Park Service won't say how old Grand Canyon is to cater to creationists. [Archive]

hm0504

12-31-2006, 03:07 PM

Great to hear of the Creationist success with respect to the Grand Canyon! Now, my Creationist friends we must not stop until we have beat back the evil, satanic, anti-Christian teaching that the Earth is NOT the centre of the Universe (and that all things revolve around it) which has become so engrained in our educational and scientific institutions.

For hundreds of years, the Roman Catholic and Protestant branches remained united in backing the Bible's teaching that the Earth is the centre of the Universe and punishing those who dared to oppose this Truth. As Martin Luther said 400 years ago [1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
"There is talk of a new astrologer (Copernicus) who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alas, even the churches have become soft on this issue with the Roman Catholic church even recenlty stooping to let Galileo off the hook in 1991 for his insolence. [2] [3]

And so it is good to see the Grand Canyon victory; let us look forward to the day when the heresy that the Earth is NOT the centre of the Universe is expunged from modern life!

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism

[2] http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00004006&channel=university%20ave

[3] http://www.beliefnet.com/story/49/story_4914.html

Naturist4Ever

12-31-2006, 05:00 PM

Who needs parkrangers anyway?? (as an European I always wondered about this, we do well without).

Base of canyon (river level) contains rock ~2 Billion years old.

The canyon itself was created over the last 5-6Million years, and mostly really only the last 2Myrs. This is known from the dated lavaflows that cut into the canyon and can only have happened after the canyon was already there.

There is some dispute about the exact datings of the rockformations but not in a way that changes much. It is certainly way before man arrived (this one can tell from the fossils found in the different layers).

It's time the US wakes up to common sense. Happy new year, new reality.

P.J.

01-01-2007, 12:48 AM

Those of us who believe in creationism are not "the modern day version of 'world is flat' crowd."

In fact, the Old Testament of the Holy Bible actually teaches that the earth was sphere shaped. Scripture soes not teach that the world is flat.

I believe in God and science. There is no conflict between science and faith.

There is no solid proof that man originated by way evolving from apes.

Although I do not advocate expelling the teaching of evolution from schools, I believe that it should be presented as a theory and presented along with the teachings of creationism.

In secular academic institutions, education should be fair and balanced, with both sides presented, especially when subjects are wrapped in theory and dogma.

By the way, creationism is not exclusively a Christian teaching.

Until more proof is found, I doubt that we can really find clear fact about the origins of mankind. Personally, I don't really care exatly when mankind first walked the earth. There are far more important studies to tackle, such as algebra, biology and social studies.

01-01-2007, 03:45 AM

I am one who believes in evolution. I do not believe in creationism. I am not a Christian nor do I belong to any other faith.

If evolution is to be taught in schools as a theory so should creationism if you want fair and balance.

However, public schools should stay clear of any religious teachings and the Church (any church) and State should be kept separate. I am a firm believer in this.

Allie

Daveinct

01-01-2007, 04:51 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unwired:
REPOST: I never know whether to laugh or cry when real life begins to resemble The Onion, but I thought this (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27604) golden oldie was appropriate for the occasion.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought the same thing as I read the article, sounded like the Onion to me. It's so bizzare it has me wondering if this story is confirmed elsewhere.

Dave

RalphVa

01-01-2007, 05:21 AM

I think this change in attitude of the park service is due to the new discovery of what happened after Spirit Lake broke free from its damn created by the Mt. St. Helens blow. A miniture of the Grand Canyon was created in about 20 minutes' time.

The Grand Canyon was carved out by dammed up water being released after the flood upon the earth, probably in 2 days or so time. This dam was probably the high point that the Colorado River now flows through. There's no way the river could have gone through that high point. Whereas, it's easy to have occurred with the mountains being pushed up by the fault in the middle of the ocean, and with the depths of the ocean dropping.

A good bit of the water from the flood came from subterranean water underneath. This shot up, caused the ocean basins to drop and later the mountains to rise. This water than came down as rain and a huge amount of snow in the northern and southern areas that created the ice age, which then resulted in linkages between the continents that went away when the ice melted some.

The fact of the flood is told in more than 200 legends of peoples all over the earth. The flood is what caused the layers of rock and earth that people theorize were geologic periods.

Subterranean waters' evidence is present in numerous underground caverns around the world.

All this, mainly the Spirit-Lake-created canyon, is what probably changed the park service's mind. Haleluyah.

newton

01-01-2007, 08:29 AM

As a scientist, I can tell you that it is not possible to teach biology (and I agree that it should be taught) without teaching evolution as a part of the course.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:
Those of us who believe in creationism are not "the modern day version of 'world is flat' crowd."

In fact, the Old Testament of the Holy Bible actually teaches that the earth was sphere shaped. Scripture soes not teach that the world is flat.

I believe in God and science. There is no conflict between science and faith.

There is no solid proof that man originated by way evolving from apes.

Although I do not advocate expelling the teaching of evolution from schools, I believe that it should be presented as a theory and presented along with the teachings of creationism.

In secular academic institutions, education should be fair and balanced, with both sides presented, especially when subjects are wrapped in theory and dogma.

By the way, creationism is not exclusively a Christian teaching.

Until more proof is found, I doubt that we can really find clear fact about the origins of mankind. Personally, I don't really care exatly when mankind first walked the earth. There are far more important studies to tackle, such as algebra, biology and social studies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

NudeAl

01-01-2007, 09:14 AM

Oh boy, here we go again.

I am not sure why but we seem to be more sensitive to the beliefs of the minority and afraid of giving offense than in years past the phrase kinder and gentler comes to mind. However I think it is neither kind nor gentle to give out or fail to give out information. If the job description, of the park ranger, includes answering questions about the canyon from the public then they should be able to do that. Now, if they want they could preface that info with, well according to the best scientific evidence,...etc. I just see this as another example of the tail wagging the dog and the squeaky wheel getting the grease. This from a Christian.

