Watch this get modded down, I don't care, I have karma to burn.
Tell me, someone, why my post that supported creation in a non-offensive, on topic way is modded as offtopic flamebait. Why?
And perhaps, while we are at it, someone can tell me why it is that every evolutionist who engages a creationist has never yet understood the creationist position. I must have encountered 20+ evolutionists over the years in debate (many more as very brief encounters), yet not a single one yet understands our position. So is it any surprise they reject that which they don't understand? I'm still waiting for an evolutionist that understands our position. I often get comments like "you are different to other creationists" or "you believe different things", or "that's not what I've heard". Yet all I am explaining is the same view presented by trueorigins.org, icr.org, andswersingenesis.com, etc. So how is it that these people who claim to know that creationism is rubbish don't even understand the theory they oppose?
Singer said Phobos will die in a few million years.
"Were lucky in the sense that were seeing Phobos while its still around," he said.
As opposed to, potentially, other moons that once existed and now have died out?
Our own moon also defies all explanations of science too, including this marvel:
One of the most fascinating sights in the sky is a total eclipse of the sun. This is possible because the moon is almost exactly the same angular size (half a degree) in the sky as the sun--it is both 400 times smaller and 400 times closer than the sun. This looks like design. If the moon had really been receding for billions of years, and man had been around for a tiny fraction of that time, the chances of mankind living at a time so he could observe this precise size matchup would be remote.
Yes, as the story says, it couldn't possibly have been that we all brought to mind the original, and thought "what's so great about this that I need to see it straight away?"
I'm sure it'll make an acceptable choice a year from now at the video store, when my friends and I can't decide on anything - because none of us will have probably already seen it.
Hi, the other thread is no longer accepting replies, and I'd very much like to continue our conversation. I'm finding you courteous, and that is warming:) Could you email me at gsdATtyrethDOThomelinuxDOTorg please, so that we can continue?
Bad link:) I decided to test the website owner's willingness to remove entries, by picking one of his apparent 'contradictions' and see if he'd remove it. He didn't:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/cain. html
Anyone can see that there is no contradiction here. Here's what I wrote to him (excuse how it sounds a bit of a mouthful at the end):
What would it take for you to remove apparent contradictions from your
website? From my perusal of a fiew there is quite reasonable
explanations that would make it necessary for you to remove, but I'm not
sure you will.
I'll give you a small example:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/cain. html
"A fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth."
"And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived,... and he builded a city."
Quite simply a man can be a vagabond and a fugitive, yet still dwell
with a whole family of people. In those times a man was his family, and
no doubt his children were outcasts with him. We are not told, but it
is easy to imagine that his city was under attack, regarded as being a
place of outcasts, etc. It doesn't matter what happened, the point is
the verse you claim as contradictory does not necessarily contradict -
it only does on the assumption that him building this city meant he was
accepted by the world, not rejected.
And that is true of a number of your contradictions. They say things
which are not explained in detail, but one of the possible scenarios
could mean something contradictory, but doesn't necessarily.
He responded:
Thanks for your interest in the SAB and for your comment regarding Cain. And you may be right about it, too.
Cain may have been a vagabond, wandering around with his family and then later building a city. Who knows? That's the problem with most contradictions -- it's usually possible to find a way out by proposing how-it-could-have-been scenarios.
In my view, the contradictions (though many and real) are the least of the bible's problems. I recommend that you focus on this list, if you really are interested in defending the bible.
You asked if I ever remove contradictions from the SAB. Well yes, I do. Whenever I am convinced that the verses in a contradiction are not contradictory, I remove the contradiction. I only want to include those that would appear contradictory to an objective non-believer. (The Cain contradiction would, in my opinion, fall into that category.)
