I maintain it is not.

        Kyle: i do not consider myself to be republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, and from this vantage point i can see some interesting similarities and differences from both sides. Ive noticed that conservatives tend to do the wrong thing for the right reasons, and liberals tend to do the right thing for the wrong reasons lol .

        I am not "republican or democrat, liberal or conservative" either, but the rest of your comments betray your bias, you feel conservatives are "wrong" and liberals are "right", they simply have a motive problem. My view is that you are wrong on politics.

        Kyle: For example : It is wrong to teach religion in public schools because children are forced to attend, and in our country we have the freedom to choose our own religion, we can not force it on others.

        consider what you are saying here Kyle. It is ok to teach secularism (a religion), but not a formal religion such as Christianity. Your view is a new concept in this country, which has upheld the Christian religion in public and private for hundreds of years. My view is that you do not understand US history.

        Kyle: However i do understand the desire to pass on our beliefs to our children, that is a noble pursuit.

        But you would send your child to secular schools, to be indoctrinated for 8 hours with secular beliefs, and then hope to instill your faith for an hour before bedtime? There is something wrong with your thinking here.

        Kyle: Now as far as the " historical record of the bible" I admire your faith, however i submit that you may be on a slippery slope.

        Thanks, but you really need to admire the evolution believers faith, he has much more of it.

        Kyle: After all how many times in history has a dictator or even priests taken the words of the bible, and twisted them to fit there own agenda. The answer is many many many.

        What does this have to do with anything. Dictators will use anything at their disposal to dictate, religion or non religion. Stalin used non religion, so did Mao, and both resulted in more human misery than the world has ever known before or since. Think about it.

        Kyle: Let me put this another way. No matter how sacrosanct you feel the bible is. IT is made up of words. Language is always open to interpretation.

        Of course, but what is your point? Everything is open to interpretation, even your words. Yet we all assume that it is possible to communicate with words. This assumption is why you are hear trying to reason with me now. The authors of scripture believed this also. The problem is not interpretation, it is a willingness to follow the bible which is the stumbling block for most people.

        Kyle: for example. First of all the book was translated from greek and aremaic.

        This is not true. The old testament was largely written in Hebrew, the new in Koine Greek. Yes, they have been translated into many languages, are you assuming it is not possible to do this reliably? If so, you have a problem with knowing anything historically!

        Kyle: If youve studied languages at all you would know that often the translator doesnt find a direct translation for something so they use the closest fit, second english syntax and grammer wasnt standardized untill the late 1700s.

        This is not new stuff here Kyle, really. Yet we have in several English translations an accurate portrayal of the authors words.

        Kyle: Furthermore trying to interpret olde english can be bothersome my its self. heres another example in this very discusion I said the word arguing, and you took that to include the term discusion. so you see two different people can have two distinctly different interpretations of the same word and still both be correct.

        Your point? Are you now going to suggest that the bible can be interpreted to mean God evolved life over millions of millions of years? If so, your argment breaks down in a serious way.

        Kyle: Why do you think there are so many sects even in christianity? It is because there are that many different interpretations of the same words.

        There are perhaps many reasons, among them human fallibility, unwillingness to follow the truth in some areas, ignorance. What is interesting to me is that so many of these sects believe exactly the same thing on the core issues. Why, because the data is abundantly clear. We are members of a homeschool group which includes a large number of "sects". Yet we get along very well because we all agree on certain very clear core values such as salvation by grace, the authority of scripture, the resurrection, creation etc..

        Kyle: In the end all we can do is take the advice of the bible and interpret it to the best of our ability, and have FAITH that it is enough.
        after all god created us in his image, but he made us all different. what does that tell you?

        The bible is meant to be understood. It is not some gestalt which is open to "many ways of looking at it". There is a wrong way and a right way. For example, you cannot read Genesis 1 w/o comming to the conclusion that God did it and in 6 24hour time periods. It is unmistakable. No interpretation is necessary, just a basic command of the english language and a good translation is all that is necessary. Either the bible is right or it is wrong Kyle, this is your choice, there is no other.