Let science do it's job and believe whatever you want. I myself have never felt closer to God than when out in nature even better if I am clothed as nature intended.

hm0504

01-01-2007, 09:32 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:
Those of us who believe in creationism are not "the modern day version of 'world is flat' crowd."

In fact, the Old Testament of the Holy Bible actually teaches that the earth was sphere shaped. Scripture soes not teach that the world is flat.
... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly, if the Earth was flat, it would make it much harder for it to be the center, as the Bible says, of a three dimensional Universe.

Like evolution, the idea that Earth is just a planet orbiting the sun in a solar system in some arm of a random galaxy among many should be treated as a theory, not fact. Indeed, when the Church lost its long-fought battle against heliocentrism (the idea planets revolve around the sun), it put mankind on the treacherous slippery slope of sciencism that has now resulted in talk of an Earth billions of years old and in the theory of evolution.

Unwired

01-01-2007, 10:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:

In secular academic institutions, education should be fair and balanced, with both sides presented, especially when subjects are wrapped in theory and dogma. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that characterization is completely inappropriate. Science is a process of acquiring knowledge starting with hypotheses and culminating with an objective interpretation of evidence obtained through experimentation and/or observation. Theories (such as evolutionary theory, atomic theory) are included among these objective end results. Please do not attempt to class scientific inquiry with religious dogmatism. It's ideologies such as Young-Earth Creationism that are steeped in dogma, seeking to either rewrite or completely disregard established science for the sake of advancing a particular theistic worldview.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Personally, I don't really care exatly when mankind first walked the earth. There are far more important studies to tackle, such as algebra, biology and social studies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why not? The study of life and it's origins are a vital component of biology. Thankfully, enough people are interested enough to continue to seek answers, even if some refuse to accept them.

UW

johny

01-01-2007, 10:37 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">RE:Newton: As a scientist, I can tell you that it is not possible to teach biology (and I agree that it should be taught) without teaching evolution as a part of the course </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strange, why other ~50% of scientists says contrary?? Coud be their diplomas less valuable, or into the hardly repeatable experimental temple of her majesty Science had been find a kind of mental maggott??

As the biologist You should know a bit of biochemistry too. Then, how drowes into "experimental" category such "exparimentally valuable facts" as:

1) thunderstorm spark inducing forming of molecules of amino-sauers from atmosphere must (not ought but must) contain about doublefold to tenfold of hydrogen content as it ever had contained. At least never the analyses of super-old stone cavities or arctic icebergs had shown a least signs the H2 had been there more than 10% more than today. And today sparks somehow are unable to produce any aminosauer, before scietists demonstarting this "wonder" had`nt richened the "natural atmosphere".

2)How then those aminosauers (if any) had been able to survive, to make a cross-reactions, if them dries out in miliseconds...

3)Okay, if them fell into Planetary Ocean to not dry out, this ocean (or by term "primary broth(soup)") before giving a first alive molecule should be literally become a "primary poridge" otherhow happening a chemnical reaction splitting off a molecule of water in the soluting medium having name a water means harsh violation of chemical balance law. Or by a hyperbole, by means of chemical equilibrity such reaction is equal to merchandice a dried sand for needs of expanding Sahara desert.

3)Okay, let immaginate that somehow those heavy impossible stoppers `was` overstepped, so first egg-cell CONTENT was formed. Hope noone immaginates that the content by a just Divine miracle was happened the same place and the same time as "skin" of egg-cell. Without of cell membrane ("skin") that content will end to a reccombination, or soluted out splitted to composite parts back in the water solutant environment (we somehow let a begun everything happens in the Ocean otherhow dry-land is not supportive for such reactions.) So, egg existance without "hen" is impossible, but `hen` (egg cell content) existance without `egg` (cellular membrane) is impossible too, at least more than few microseconds or even nanoseconds long.

4)Okay, let forgot all those unimpossibilities, or as one Soviet Comparty agitbrigade scietist said to me same 30 years ago - and what you want to tell to me with those facts - we surely exist, it means Your "impossible" turned to fact somehow. Yeppsk, he was right, but some scietists had been calculated a probability of such self-organizing of matter. Yes, allways exists a probability the tea-can putted on the fire-cooker will suddenly freeze to ice, or conrary - just all molecules by an occurance are driving in tha same direction simultaneously. At form 11 pupils I am giving to calculate such probability as the class-work. Figure is fantastically small. Different scientists had been concluded the one simplest DNA molecule forming probality (in whole Universe, in time of whole existance of Unioverse, and in random displacement where Earth is just one of option with nothing better as sample the Mars, Plutoe, or Berenike)is between 1E-240 and 1E-400. To train an immagination, any big industrial catastrophe is counting "acceptable" if it`s probability is below 1E-5 but global scale technogene accidents 1E-7. The probability that sleeping in my bed some cosmit meteorite will fall through a roof and shall hit me in the forhead until the death is obout 1E-10.....

6) and as the chemicist You should somehow answer the riddle how it can be taht ALL chemical reactions produces 50/50 % of trans and cis isomeres while in the all alive creatures happens be only one of those forms of isomery. What could be a damn probability to `natural` violating this law of Nature...

7) Okay, forget it all stoppers but explain me please as the biologist, how then is possible that ALL ever known mutations produces a SPECIALISATION of specie (or de-universalisation or lowering of survival capacity) yet one certain "mutation X" gave a contrary...

How can it happen the planty of micro-mutations we had been observed lead to at least one mutation giving to neck of giraffe SURPLUS neck-bones... Just by a simple stretching...

8) and at last, how then can happen that practicaly all macro-mutations had happened just flsh-likely, and no any proofs for "step by step" developments in any paleontological excavations.