If he's not willing to change on the simple things, then I'm not going to spend my time pursuing his more important list. I needed to establish first that my time was going to be well spent (the list he referred to was http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cr_short.html)
To me a contradiction is when two opposite, and irreconcilable things are said to be simultaneously true. Such as saying an object is only blue yet it is also only purple. Which is it? Blue or purple? In this Cain story, however, I gave a scenario under which both the statements were true. And that is not a contradiction no matter which way you look at it.
As you can see, he responded politely, I have no bitter feelings. I'm posting this so that others realise that much of the information presented is not contradictory or a problem unless you only look at it from one of many angles.
By email then I can send it now so I don't forget. I'm happy to answer over phone wherever I can help. The other advantage is I don't need to go through any tedious voice systems they might have.
And, most of all, I don't have to initiate any kind of social conversation:)
How often do people state Linux is not ready for the desktop?
Of course it's ready for Sally, as long as someone sets up the software and tells her which buttons to click, and in what order. It's no different from the training she'll need at any new office. It's not like she's going to do the upgrade from Office 97 to Office 2000 - she'll get tech support for that.
As for your dialog box, I don't get that in Gnome. Nor in KDE.
Re:Before all the flamers get in.
on
Qt On DirectFB
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Fair enough. Good news then:)
Re:Before all the flamers get in.
on
Qt On DirectFB
·
· Score: 1
I would not be happy to give up remote display. Not going to happen.
I'm responding to your other post in this one too.
A clarification, I didn't say anywhere that I agree with the theory of evolution as presented by Darwin (if I did, it was a mistake, I apologise), but rather that I agree that natural selection occurs, that creatures adapt over time and eventually become new species, and as talkorigins.org said, that "a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time" takes place.
We have seen mutations result in a new species, we have seen it often, both in the wild and in the laboratory. The talk.origins site has a page devoted to speciation evidence.
I was unable to find any mention of the word mutate or mutations, except in one of the references. The creation model in fact accounts for speciation, and indeed counts on it. More on this below (perhaps not in a way you will recognise).
If you are asking whether you can simultaneously believe in your view of Creation, and accept the theory of evolution as valid, you most certainly can. Remember, science is incapable of producing truth, merely increasingly accurate predictions...Please, however, keep in mind that we don't get the age of the universe from the Theory of Evolution. You would need to say similar things regarding: Astrophysics, Astronomy, Geology, Paleontology, Archaeology, Anthropology, and probably many other sciences I haven't thought of.
It may not surprise you that for a long time I have known that certain parts of the general theory of evolution are correct, such as natural selection, and observed speciation. I have difficulty from person to person using the correct words. Each person has their own view in which certain words should be used, eg "evolution". Some are very quick to discount other fields besides biology, while people like yourself (rightly) point out that these fields are equally important to the GTE. After all, if geology shows that the earth is as young as the creation model states, then the GTE would be incorrect. Ultimately, what I reject are:
a. That the earth is older than ~6,000 years (I do not reject an old universe, read Starlight and Time by Russell Humphreys)
b. That all living things share a common ancestor
This implies a number of things. Not so obvious, or explicetly mentioned in the above is that I reject that humans and apes ever shared a common ancestor.
I imagine from your perspective it seems quite rational and natural to assume that if we see species changing and morphing today, that this process could have been happening for millions/billions of years. This is where creationists can point out the many problems with that assumption - not to mention that the speciation and adaptation we observe today is not the result of mutations at all, but rather of already existing genetic traits. This however, should be dealt with in more detail later. I'll respond to some other portions now.
If you are concerned with more aspects of Creationism than the age of the universe, keep in mind that it also says things like we are all descended from eight people (Noah, his three sons and their wives) who, according to Ussher, didn't land in the Arc until Wednesday, May 5, 1491BCE. According to historians, the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt was thriving before, during and after the period of time that Bishop Ussher claims the world was underwater and the only survivors were non-Egyptians.