        ""Oh really, and I guess you are pro gay marriage, adultry, stealing and killing also since these "metaphors" are all taught in scripture.''''''

        Kyle: Im afraid your reaching abit here. First of all gay marriage is not one of the ten comandments. Adultery is defined as::

        and where does it say that only the 10 commandments reveall Gods will?


        Main Entry:
        adul·tery Listen to the pronunciation of adultery
        Pronunciation:
        \ə-ˈdəl-t(ə-)rē\
        Function:
        noun
        Inflected Form(s):
        plural adul·ter·ies
        Etymology:
        Middle English, alteration of avoutrie, from Anglo-French avulterie, from Latin adulterium, from adulter adulterer, back-formation from adulterare
        Date:
        15th century

        : voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband; also : an act of adultery

        Kyle: Doesnt say anything about gayness, but if gays cant marry that would count. Though technically it doesnt say anything about haveing sex with someone if you arent married. again we have multiple interperations of the same language.

        No we do not. The scripture must be regarded as a whole and according to an understanding of the proper dispensation we are viewing. The bible is abundantly clear that homosexuality is a sin, there is no equivocating here.

        Kyle: Also you have again misinterpreted what i said. I said that not everything in the bible should be taken literally.

        We are to use the common grammatical rules of interpretation Kyle, most of us who read know what these are by rote. There is nothing in Genesis 1 to suggest anything but a literal interpretation. There is noting about homosexuality in the bible to suggest tht it is anything other than sinful behavior.

        Kyle: that doesnt mean that nothing in the bible should be taken literally. Thout shalt not steal is pretty straight forward. However Thought shalt not kill is again open to interpretation because after all everytime you eat, something had to die. and what about self deffence?

        Yes, "kill", must be interpreted in context to mean "murder". self defence is excepted as are just wars. This is not a bible study, but the issues you are raising here are really pretty simplistic and easy to understand biblically by reading the whole book.

        Kyle: If someone tried to kill my family i would certainly kill them first and i would not consider it a sin. so you see while the bible has some wonderful things to say it does not give all the answers to all the questions we can have.

        No, it does not have all of the answers to all questions. It has all of the answers to the questions God was concerned about conveying to us so that we could lead a life of godliness and happiness.

        Kyle: if it did it would be ten million pages long and life would be really boring. You see I believe that God has left some of those answers blank so we can exersize our own critical thinking. He wants us to figure it out for ourselves. after all do you learn better if all the answers are given to you or if you have to work at it to figure it out.

        fine, but how does this relate to Creation/evolution?

        """How do you know what "Good doesn't usually like" Kyle? Do you have some inside information the rest of us are not privy to? If you read your Bible you will find he speaks and things come into existance instantly! """"


        Kyle: You do realize that this statement contridicts its self right? You sugest that I coudnt possibly know what god does and doesnt like yet you sugest that you do. hmm

        You misinterpreted. My question is that since you have decided to pick and choose which things in the bible you consider "literal" and by not standard grammatical basis, how do you do this in such as way as to distinquish yourself from an ordinary cult leader? I contend it is possible to know but I am not sure of your approach because so far it is very vague.

        Kyle: Have you ever heard god speak??

        Yes, every day when I read the bible.

        Kyle: This becomes even more evident in the language used. for example The entire universe was created in what 7 days. ok thats fine except that a day is one full rovolution of the earth. hmm well to be honest i dont remember which day the earth was created on but if it wasnt the first day then there werent any days yet.

        It was the first day, argument fails. You really need to read the bible before engaging in a creation evolution debate Kyle.

        Kyle: furthermore theyr are billions of planets in the universe, and they all have different length days.

        There is only one earth, and earth was in view. I know of no objective data to suggest that there are billions of planets either.

        Kyle: you see where im going with this?

        No.

        Kyle: One day in the life of God is simply incomprehensible to us much less People at the time when it was written. They didn't even have a knowledge of other planets in the galaxy.