My conclusion is that to natural processes at all crucial turn-points some kind of intelligent force had been "helped" making impossible probability easy happen. How to name this force, it depends on the fantasy of You as a scientist.

For my mind just both HYPOTHESIS (Evolution and Creationism) should be balanced way given to pupils at any kind of schools to realize that today NOONE KNOWS exactly how life was enstarted on Planet.

Conor B

01-01-2007, 10:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.: Although I do not advocate expelling the teaching of evolution from schools, I believe that it should be presented as a theory and presented along with the teachings of creationism.

In secular academic institutions, education should be fair and balanced, with both sides presented, especially when subjects are wrapped in theory and dogma.
. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and while we're at it how about more fair and balanced time devoted to denial of the Holocaust, God's favoring of Muhamed over Jesus, exploration of the role of the Four Humours in medicine, African-Americans' innate inferiority and the role of communism in flouridation.

In America, a greater percentage of our citizens beleive all of these ideas than the percentage of scientists who give any type of 'intelligent design' credence. And, in science, the experts get to makme the calls.

Just because somebody believes in somethng does not automatically earn that belief a place in actual educational settings.

I am so tired of stupidity and ignorance (on the left or right) being given any place in the realm of the intellect.

usmc1

01-01-2007, 10:58 AM

Wasn't there an issue a year or so ago wherein the Park Service had established some sort of political or religious filter in screening of applicants?

There was something. And, now this inanity.

No wonder these whippy dips were run out of Europe and sent to the colonies in North America.

Australia got the criminals and we got the religious whackos. And, in Australia's case, criminal was a very relative term. One could become a "criminal" by gathering wood in the forest to keep his family warm, or allowing his pigs to graze on the acorns in the forest.

Since all the forests belonged to the crown, unless one had permission, one could be hung or sent out for such arrant abuses against the throne.

But us, well, as I said, we got the religious nut-cases, and they procreated and remain among us to this day. Their progeny apparantly stffing the national park service.

hm0504

01-01-2007, 02:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by johny:
...

Strange, why other ~50% of scientists says contrary?? Coud be their diplomas less valuable, or into the hardly repeatable experimental temple of her majesty Science had been find a kind of mental maggott??
... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do I understand you to be saying that 50% of scientists think the Earth is about 6000 years old?

nacktman

01-01-2007, 02:09 PM

I stand by my statement that creationists are the modern version of the "flat worlders" and several posts have only proven my point even more firmly than I could.

And, Oh boy, is right Al ... I too see this as a case of the majority cravenly bowing to the minority to appease the "squeeky wheel" as it were as well. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif

Bob S.

01-01-2007, 02:34 PM

Science (the way religions should see it): The explanation of how G*d made everything and how everything in the universe works.

Science (the way the radicals of religions see it): A threat to their beliefs that must be dealt with.

Bob S.

Naturist Mark

01-01-2007, 08:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Science (the way religions should see it): The explanation of how G*d made everything and how everything in the universe works.

Science (the way the radicals of religions see it): A threat to their beliefs that must be dealt with.

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By either definition, the belief in a 6000 year old Earth would be blasphemy.

I think The explanation of how G*d made everything and how everything in the universe works is a perfectly good religious definition of science.

But by either definition you must consider anyone who rejects the clear scientific evidence of an Earth that is billions of years as shown by fossils and the geological record as a blasphemer - because they are clearly saying that God filled his creation with false evidence of a different sort of creation. Creationists clearly believe GOD is a deceiver. Or that Satan has the power of creation. Either way - Blasphemy.

-Mark

LamontCranston

01-02-2007, 04:36 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">creationists are the modern day version of the 'world is flat' crowd and are laughed at by everyone with a brain just as the flat-worlders were in their day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> When you're done laughing, maybe you can try answering the question... just how old is the Grand Canyon? And to follow up ..
How is it dated?
Why aren't other rivers carved that deep into the bedrock?
Is it older than the Mississippi River?
And was it formed during the last ice age or by river erosion?

If none of you anti-creationist posters can say -- with a reference to scientific research -- then I have to assume you don't know the answers and are going on blind faith in a scientist and a press release... http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

gamblefish

01-02-2007, 04:57 AM

Oh, this is reee-dicolus!!

Just the other day, I was at the grand canyon, and when the park ranger said it was formed over billions and billions of years, I was not offended in the least.

Butt...when he said "Anyone who believes differently is a whippy-dipped, whinny[sic], whacko, bratty-two-year-old religious nut-case!", well...imagine the nerve...hmmmmph!! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/goofy.gif

I think the park has every right to state whatever they believe about the age of the grand canyon.

And any creationist in the crowd has the right to sneeze "bullsh!t!!" into their hand... http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/tongue.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/tongue.gif

nacktman

01-02-2007, 05:23 AM

The Grand Canyon is 446Km long and 0.04 - 24Km wide and 1600M deep at points.

It was formed over the last 40 Million years with the canyon itself being at least 6 Million years old with the oldest exposed rock in the canyon at 2 Billion years old in the Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the youngest exposed rock in the Kaibib Limestone Formations at the rim which are only a mere 230 Million years old.

As to sceintific references, look them up yourselves, no one is going to do your work for you. The above data is more than generous.

Bob your statement of what should be the religious definition of science is dead-on, just as your statement as to what it is in reality and the evidence is here in certain posts to back up your statement. A point none seem to grasp is Man invented the term "Day" to denote the passage of time and that literary license and metaphor abound in the book some (read creationist, et. al.) take as literal and those that do and have taken it literal have ever worked to destory civilization and society -- never totally succeeded, but come close (remember the Dark Ages) --
Caving in to their caterwauling is exactly what they crave and as evidence here they do not like it when facts and reality get in the way nor do they like any to listen to or know the facts or reality as it never coincides with their view.

missouriboy

01-02-2007, 08:44 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’” </div></BLOCKQUOTE>"Political Correctness" writ large. I've always held that PC is just a euphemism for "denial of truth" or at least: "ignore the truth." With confirmation like this, I found it unnecessary to read anything beyond the quoted paragraph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite telling, this post of yours.