The flood occurred around 1632 years after the creation of the world. So if Ussher's date of 4004 BC is correct, that places the world underwater around 2372BC. I'm not sure what's happening here then, either you read Ussher's date wrong for the flood, or he had it wrong. But I personally, along with many others, have calculated from the Bible the exact year of the flood (1656 under lunar calendar) from the creation of the world.
Regarding the meaning of 24 hour days, I am convinced that it is 24 literal hours, if you were on earth when creation took place. I know some compromise on this poin
I'm not asking you to look for evidence to support my case. You said one out of place well documented fossil would falsify evolution (evolution that teaches simple life=>complex forms). I gave you an example, and you picked on unfair details. So I assume that you are going to do that for every example I present.
So I reasoned with myself, if he's just going to pick on every detail, I'll post the necessary steps to find many examples - if he's interested, then he can see them right there. If he's not, well maybe another reader will see something there.
So I told you what type into google - out of place fossils. There's no looking involved, it pops up examples in the first few pages. It's no different from me posting a direct link. I cannot predict your response, so this way you can find from the many examples which one you find most persuasive (if any).
You still are not explaining the problem. You, like the rest, have been unable to explain what the problem is. You cling to the words of the lab religiously, without trying to consider why they have that limitation in place.
Let me see if I can make this simple again. I find a rock that is amongst strata "known" to be 2.2Ma. I send it off to the lab to be dated (though in reality I possibly wouldn't date it since it's already "known" to be 2.2Ma). The lab returns a result of 1.8Ma. I think "accounting for errors and the nature of this work, that's pretty close". Then I suddenly see that the rock is of the same material of a nearby lava flow. I realise that the rock was added to the 2.2Ma strata accidently, and it actually came from the nearby flow that is only 50 years old. What then?
That's what the test proves. What you are telling me, is that somehow when we know the age of a sample it suddenly, magically, makes it impossible to work. But so long as the date is unknown the results are accurate?
Austin applied the lab to a blind test. In these cases of young ages, the lab *should* have said "not enough argon to potassium to produce a date". Instead, they reported back varying ages, sometimes saying too young, other times up to 2Ma and older. How can this not be a powerful testimony against the validity of K/Ar dates? I hope you can see why I don't understand your claims of his [Austin] unethical behavior. If we can't apply K/Ar dating to blind tests, how can we ever be sure of it's validity? That's not science.
In fact, this sounds like a perfect way to falsify K/Ar dating methods. Wouldn't you agree that K/Ar is falsified if a knowingly young sample reports back an age >1Ma? If not, then what is science?
It's on the same web page as the response to Camp.
Ah, you mean interspersed? Needless to say, I haven't read these evidences, and I'm guessing you haven't read the responses. Still, that was a fun exercise in link posting.
When you do research or perform experiments, you should never improperly use a proceedure or method and then try to use those results to draw conclusions. Anyone who would do that deserves a sharp blow on the knuckles using the edge of a ruler by their boss.
This is the same response I always receive. This is just a play with words and semantics. What Austin did was apply a blind test to the method. It's an amazingly simple concept, and I'm constantly astounded that people don't understand it. The lab returned dates that demonstrated that young samples have enough Ar to be dated older than they really are....I just don't know how to explain this any simpler. It's a blind test, and it failed.
Maybe you can help me understand why you think that he used the procedure improperly (considering the conclusion he drew), but from where I stand this is a powerful blow to geological dating.
That isn't "raising up" food or cud-chewing. Nice try though.
One thing left to say on this. "chew the cud" is an english translation of the hebrew original. The original meant raising up what had been swallowed. Check yourself. It's not a matter for dispute - it's a fact of the original language. The information is out there (google is your friend).
This link says Tyre was destroyed and never rebuilt. What was the source you were quoting? This link provides more details.
You strike me as the sort that will pick at any odd word and claim it's wrong without even considering the ways in which it could be correct. What I mean, is those circumstances were only one of a few possible interpretations makes no sense.