        You are being illogical. You cannot say that because they didn't understand how many planets there are that they could not understand what God meant by "day" in genesis one. This is silly reasoning. evening and morning is a dead giveaway here i think. Furthermore, read Exodus 20:11 in those commandmends you referenced and tell me that God meant to convey anything other than 24 hours....

        Kyle: The point is that its ok to think about your beliefs. Blind faith is how cults get started and its very dangerous.

        Lack our sound reasoning and clear understanding of scripture is how cults get started. A person grounded in the teachings of scripture is a poor candidate for induction into a cult.

        Kyle: for example you believe your priest caries the word of god but if you walked into a church youve never been to and the priest tells you to casterate yourself and drink this kool-aid.

        I am not catholic and don't like cool-aid. I also know the bible, and would never subject myself to such folly.

        TKyle: that priest is a man and he could be anybody dressed up as a priest you dont know so your going to question. and if you have any sence you will leave imeadiatly even though he will question your faith and say " oh your going to hell if you dont do as i say im a priest. "

        We are to follow God, not man Kyle, whatever he might be wearing. This is the believers protection against heresy.

        Kyle: Just because you have faith doesnt mean you have to believe everything said in the name of God.

        I don't believe everthing. i believe the bible.

        Kyle: Many murders have been comited in the name of God in hopes people will accept them on faith.

        many murders have been committed for many reasons. I submit evolution has been at the root of millions upon millions of murders.

        Kyle: Even the bible says " beware false prophets" translation: Have faith but think for yourself. If you let others do your thinking for you you will get burned, probably at the stake.

        You just proved my point, read the bible and it will protect you from false teachers and cult leaders.

        Kyle: Anyway its been fun. I am enjoying our discussion.

        ok, thanks.
        Please forgive the spelling.
        • Re: Simple answer.

          Thu, November 22, 2007 - 4:13 AM
          Would that the universe were so black and white. The world you live in must be pleasant. I dont have time to give a lengthy response atm, but i thought id try a few points.
          I am not saying that you are wrong. what im saying is that there is much more to the universe then the bible covers. heres an example. Something like 2 billion people on this planet are Bhudist. Another billion or so are hindu muslim etc. in fact something like 2/3rds of all people on the planet are not Christian. Now I may be off on those numbers but my point will hold true just the same. Most people are good people. most of those people just go about there day like any of us trying to lead an honorable peaceful life. In my opinion bhudists especially do a pretty good job of being peaceful easy going people. most lead humble lives that are relatively free of sin even by christian standards. Are you going to tell me that since these people have never read a 2000 year old book and simply followed there own traditions, that most people will go to hell. If you translate the bible literally this is what would happened. as you said you either have to take it all literally or concead that there is more then one true path to grace. i know its difficult to understand what seems paradoxical but nonetheless its the way things work.
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: Simple answer.

            Fri, November 23, 2007 - 8:02 PM
            Kyle: Would that the universe were so black and white. The world you live in must be pleasant.

            The world is black and white on many levels Kyle, that is the way God created it. Even grey is the combination of two colors, black and white.


            Kyle: I am not saying that you are wrong. what im saying is that there is much more to the universe then the bible covers.

            I don't disagree here Kyle, the bible is not meant to be exhaustive. What it means to be is exhaustive on the subject of how to live a Godly life (2Tim 3:16,17). Yet it is also a book of history and touches on other subjects such as anthropology, geology, astronomy and biology. When it does it is absolutely accurate in every detail.

            Kyle: In my opinion bhudists especially do a pretty good job of being peaceful easy going people. most lead humble lives that are relatively free of sin even by christian standards. Are you going to tell me that since these people have never read a 2000 year old book and simply followed there own traditions, that most people will go to hell.

            I agree that by human standards a lot of religious and non religious people can be called "good men", But when called "good man" by his fellow man Jesus replied, "why do you call me good, no one is good except God alone". The point here Kyle is compared to Gods holy standard, we all fall short, we are sinners, whether Christian, Budhist, Hindu or whatever. Yet Jesus said "no one can come to the father but by me." And "there is no other name under Heaven by which men must be saved".