One, you're confusing religious fantacism with political correctness.

Two, when confronted with something you don't agree with you stop reading.

I needn't write much more. You've self-described a reactionary closed mind. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>My post was on-topic, and formed a derogatory opinion of the fact that PC was used by the "fundies" to force the denial of honest inquiry into the factual scientific evidence of earth's history.

Then you, on the other hand, ignored that message entirely, in the most bizarre misreading of a post that I've ever seen, just to again attack me personally. Now, can you still deny ever violating the TOS by flaming other posters?

Don't bother to answer; I'm not the only one who has seen the truth for the past fourteen months.

usmc1

01-02-2007, 09:00 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’” </div></BLOCKQUOTE>"Political Correctness" writ large. I've always held that PC is just a euphemism for "denial of truth" or at least: "ignore the truth." With confirmation like this, I found it unnecessary to read anything beyond the quoted paragraph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite telling, this post of yours.

One, you're confusing religious fantacism with political correctness.

Two, when confronted with something you don't agree with you stop reading.

I needn't write much more. You've self-described a reactionary closed mind. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>My post was on-topic, and formed a derogatory opinion of the fact that PC was used by the "fundies" to force the denial of honest inquiry into the factual scientific evidence of earth's history.

Then you, on the other hand, ignored that message entirely, in the most bizarre misreading of a post that I've ever seen, just to again attack me personally. Now, can you still deny ever violating the TOS by flaming other posters?

Don't bother to answer; I'm not the only one who has seen the truth for the past fourteen months. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For soem reason you've chosen to retain your confusion as to the meaning and application of the term "political corectness". I am not surprised.

LamontCranston

01-02-2007, 05:36 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It was formed over the last 40 Million years with the canyon itself being at least 6 Million years old with the oldest exposed rock in the canyon at 2 Billion years old in the Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the youngest exposed rock in the Kaibib Limestone Formations at the rim which are only a mere 230 Million years old. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah but... why?

Why is there only one of them? Are there others in various stages of 40 million year growth?
Did the glaciers decend that far south?

Tell me a story I might believe that fits with other scientific eveidence. Like wasn't there a sea or some body of water north towards Montana? And haven't they found dinosaur bones to prove it. And what about that Pangea continent drift? Where do those fit in your timeline.

As it is, all you're doing is throwing around measuremnts (metric too because of course you're better than all of us.. ) and wrapping them in millions and billions.

The way you throw around millions and billions, you sound like Congress; essentially meaningless numbers designed to cloud the truth.

Nackty says, "It's real big and really really old. If you don't believe me you can look it up."

Useless and indefensible in any debate.

Mike S

P.S. I get a kick out of the idea that people are convinced it takes 40 million years for geological things to happen, yet global warming will somehow destroy us all in a single generation.

Global warming seems to support the Book of Revelation more than it does the Earth Sciences.

Step back and look at it. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/freak.gif

Naturist Mark

01-02-2007, 05:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">P.S. I get a kick out of the idea that people are convinced it takes 40 million years for geological things to happen, yet global warming will somehow destroy us all in a single generation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are listening to the wrong people about global warming. It won't destroy "all of us", and the major disruptions caused by climate change will take several generations. Still pretty bad though.

The consequences of global warming may take 5 or even 10 generations to shake out, but if we don't do something in this generation it will probably be too late to do anything - if it isn't already.

Have you watched Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth"? You need to. His politics don't matter, the science is rock solid. Watch it before you dismiss it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://www.climatecrisis.net/

-Mark

usmc1

01-02-2007, 06:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">P.S. I get a kick out of the idea that people are convinced it takes 40 million years for geological things to happen, yet global warming will somehow destroy us all in a single generation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are listening to the wrong people about global warming. It won't destroy "all of us", and the major disruptions caused by climate change will take several generations. Still pretty bad though.

The consequences of global warming may take 5 or even 10 generations to shake out, but if we don't do something in this generation it will probably be too late to do anything - if it isn't already.

Have you watched Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth"? You need to. His politics don't matter, the science is rock solid. Watch it before you dismiss it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://www.climatecrisis.net/

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess because it was the holidays no one thought to comment on the new story concerning the breakage of the artic ice shelf.

In short, an extremely large portion of the artic ice shelf (11,000 football fields in size) has broken off and is adrift.

It was not entirely unexpected, but scientists are stunned by the suddenness of the event which was not expected to happen for years.

Frankly, they are deeply concerned and do not yet have a handle on all the implications of this event.

nacktman

01-02-2007, 06:37 PM

usmc1, one of those concerns is just how fast the "berg" will drift into shipping lanes which would be a disaster waiting to happen!?

Mark, good point about Gore's movie, though I feel it is a wasted point as the one to which it was made has proven incapable of comprehending the like, just as they do not understand the rules of debate.

Global warming is a fast moving climatalogical event in geological terms, something yet again that is beyond the comprehension of some ... and by fast moving, it means it could be as quickly as 500 years for its full affects and effects to be known ... and it has being going on for the past 200 years already, since the end of the medieval ice age at the end of the 18th century --- the Year Without A Summer occured during the War of Independence you know.