I don't feel like responding to your "problems" with Scripture - you will either pull out some more, and I'll waste more time when you should use your brain yourself - or you'll argue in trivial words such as you did for chewing the cud. So you tell me - what would it take to show you that the Bible is correct? Obviously for you to answer this question honestly yourself, you would take the verses above and look yourself to see if they can be resolved. If you are looking for an argument and to try and convince all that the Bible is faulty, then you will do as you have done.
Persuade me that these are genuine concerns of yours, or tell me what your real problem is, or don't bother to waste our time. I'm not convinced you aren't just looking for an argument, and to play "devil's advocate".
If it can be shown that mutations cannot be inherited, that would pretty much kill large chunks of his theory.
A worthless "falsifiable" evidence, since we know that mutations can be inherited. I'm looking for things we don't know.
You say: Saying we haven't observed something isn't evidence against it, it's merely a lack of evidence for it. And you also say:
If it can be shown that mutation can not result in a new species, that would kill the "origin of species" part of his theory.
This is something that would be a lack of evidence for. Couldn't it always be said "we simply have not seen mutations result in a new species"?
I'm afraid like most evolutionists you don't really understand the creationist position. We believe in natural selection. It's proven, tested, and observable. It's maths, a fact of life and logic. We don't dispute that. Your list of four points, we agree with them all. And this is not where our dispute with evolution lies.
I hate to break this to you, but that's the Theory of Evolution. Everything else is something else.
Well then call me an evolutionist. I still believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and that all creatures originated from an initial kind (humans from Adam & Eve). Do I still qualify as an evolutionist?
How do the Galapagos finches fail to be evidence for Darwin's theories?
You sound like a reasonable person. I haven't felt insulted by you or mistreated, which I commend you for. Usually I find evolutionist to be mocking, sometimes disguised, sometimes very openly. But I've yet to find one that understands the creationist position, and I wonder if that's why they (you) are so quick to reject it?
Well, I guess I'd rather ask you a question rather than assume. The reason why the Galapagos finches fail to be evidence for evolution is two-fold:
1. They are just as much "evidence" for creation theory as they are for the GTE (general theory of evolution, in which I include long ages, the change from simple life forms->complex, etc)
2. The Galapagos finches do not show the process of change which would ultimately result in new creatures. This is where I fear the problem of misunderstanding will lie. People forget that most changes in a species or population are due to already existing genetic traits - not mutations. Evolutionists just assume that all the traits around today originated from mutations, but we've never *seen* that. There's a lot more to it than that, but I'd like to see what your thoughts are first. Do you see how this is evidence for the creation model also?
And regarding those 29+ evidences of evolution - every single one of them has already been addressed by a creationist. You will find on the talkorigins website a link to a response by one of their own to the creationist's response. On that creationists website you will find a response of the response to the response:) A long chain, but needless to say, it's been dealt with and we don't need to go into that.
I could not find this link on the talk.origins site, could you please give it to me?
Sure, I wrote a list of them all for someone else on slashdot, so here it is:
I'll reword it. Evolution as described on talkorigins is falsifiable, but it is also accepted by creationists. This strict use of the term evolution is not what causes controversy.
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.
The first sentence is what they pull out when asked what is the falsifiable theory of evolution. This, of course, is something creationists do not disagree with. It is the second part of their statement which we do - where they no longer say it is falsifiable, but rather that "the evidence is so overwhelming" - which is an argument in logic rather than science. It deals with the unrepeatable unobservable past.
I have a reply to one of your other posts in progress, I'm still trying to work out how I should respond best.
Apart from these I cannot find an additional link that you mentioned. Could you post it please?
Do you know anything about research and performing experiments? You seem not to. Not only are Austin's results not good for anything, it is unethical to try to draw the types of conclusions he did from the lab results.
Why don't you elaborate on why I misunderstand research, why Austin's results are good for nothing, and why his conclusions were unethical, instead of just telling me it's a fact?