            Your argument is a version of "all roads lead to Rome". It is popular in catholic circles. Good people, regardless of religious affiliation, are all acceptable to God, but this is not true. No man is acceptable to God in his sinful condition, he must be regenerated. The bible presents an exclusive argument, it is either exclusively true concerning God, man and salvation, or it is 100% false. C.S Lewis pointed this out with the famous "trilemma". Jesus must be one of the 3 choices; Lord, Liar or Lunatic and every man and women must choose. I am not here to promote religion, christianity or any other. I am here to defend biblical truth as THE TRUTH and Jesus as the Savior of all mankind.

            Kyle: If you translate the bible literally this is what would happened. as you said you either have to take it all literally or concead that there is more then one true path to grace. i know its difficult to understand what seems paradoxical but nonetheless its the way things work.

            That is not what I said. I say that it is either true or false, there is no compromising with the Bible. This is why atheists and others hate the bible and all that it stands for, because it claims to be THE TRUTH. It is not a truth, but THE TRUTH. Rene and others have taken a stand, they have declared it to be false, an unreliable book of fables, others such as yourself wish to sit on the fence, but I have to say, the Bible does not condone fence sitting. You must choose.

            Jesus said "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters." Many religions of the world offer a measure of truth Kyle, but only Jesus is THE TRUTH.

            "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."

            To my knowledge, no other major religion has a founder who made claims like these, Jesus is unique. He is honored by the founders and followers of many religions, he is honored by many philosphers, but he himself requires our worship and made clear claims of deity.

            "Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?" John 14:19

            The following are Napoleans remarks about Jesus:

            "Well then, I will tell you. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and I myself have founded great empires; but upon what did these creations of our genius depend? Upon force. Jesus alone founded His empire upon love, and to this very day millions will die for Him.... I think I understand something of human nature; and I tell you, all these were men, and I am a man: none else is like Him; Jesus Christ was more than man.... I have inspired multitudes with such an enthusiastic devotion that they would have died for me.... but to do this it was necessary that I should be visibly present with the electric influence of my looks, my words, of my voice. When I saw men and spoke to them, I lighted up the flame of self-devotion in their hearts.... Christ alone has succeeded in so raising the mind of man toward the unseen, that it becomes insensible to the barriers of time and space. Across a chasm of eighteen hundred years, Jesus Christ makes a demand which is beyond all others to satisfy; He asks for that which a philosopher may seek in vain at the hands of his friends, or a father of his children, or a bride of her spouse, or a man of his brother. He asks for the human heart; He will have it entirely to Himself. He demands it unconditionally; and forthwith His demand is granted. Wonderful! In defiance of time and space, the soul of man, with all its powers and faculties, becomes an annexation to the empire of Christ. All who sincerely believe in Him, experience that remarkable, supernatural love toward Him. This phenomenon is accountable; it is altogether beyond the scope of man's creative powers. Time, the great destroyer, is powerless to extinguish this sacred flame; time can neither exhaust its strength nor put a limit to its range. This is it, which strikes me most; I have often thought of it. This is which proves to me quite convincingly the Divinity of Jesus Christ.
            Quoted in Henry Parry Liddon, Liddon's Bampton Lectures 1866
            (London: Rivingtons, 1869), 148.
            • Re: Simple answer.

              Wed, November 28, 2007 - 5:34 PM
              Listen. I never said that the bible was false i said that many peoples understanding and interpretation are false. Look if your a founder of a religion like Jesus your not going to say "er well uh my way is one way to do it er whatever." no your going to say " behold i am the light and who soever believeth in me shall know salvation". Now it is distinctly possible that god was going to destroy the universe and decided not too because of Jesus' reconnaissance. So absolutely he is the savior of the world. The fact of the matter is that you can find a two sentence bible quote that seams to back up any assertion. Use your own brain!!!!
              second: the world is not black and white. Grey is not a combination of two colors. Black is the absence of color, and white is the mixture of all 63 million colors ( that the human eye can see anyway) The universe is like this also. why do you think god created the polarity of evil. So there would be diversity in the universe. After all without hate there is no love, without lust there is no temperance, and without the devil there is no god.
              Jesus spent alot of time trying to explain complicated concepts to idiots. If you've ever tried it you know that can be difficult. There were many misunderstandings, and failed metaphors, etc and many of those exist even today.
              anyway thats all the time i have for now. talk to you later.
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: Simple answer.