But, as to topic, cowtowing to the shrill troglodytes is a bit much and the timidity of the Park Service is an insult to all who can think for themselves.

johny

01-03-2007, 04:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do I understand you to be saying that 50% of scientists think the Earth is about 6000 years old?
Albinus </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Never noone said the idea of creationism must have obligatorium to be linked with such
enormous figure of years. However:

1)Hebrew word used in Bible be translated with "days" had very wide meaning: "the period of time" or "the interval of time from something beginning until it`s end".
So correcting this surely customarily mistake of many Bible translations You`ll get the free hands to set the real number of years by any will of science

2)In the Bible are at least two places said "for God one day is as thousand year for humankind" and other "for Him the day is as many thousands of years for humans". After such approximate scale, if I would be a clergyman, I never would risk to proclaim an exact number of years until "creation", counted by Bible chronology

3) However, its more than sure that humankind history is heavily falsificated with numerous efforts between 500-1700 our Era, to make it more longeee and more "shinyeee". Exists a certain web-site www.novochron.ru (http://www.novochron.ru) (sorry, plain russian) dominated by two scratchy Moscowian scientists (math statistician & astronomer) who made an exellent methodology how to "clean out" those multiple falsifications from history books. Yet their conclusion (sic!, based on modern computer analysys, astronomy modelling of star tracks, and newest math-stat methods analysing a texts) shown such an old Aegypt and most oldest Greece periods was happening far not at -4000 or -1000 bce, but between +300 and +1400 AT OUR era, seemly.
The scale of scandal You may guess there yourself, historicians tried to sweep both guys out of Academy of science, yet at first them must prove a deadly mistake in both scientist conclusions, and that is not so easy as a fact, however heavy criticists speaks everywhere including my state and some of them are my collegues.
Anyhow I keep boyh Mosc scientists 700 paged book as a treasure at least in a status of detailed description of advanced analyse method. So, my personal conclusion - let them (scientist) have an "inner" war, after it may be somewhen we shall acknow our real lenghth of history. And seems it would be shocking.

4) As You know the most heavy problem of date scaling is that most useable are only two "clocks" - radioArgone and radioCarbon methods (abstracting off from tree ring counting etc what last years had proved arent very exact too).
When I answered an semester exam at radiology about 1978, I had lucky hand to have an "easy ticket" - to tell about precisity of R-C method. Today I would not tell it anymore the way I told then - time of count is day, scintilations in the lead-house under are one in 3 secs, then total count is 1/3*3600*24=30000 impulses so the accuracy is about 0,003% even without of any more advanced efforts. Last stage is pull this figure into radioactive decay formula and get an accuracy by means of days.
Nope. Later when I became a leading engineer of quite big environmental chemistry laboratory, and wild market economy suppressed us near to bankroot, I remember certain very inspiring excursion to local viking battle-hill.
The archeologist told - "see, here our pre-folks had a victorious war against those viking enemies and shine-fuly won just 10 000 years ago". As the physicist I am quite sensitive about such suspiciosly "round" figures, so I gave him a question - "how You know it". Archeologist let a tray - "see, I have a meterband, measure the bones laying 3,5 meters deep, IT MEANS them are 10K years old". I hit bit deepeer - but how you know that 3,5(m)=10K(y)? He answered- "oh dear, its so prost, somewere somewhen in Africa somewhat find a cuneinform tables, measured the deepth, after dechifrated inscriptions containing a date and so we are here". Yet I wasnt happy with his answer and asked again - so, do you are REALLY sure than taking in mind, that Africa where dark skinned people are consuming a bananas giving 20 kilo a day of banana skins however rotting damn quickly give THE SAME deepth rate as at us where people are consuming potatos and bear meet daily with so small as 50 grams of potatoe skins and 100 grams of bones however rotting a decade if not century in our 57,7 paralell climate, that both systems could be just in an easy simple way compared without of any set of advanced intercomparizon factors??
Archeologist at last lost his smileful bravery. He became bit more than angry and cried - "what you profane, what other damn alternatives I have? My budget is 3000 soviet roubles per season, but one radioCarbon analyse costs 800 roubles anbd only one exist a lab in our region where I must stay in a queue for measurements at least 3 years. What, I should dig, or I should measure. Of course my honest choice is to dig."

So, few years later my state regained back an independancy from that bloodly red terrorist/occupant country, yet our laboratory accute needed a "fresh blood" financially. I said to my boss - tomorrow You are going to StPetersbourg, here is my camera and `Riga black balsam` bottle accompanied with choccolade box, so you should reproduce the methodology for R-C analyse somewhere hiding in dark corner. We shall give a price 500 roubles instead of 800 and all the region will run to us measure (damn, today its so low as hourly salary - 2,5 pounds, therefore nothing worth to lament).

After my boss came back, he told - NOPE!!! We NEVER shall make this damn analyse, because I am boss and never are willing to go sit in a jail, what inevitable will happen if we`ll do.

Only few years later I read a wide "editorial experiment" made by "New Scientist". The freshly slaughtered cow bone was pre-preparated with alkali bichromate to give it the false senile colour. Editors divided this bone to 100 pieces ant sent it to 100 world`s leading R-C laboratories.
It turned to large scandal, because, in a range of +/-10% results was reported only by 3 labs, within +/- 10 fold correct was about 10 labs, and about 60 labs reported figures being different off the true value more than 3 nils.
Yes, it is catastrophic result, but I can explain it very easy - it all hidden in sample preparatory accuracy where "laborant hand effect" in this methodology is unbelievable maximal.

So, my conclusion - even if we would measure everything digged out by archs, it wonder if it will clear our vision on history very much. Yet clear is something other: if R-C method is at least partially exact in time intervals 500-2000 years ago, then it is very un-exact for intervals 1K to 10K or 20K and contrary R-A method is accurate for 10 million years (if somehow annihilate the "laborant hand effect", but everything nearer as quarter of million is just the surmise into coffee dregs even for best laborants ever seen.

So, the MOST interesting interval of history between -1000 and -20000 year is completely not covered with trustable measurement methodologies. Sorry. Exact date investigation is big scientific problem.

Here is my grand total - dont trust to time scales too much, them all have an unstable ground and one grey day them may collapse all.