As for the rest of this post, I have lost the motivation to reply.
Well, if the above were your best examples, I won't hold my breath on the rest. Perhaps I should have added 'Not reworked' to the definiton.
No, actually, I just picked one example mostly at random. I figured no matter what I present you will say either "it was mixed up somehow" or "out of place fossils do not falsify evolution".
It's really up to you - I gave you the search terms to use in google, go look for yourself if you really care. There are enough examples out there of out of place fossils that I'd have thought it important from your perspective (since you believe it would falsify evolution) to be sure that they are not what they seem.
I am a creationist, but I agree with what you say - creationism is not a scientific theory. At least not in the strictest sense of the word. It is not falsifiable. What I am trying to set straight is that the whole theory of evolution (not the strict definition that talkorigins.org gives, which creationists agree with) is also not scientific, since it is not falsifiable. Not in a scientific way. I've asked a few times now, and no-one's given me a falsifiable theory of evolution
I'll tell you why I think creation scientists may claim their theory is scientific (and this is just my guesses, I don't know for sure). Science is, ultimately, a more generic term than it's strictest meaning. In the strictest sense neither evolution or creation are scientific. But in a more general way they are - because the two theories use scientific facts (in the strict sense) to explain their model of the world. Like fruit in a fruitbowl - the fruit are not the fruitbowl individually, but they make it up. So do scientific facts (for so long as they remain fact) make up and explain or contradict the models of evolution or creation.
Not sure if you are saying something here to dispute me or not. Your comments are very interesting, but not much I disagree with (except the agnostic/atheistic conclusions).
I have been thinking about this question of what order events occur. Sometimes we can know, but not always.
For example, in order for you to read this post, I have to write it first. So I know for certain that the event of you reading it occurs after the event of me writing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell me, someone, why my post that supported creation in a non-offensive, on topic way is modded as offtopic flamebait. Why?
And perhaps, while we are at it, someone can tell me why it is that every evolutionist who engages a creationist has never yet understood the creationist position. I must have encountered 20+ evolutionists over the years in debate (many more as very brief encounters), yet not a single one yet understands our position. So is it any surprise they reject that which they don't understand? I'm still waiting for an evolutionist that understands our position. I often get comments like "you are different to other creationists" or "you believe different things", or "that's not what I've heard". Yet all I am explaining is the same view presented by trueorigins.org, icr.org, andswersingenesis.com, etc. So how is it that these people who claim to know that creationism is rubbish don't even understand the theory they oppose?
"Were lucky in the sense that were seeing Phobos while its still around," he said.
As opposed to, potentially, other moons that once existed and now have died out?
Our own moon also defies all explanations of science too, including this marvel:
from here
I'm sure it'll make an acceptable choice a year from now at the video store, when my friends and I can't decide on anything - because none of us will have probably already seen it.
I wonder if it will include the artwork?
Hi, the other thread is no longer accepting replies, and I'd very much like to continue our conversation. I'm finding you courteous, and that is warming :) Could you email me at gsdATtyrethDOThomelinuxDOTorg please, so that we can continue?
Thanks.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/cain. html
Anyone can see that there is no contradiction here. Here's what I wrote to him (excuse how it sounds a bit of a mouthful at the end):
He responded:
If he's not willing to change on the simple things, then I'm not going to spend my time pursuing his more important list. I needed to establish first that my time was going to be well spent (the list he referred to was http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cr_short.html)
To me a contradiction is when two opposite, and irreconcilable things are said to be simultaneously true. Such as saying an object is only blue yet it is also only purple. Which is it? Blue or purple? In this Cain story, however, I gave a scenario under which both the statements were true. And that is not a contradiction no matter which way you look at it.
As you can see, he responded politely, I have no bitter feelings. I'm posting this so that others realise that much of the information presented is not contradictory or a problem unless you only look at it from one of many angles.
Because if I overwrite the password they *know* something is wrong.