                Thu, November 29, 2007 - 8:47 AM
                Kyle: Listen. I never said that the bible was false i said that many peoples understanding and interpretation are false. Look if your a founder of a religion like Jesus your not going to say "er well uh my way is one way to do it er whatever." no your going to say " behold i am the light and who soever believeth in me shall know salvation".

                Actually, Jesus did not come to "found a religion" but rather to restore a relationship. But the point you seem to be overlooking is that Jesus cannot make these claims and be truthful unless they are true. We are not talking "salesmanship" here, but truth. Many religions allow for other religions to be true. For example, catholic teaching allows for this, as doe Bahai etc.. Jesus is actually rare in offering only himself as the way, the truth and the life.

                Kyle:Now it is distinctly possible that god was going to destroy the universe and decided not too because of Jesus' reconnaissance. So absolutely he is the savior of the world. The fact of the matter is that you can find a two sentence bible quote that seams to back up any assertion. Use your own brain!!!!

                What are you trying to say here Kyle? You are failing to communicate clearly. I cannot find a "two sentence bible quote that backs of any assertion" is a nonsense statement. I do use my own brain thank you, now please take your own advice.

                Kyle: second: the world is not black and white.

                How do you know this? By what method do you go about proving this assertion? What actually does this mean? Are you saying all truth is relative? If so, you are flat wrong, as the bible offers absolute truth.

                Kyle: The universe is like this also. why do you think god created the polarity of evil.

                God didn't "create evil". Evil is non material and cannot be 'created'. Without the bible, we have no basis for an absolute definition of evil. If I believe that vegetarians are "evil" and should be killed and can get enough people to agree with me then a lot of vegetarians will die. But God reveals that murder is always wrong, we are not to kill accept in self defense. God made man with a will, we can make choices. One of those choices is to obey God. Evil entered the world when men and angels willfully chose to rebell against God.

                Kyle: So there would be diversity in the universe. After all without hate there is no love,

                Hate and love are not opposites. We are to "love without hypocrisy, hate what is evil and cling to what is good". God is love, and he existed before hate, so your argument fails.

                Kyle: without lust there is no temperance, and without the devil there is no god.

                This is a philosophy of yours only, but it is a false one. God existed before the Devil was created, so your argument fails.

                Kyle: Jesus spent alot of time trying to explain complicated concepts to idiots. If you've ever tried it you know that can be difficult.

                agreed, I have been working with many "smart idiots" on this tribe for over a year now:-) Actually though, the major problem Jesus encountered was not "idiots", it was a problem of the heart, not the mind. He said, "if anyone is willing to do my will, they shall know the teaching". Most of his followers were not the "scientists, doctors, lawyers, religious leaders", they were the fisherman, the prostitutes, people who recognized their need. What about you Kyle? Do you see your need?
                • Re: Simple answer.

                  Tue, December 4, 2007 - 3:54 PM
                  hmm Ill give you one thing you're thorough. If only i had the time to explain everything in terms youd understand. I have a feeling that you wont budge anyway. Oh well that is your right. which supports what i am saying. I believe that most of what you have to say is utterly infantile in scope, and to be honest downright ludicrous. However There are many good people who share your beliefs, therefore i will leave you too it. I hope you have a peaceful life and learn what you may. I don't have any more time to discuss for now. Its Finals week :( but I will see what i can do in a few weeks. good bye for now.

Recent topics in "Evolution/Creation Debate"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
Life On Other Planets Is any Hypothesis of Evolutionary Natura... Unsubscribed 38 March 12, 2013
Read It And Weep , Dan offlinenobody 10 January 7, 2013
Goodbye Rene Dan 3 January 3, 2013
There is hope. Erik 0 April 27, 2012