P.S. both those Moscowian scientists named their book "a New Chronology". But I dont trust too much even to them. Because all we are JUST the human beings, and all we humans are errorful by a nature.

And what is a link between a humankind prehistory length and humankind evolution. Nothing....

nacktman

01-03-2007, 05:06 AM

Not sure what labs you looked at but I know of no such extreme margins of error in dating in any reputable lab in the world.
Egypt's oldest (recognized as "Egyptian") archealogical elements are over 5000 years old with the exception of the Sphinx which is at least 12,000 years old (something which "Egyptologists" and creationists cry foul over, but you can not argue with geological weathering of exposed rock, well not successfully, anyway).

As to the length of Human Prehistory and a link to Human Evolution being nothing ... well, let's say you better do more research into that.

Face it things on and in this earth are far older than you'd like them to be ... denying them will not change the truth.

johny

01-03-2007, 05:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote: Naturist Mark
You are listening to the wrong people about global warming. It won't destroy "all of us", and the major disruptions caused by climate change will take several generations. Still pretty bad though.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm. It depends on WHAT to call wrong...

Few years ago one very interesting guy gave a lectures at my doctor studies time. He was born Latvian, then under Soviet slaughters occupancy he flied away and turned as vice boss of Australian meteorology association (may be I am not very corect with this duty, but SOMETHING about). The facts he presented at his short visit was MORE than shocking (and I believe it are accurate):

1) Do we really warm up the 0,3 C at decade?? Most number of meteostations are situated at places where it is easy to get a figures out. Means near to cities. That is simple fact that cities are warming up themselves about 3 or 4 C comparing with places far off from cities. So, after calculating an arithmetic average we get those damn +0,3...

Okay, but what then stays with satellite data, glacieres meltdown etc?? Yes, them exists, but shows lower rate as +0,3 and perhaps would show much other interval of time as last century, if been invented so far in a past.

2)But corelation between CO2 concentration in atmosphere and Global T is well proven fact, isnt it?? Yeppsk, it is well measured by Global Sats, yet most of lecturers in Universities likes to show both graphs in the scale of "from begining of meteorology science until today".
Its needed only very small thing to find the truth, to change the graph scale to see the weeks not decades. Then it is easy seemable, that AT FIRST happens temperature jump-up, and ONLY THEN (after) with a shift of dozen weeks happens a rise-up of concentration curve.
In the science, if any something goes wrong with a reason-consequencie sequence, you may surely risk to bet for all the cash, the theory is plainly wrong.

3)If not CO2 them what else?? Okay, whats about methane? But CORINAIR (at EPA eu.int) have been discussed it successfully, so no a crucial changes in basic course, only some figures appreciated.

May be wrong is sth hidden deeper (literary) in the realm of tree-roots?? Searching for Canada Laval Univ and proff Giulles Lemieux with his theories for bootstrapping (word game) ramial chipped wood tech, and sylvasoil, You`ll get a wide knowledge that in rizosphere deep around each tree smallest roots habitats about 20 fold bigger bacterial and fungal communities (by a weight) as over-earth parts of that tree. So, if humankind wipes off the Planetary wood massives much faster as them grows back, we are releasing about 20 times more CO2 (bacterias rotten off and CO2 evaporates from soil)as previously thought.... Until today none a methodic in-calculates this heavy effect.

And what about Oceanic fog and clouds, making a naturalest sort of "warmhouse effect"?? Sorry to tell, but whole USA computer park summa of productivity is enough to modell the planetary cloud albedo effect a minute at 100 years of machine-time. This moment noone even not trying to think about such modelling possibility, yet clear is one - cloud albedo effect heavily overbeats all other Planetary heating players, and it has a most damn characteristic curve - the positive loop. As more planet warms up, the more clouds are formed, means planet are better packed, therefore more it is warming, so more vapour evaporated, more clouds forming etc etc.

5)Okay, enough with uncertainties, yet how to overstep the main problem about wrong time shift between CO2 and T?? It simple. Look in a Solar activity cycle and compare it to global Temp AND CO2. You shall realize, curves are copying each another with high accuracy but now the time shift is right.
First comes Sun activity, sequence is temperature raise, and last sequence is higher rate of decay (rottening) resulting a more CO2 so the loop is closed.
Sun we should judge and bring to the hook. Brothers, where Your ropes and soap pieces??

When US President councellors told him this ill dog nightmare, OF COURSE he said - I am caring about my nation wellness now and not about mytical threats in a future what perhaps even are inevitable.

However - about evitability. Seems the Solar cycle have begun to go downhill at last, so after century we will (perhaps) lament abot global freezing.

My conclusion - the planetary resources MUST be used with maximum economicalyy way. And technologies MUST be erected in a way giving less chemical effluents we are able to pay for. But Global Warming - its just the soup-bubble handy used by some scietists to try to drill in a brain such simple both truths to dumb politicians who otherhow would let a try for most ever seen poisonous technologies. The Global Warming is just the "emulator" of truth, and good. It works wery well. Except US, due their`s Presidents was`nt and are`nt plainly dumb. Sad, "we`re de-masked, sorry guys".

johny

01-03-2007, 05:32 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nachtsman : Face it things on and in this earth are far older than you'd like them to be ... denying them will not change the truth </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, wow. Even Bible is`nt linking the age of humankind with the age of PLANET. In it You`ll not find no quotes about the lenght of periods such as creating of Earth and about both times a light shine in the World. We can speak only chronology after Humans was created. All other let it be how much You want old.

1) As expected - 5000 and 12 000 years old - the interval where R-C method arent giving accuracy even by decay principle. Okay, good lab of course have a good laborants with a good laborant hands and highly repeatable "hand effects". But decay law noone are able to fool.