If I grab a password and log in while their back is turned, they have no reason to be suspicious that I've even been in.
By email then I can send it now so I don't forget. I'm happy to answer over phone wherever I can help. The other advantage is I don't need to go through any tedious voice systems they might have.
:)
And, most of all, I don't have to initiate any kind of social conversation
Could all of us then who were threatened by their claims sue SCO for damages, loss of income, or something else?
And here I am, stuck on earth without a single vessel capable of interstellar travel.
Pretty depressing
How often do people state Linux is not ready for the desktop? Of course it's ready for Sally, as long as someone sets up the software and tells her which buttons to click, and in what order. It's no different from the training she'll need at any new office. It's not like she's going to do the upgrade from Office 97 to Office 2000 - she'll get tech support for that. As for your dialog box, I don't get that in Gnome. Nor in KDE.
Fair enough. Good news then :)
I would not be happy to give up remote display. Not going to happen.
A clarification, I didn't say anywhere that I agree with the theory of evolution as presented by Darwin (if I did, it was a mistake, I apologise), but rather that I agree that natural selection occurs, that creatures adapt over time and eventually become new species, and as talkorigins.org said, that "a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time" takes place.
We have seen mutations result in a new species, we have seen it often, both in the wild and in the laboratory. The talk.origins site has a page devoted to speciation evidence.
I was unable to find any mention of the word mutate or mutations, except in one of the references. The creation model in fact accounts for speciation, and indeed counts on it. More on this below (perhaps not in a way you will recognise).
If you are asking whether you can simultaneously believe in your view of Creation, and accept the theory of evolution as valid, you most certainly can. Remember, science is incapable of producing truth, merely increasingly accurate predictions...Please, however, keep in mind that we don't get the age of the universe from the Theory of Evolution. You would need to say similar things regarding: Astrophysics, Astronomy, Geology, Paleontology, Archaeology, Anthropology, and probably many other sciences I haven't thought of.
It may not surprise you that for a long time I have known that certain parts of the general theory of evolution are correct, such as natural selection, and observed speciation. I have difficulty from person to person using the correct words. Each person has their own view in which certain words should be used, eg "evolution". Some are very quick to discount other fields besides biology, while people like yourself (rightly) point out that these fields are equally important to the GTE. After all, if geology shows that the earth is as young as the creation model states, then the GTE would be incorrect. Ultimately, what I reject are:
a. That the earth is older than ~6,000 years (I do not reject an old universe, read Starlight and Time by Russell Humphreys)
b. That all living things share a common ancestor
This implies a number of things. Not so obvious, or explicetly mentioned in the above is that I reject that humans and apes ever shared a common ancestor.
I imagine from your perspective it seems quite rational and natural to assume that if we see species changing and morphing today, that this process could have been happening for millions/billions of years. This is where creationists can point out the many problems with that assumption - not to mention that the speciation and adaptation we observe today is not the result of mutations at all, but rather of already existing genetic traits. This however, should be dealt with in more detail later. I'll respond to some other portions now.
If you are concerned with more aspects of Creationism than the age of the universe, keep in mind that it also says things like we are all descended from eight people (Noah, his three sons and their wives) who, according to Ussher, didn't land in the Arc until Wednesday, May 5, 1491BCE. According to historians, the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt was thriving before, during and after the period of time that Bishop Ussher claims the world was underwater and the only survivors were non-Egyptians.
The flood occurred around 1632 years after the creation of the world. So if Ussher's date of 4004 BC is correct, that places the world underwater around 2372BC. I'm not sure what's happening here then, either you read Ussher's date wrong for the flood, or he had it wrong. But I personally, along with many others, have calculated from the Bible the exact year of the flood (1656 under lunar calendar) from the creation of the world.
Regarding the meaning of 24 hour days, I am convinced that it is 24 literal hours, if you were on earth when creation took place. I know some compromise on this poin
So I reasoned with myself, if he's just going to pick on every detail, I'll post the necessary steps to find many examples - if he's interested, then he can see them right there. If he's not, well maybe another reader will see something there.
So I told you what type into google - out of place fossils. There's no looking involved, it pops up examples in the first few pages. It's no different from me posting a direct link. I cannot predict your response, so this way you can find from the many examples which one you find most persuasive (if any).
Let me see if I can make this simple again. I find a rock that is amongst strata "known" to be 2.2Ma. I send it off to the lab to be dated (though in reality I possibly wouldn't date it since it's already "known" to be 2.2Ma). The lab returns a result of 1.8Ma. I think "accounting for errors and the nature of this work, that's pretty close". Then I suddenly see that the rock is of the same material of a nearby lava flow. I realise that the rock was added to the 2.2Ma strata accidently, and it actually came from the nearby flow that is only 50 years old. What then?
That's what the test proves. What you are telling me, is that somehow when we know the age of a sample it suddenly, magically, makes it impossible to work. But so long as the date is unknown the results are accurate?
Austin applied the lab to a blind test. In these cases of young ages, the lab *should* have said "not enough argon to potassium to produce a date". Instead, they reported back varying ages, sometimes saying too young, other times up to 2Ma and older. How can this not be a powerful testimony against the validity of K/Ar dates? I hope you can see why I don't understand your claims of his [Austin] unethical behavior. If we can't apply K/Ar dating to blind tests, how can we ever be sure of it's validity? That's not science.
In fact, this sounds like a perfect way to falsify K/Ar dating methods. Wouldn't you agree that K/Ar is falsified if a knowingly young sample reports back an age >1Ma? If not, then what is science?
Ah, you mean interspersed? Needless to say, I haven't read these evidences, and I'm guessing you haven't read the responses. Still, that was a fun exercise in link posting.
When you do research or perform experiments, you should never improperly use a proceedure or method and then try to use those results to draw conclusions. Anyone who would do that deserves a sharp blow on the knuckles using the edge of a ruler by their boss.
This is the same response I always receive. This is just a play with words and semantics. What Austin did was apply a blind test to the method. It's an amazingly simple concept, and I'm constantly astounded that people don't understand it. The lab returned dates that demonstrated that young samples have enough Ar to be dated older than they really are....I just don't know how to explain this any simpler. It's a blind test, and it failed.
Maybe you can help me understand why you think that he used the procedure improperly (considering the conclusion he drew), but from where I stand this is a powerful blow to geological dating.
One thing left to say on this. "chew the cud" is an english translation of the hebrew original. The original meant raising up what had been swallowed. Check yourself. It's not a matter for dispute - it's a fact of the original language. The information is out there (google is your friend).
This link says Tyre was destroyed and never rebuilt. What was the source you were quoting? This link provides more details.
You strike me as the sort that will pick at any odd word and claim it's wrong without even considering the ways in which it could be correct. What I mean, is those circumstances were only one of a few possible interpretations makes no sense.
I don't feel like responding to your "problems" with Scripture - you will either pull out some more, and I'll waste more time when you should use your brain yourself - or you'll argue in trivial words such as you did for chewing the cud. So you tell me - what would it take to show you that the Bible is correct? Obviously for you to answer this question honestly yourself, you would take the verses above and look yourself to see if they can be resolved. If you are looking for an argument and to try and convince all that the Bible is faulty, then you will do as you have done.
Persuade me that these are genuine concerns of yours, or tell me what your real problem is, or don't bother to waste our time. I'm not convinced you aren't just looking for an argument, and to play "devil's advocate".
Can't say I like this news. Slashdot swings between "Microsoft aint all that bad" to "Micro$oft teh d3v|1".
:)
I'll always be unhappy so long as they are able to influence my freedom to use free software.