It states: at radiochemical reaction "1n + 14N ? 14C + 1p" carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years. Thus, inspite of the maximum theoretically possible covered past is ~60 000 years by R-C method ((http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating) the real precisity observed at practice are about one nil weaker - 6000 years or 4000 bce (and even at that You cant wait to tell with a sureness the small time differences). Natural background radiation "eats" it off.

However I am thankful to You I opened a Wiki page and find a brand new tech an AMS what I never heard be used for this aim. Okay, its good and not so dependent on laborant hand effect, if only use no a fire to free a carbon.

hm0504

01-03-2007, 09:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by johny:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do I understand you to be saying that 50% of scientists think the Earth is about 6000 years old?
Albinus </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Never noone said the idea of creationism must have obligatorium to be linked with such
enormous figure of years. .. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry johny, but the whole reason this topic got started in the first place was that the large majority of creationists believe the Earth is about 6000 years old. See the first post. I appreciate all your biblical analysis but another observation I have is that creationists and fundamentalists have, unfortunately, very little interest in truly academic study of the Bible.

Sauna

01-03-2007, 10:03 AM

The same happened here in tv news. The anchor who is Jehovas witnesse could not say how old the mammouth bone was. He only said it ws very old but no how old.

johny

01-03-2007, 01:44 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hm0504 Albinus:
1)Sorry johny, but the whole reason this topic got started in the first place was that the large majority of creationists believe the Earth is about 6000 years old. See the first post.
2)I appreciate all your biblical analysis but another observation I have is that creationists and fundamentalists have, unfortunately, very little interest in truly academic study of the Bible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif
1)Sorry, really I didnt read the first post. Mea culpa. However that people believing the PLANET is SO young miss something important and my advice for them is to study a bit, at least at the school where I am science teacher now or somewhere else.

2)About that Your observation I have no doubt, so I agree. May be that observation is the most sadest side of whole story. The religions, having no care about their "basic document", beliefs having no care about the real truth, and ideologies having no care about the justice. Something similar had marked in his writtings grand thinker Gandia, so double sad that nothing had been changed from his time until today.

l2ltlarry

01-03-2007, 11:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> quote:
hm0504 Albinus:
1)Sorry johny, but the whole reason this topic got started in the first place was that the large majority of creationists believe the Earth is about 6000 years old. See the first post.
2)I appreciate all your biblical analysis but another observation I have is that creationists and fundamentalists have, unfortunately, very little interest in truly academic study of the Bible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1)Sorry, really I didnt read the first post. Mea culpa. However that people believing the PLANET is SO young miss something important and my advice for them is to study a bit, at least at the school where I am science teacher now or somewhere else.

2)About that Your observation I have no doubt, so I agree. May be that observation is the most sadest side of whole story. The religions, having no care about their "basic document", beliefs having no care about the real truth, and ideologies having no care about the justice. Something similar had marked in his writtings grand thinker Gandia, so double sad that nothing had been changed from his time until today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As I see it, most people in both bible things and scientific things, tend to grasp one extreme with both hands or the other extreme with both hands. The wisdom (in my opinion) of Ecclesiates is, "Take hold of one extreme without letting go of the other extreme. The man of God avoids all extremes."

Seldom does anyone I encounter bother to look underneath the various translations of the Bible to ask, what does it really say before someone translated it into what they thought it said. For example Matthew 28, verses 19 and 20, Jesus gives what is called The Great Commission. When translations say, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations", the underlying word "disciples" is mathematicians. Seems pretty scientific to me. One definition of mathematician is a precise, rigorous, accurate thinker. I don't encounter very many people who claim the bible as their basis who seem to be that kind of thinkers.

Another example, if I may. In the gospel of John, starting at the beginning, the translations are not helpful at all; they are miserable and basically meaningless. The underlying words really say, "In the beginning was logic or intelligence, and logic or intelligence was with God (actually Theos, the underlying root of 'theory'), and logic or intelligence was God. Without logic or intelligence, nothing was made that was made." Some verses later, it says, "Logic or intelligence became a human being and lived on earth for a period of time." Meaning to me, that logic or intelligence opted to become its own creation, my guess is to fill an experience gap.

Question: Does science believe that there was no logic or intelligence involved in things coming into existence?

usmc1

01-04-2007, 05:11 AM

Larry et al,

Let's eliminate, shall we, from this disputation the notion that science can be extreme. By it's very definition, if it is extreme it is not science. The obvious corollary also works.

The scientific method is a complete disavowal of, and way to avoid extremism (among other errors) in research:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Furthermore, arguements based on the Bible are no more than self-perpetuating myths. Both bibles, old and new, were written by men long before the scientific method "evolved". All the elements of each were written long after the events described took place. Both have been subject to translation through various languages losing subtle and sometimes extremely major differences in meaning, not all the sources of writings were included--particularly those that did not fit the prevailing views of the time, whole passages were later eliminated or creatively added to prove or support a particular religious dogma at that point in history--and, later revised to correct that.

While the bible contains much wisdom about the human condition and how to conduct one's life in preparation for one's death as well as the Judeo-Christian beliefs concerning an afterlife and provides great comfort to many people, it hardly suffices as a source of information as to geology, botany, physics, or other sciences.

Nacktman is correct in his comparison of those who deny the veracity of physics and geology in the study of the earth's age and evolution and who rely, instead, on biblical myths and allegories as disputation for scientific evidence, as modern day flat worlders.

If one wants to attack the science, one has to find the flaws in the methodology or wrongful assumption of results from the procedure based on one's own application of the "scientific method", not attempt to rebut with mythology, personal belief or opinion.

Now to today's work, please pass up your homework, put away your texts, and have on your desk one sheet of paper and erasureless #2 pencil; we're having a pop quiz.

Stop the moaning, or I'll take five points off everyone's grades.

OK..Larry has asked: "Question: Does science believe that there was no logic or intelligence involved in things coming into existence?"