Besides all that though, I'll just keep using galeon and konqueror. Great browsers
A worthless "falsifiable" evidence, since we know that mutations can be inherited. I'm looking for things we don't know.
You say:
This is something that would be a lack of evidence for. Couldn't it always be said "we simply have not seen mutations result in a new species"? I hate to break this to you, but that's the Theory of Evolution. Everything else is something else.Saying we haven't observed something isn't evidence against it, it's merely a lack of evidence for it.
And you also say:
If it can be shown that mutation can not result in a new species, that would kill the "origin of species" part of his theory.
Well then call me an evolutionist. I still believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and that all creatures originated from an initial kind (humans from Adam & Eve). Do I still qualify as an evolutionist?
How do the Galapagos finches fail to be evidence for Darwin's theories?
You sound like a reasonable person. I haven't felt insulted by you or mistreated, which I commend you for. Usually I find evolutionist to be mocking, sometimes disguised, sometimes very openly. But I've yet to find one that understands the creationist position, and I wonder if that's why they (you) are so quick to reject it?
Well, I guess I'd rather ask you a question rather than assume. The reason why the Galapagos finches fail to be evidence for evolution is two-fold:
I could not find this link on the talk.origins site, could you please give it to me?1. They are just as much "evidence" for creation theory as they are for the GTE (general theory of evolution, in which I include long ages, the change from simple life forms->complex, etc)
2. The Galapagos finches do not show the process of change which would ultimately result in new creatures. This is where I fear the problem of misunderstanding will lie. People forget that most changes in a species or population are due to already existing genetic traits - not mutations. Evolutionists just assume that all the traits around today originated from mutations, but we've never *seen* that. There's a lot more to it than that, but I'd like to see what your thoughts are first. Do you see how this is evidence for the creation model also?
Sure, I wrote a list of them all for someone else on slashdot, so here it is:
Initial article
Response by Camp to initial
Response to Camp
Response by Camp to the response of his first response
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.
The first sentence is what they pull out when asked what is the falsifiable theory of evolution. This, of course, is something creationists do not disagree with. It is the second part of their statement which we do - where they no longer say it is falsifiable, but rather that "the evidence is so overwhelming" - which is an argument in logic rather than science. It deals with the unrepeatable unobservable past.
I have a reply to one of your other posts in progress, I'm still trying to work out how I should respond best.
This is the list of links I have so far:
Initial article
Response by Camp to initial
Response to Camp
Response by Camp to the response of his first response
Apart from these I cannot find an additional link that you mentioned. Could you post it please?
Do you know anything about research and performing experiments? You seem not to. Not only are Austin's results not good for anything, it is unethical to try to draw the types of conclusions he did from the lab results.
Why don't you elaborate on why I misunderstand research, why Austin's results are good for nothing, and why his conclusions were unethical, instead of just telling me it's a fact?
As for the rest of this post, I have lost the motivation to reply.
No, actually, I just picked one example mostly at random. I figured no matter what I present you will say either "it was mixed up somehow" or "out of place fossils do not falsify evolution".
It's really up to you - I gave you the search terms to use in google, go look for yourself if you really care. There are enough examples out there of out of place fossils that I'd have thought it important from your perspective (since you believe it would falsify evolution) to be sure that they are not what they seem.
I'll tell you why I think creation scientists may claim their theory is scientific (and this is just my guesses, I don't know for sure). Science is, ultimately, a more generic term than it's strictest meaning. In the strictest sense neither evolution or creation are scientific. But in a more general way they are - because the two theories use scientific facts (in the strict sense) to explain their model of the world. Like fruit in a fruitbowl - the fruit are not the fruitbowl individually, but they make it up. So do scientific facts (for so long as they remain fact) make up and explain or contradict the models of evolution or creation.
I have been thinking about this question of what order events occur. Sometimes we can know, but not always.
For example, in order for you to read this post, I have to write it first. So I know for certain that the event of you reading it occurs after the event of me writing it.