Now, keeping in mind that science is not about "belief", but rather about that which can be proven by the scientific method, tell us in three or less paragraphs what science "knows" about creative logic or intelligence behind "existance".

For 25 bonus points, in five, or less, paragraphs tell us if "string theory" provides any direction or clues for us in answering this question.

Mark, would you mind serving as proctor? There's this cute little undergrad who has asked for some help with her term paper on human anatomy, so I'll be in my office, if you need me--knock first, and wait ten or fifteen minutes.

harveym

01-04-2007, 01:16 PM

This argument between science and religion makes no sense. They come from such different philosophical bases that there can be no constructive discussion between the two approaches.

In science everything is open to question, nothing can be proven absolutely and all development is based on logical steps from some demonstrable point.

In religion, many things cannot be questioned and logical development occurs based on these unquestionable beliefs.

The discussion on this thread is a good example of where science and religion cannot communicate.

Personally, I think that a course on the Philosophy of Science should be required in all elemntary schools. It taught correctly it would teach children how to logically discuss issues in religion and science.

usmc1

01-04-2007, 02:22 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by harveym:
This argument between science and religion makes no sense. They come from such different philosophical bases that there can be no constructive discussion between the two approaches.

In science everything is open to question, nothing can be proven absolutely and all development is based on logical steps from some demonstrable point.

In religion, many things cannot be questioned and logical development occurs based on these unquestionable beliefs.

The discussion on this thread is a good example of where science and religion cannot communicate.

Personally, I think that a course on the Philosophy of Science should be required in all elemntary schools. It taught correctly it would teach children how to logically discuss issues in religion and science. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Science has proven many things with absolute certainty. Yellow fever in humans derives from pathogens delivered by a mosquito vector, rather than from breathing the miasma of swampy air as once "believed", would be an example of one of thsoe things.

Science requires proof!

Religion relies on faith and belief in unsubstantiated "revealed" truth and when adequately questioned always, when being fully honest, admits that it relies on "unproven" faith.

Religion requires no proof, only faith, belief and acceptance of dogma as factual without test or examination.

Philosophy, metaphysics and religion are related study disciplines, however, they are not sciences. They are liberal arts rather than science.

You're correct that science and religion come from different "bases". Your adjective of philosophical (bases) is incorrect, religion does come from a philosophical base, but science does not.

Reason, logic and thought apply to both, but science departs continues on when it requires the application of the scientific method.

The fact that the scientific method is subject to errors and flawed application does nothing to further the opinion that religion stands on an equal footing of proof!

As to kids and critical thinking skills, yep it would be nice. Hell, I'd just like to see them able to make change from a cash drawer properly without relying on the cash register.

harveym

01-05-2007, 07:11 AM

I think we are saying the same thing. I guess it depends upon how you define 'philosophy'.

Most systems that humans follow have a logical pattern. The problems are the premises from which they argue.

When I was training as a psychologist one thing we were taught early on is that even schizophrenics are completely logical. One just has to accept the base from which they are reasonong.

l2ltlarry

01-05-2007, 11:20 PM

Philo + sophy = a lover of + wisdom. What's wrong with loving or having great respect for wisdom?

l2ltlarry

01-05-2007, 11:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Reason, logic and thought apply to both </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When I quoted John's gospel, which says "In the beginning existed logic or intelligence...", an expanded version would include reason and rationality along with logic or intelligence.

Since the bible is a book of myths, it seems illogical that the "logic or intelligence in human form" (Jesus of Nazareth who is called the Christ) would commission the people who base their lives on his sayings, to go forth and promote "precise, rigorous, accurate thinking." As I said before, one doesn't typically associate that kind of thinking with the Christian faith.

By the way, underlying both words, 'religion' and 'intelligence' is the root word(s), 'ligare/ligere/legare/legere', meaning connected. Many other commonly-used word have the same root, e.g. league, colleague, college, and many more.

usmc1

01-06-2007, 06:00 AM

harveym

01-06-2007, 07:03 AM

My definition of philosophy is similar to the one found in wikipedia:

Philosophy (literally 'love of wisdom') is a subject in the Western intellectual tradition that is concerned with rational inquiry into issues of knowledge (What is it to know?), being (What is?), and conduct (What is right?).

Since science is the search for knowledge and truth it is a philisophical system.

You can have a philosophy of science and a philosophy of religion. You can't have a religion of science (I believe, as it implies an unquestionable belief), but you can have a science of religion which would be a rational examination as to the origins of religion.

usmc1

01-06-2007, 07:46 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by harveym:
My definition of philosophy is similar to the one found in wikipedia:

Philosophy (literally 'love of wisdom') is a subject in the Western intellectual tradition that is concerned with rational inquiry into issues of knowledge (What is it to know?), being (What is?), and conduct (What is right?).

Since science is the search for knowledge and truth it is a philisophical system.

You can have a philosophy of science and a philosophy of religion. You can't have a religion of science (I believe, as it implies an unquestionable belief), but you can have a science of religion which would be a rational examination as to the origins of religion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you misunderstand.

What you're describing as a "science of religion" is a field of study called Comparative Religion, and it is not a science, it is a liberal art and would be found within the Deparrtment of Philosophy.

Again, Science is science and philosophy is philosophy. They are as different as dogs and cats, even though from time to time they drink from the same bowl and get up up way too early in the morning.

The two can't be morphed or forced together. Religon is branch of philosophy. Geology, archeology, and physics are sciences.

All study is not science. Studying religion does not make that study a science. Thinking about science does not necessarily render those thoughts philosophy.

LamontCranston

01-06-2007, 10:37 AM

As much as usmc1 and I disagree, I have to throw in with his description here: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Science has proven many things with absolute certainty. Yellow fever in humans derives from pathogens delivered by a mosquito vector, rather than from breathing the miasma of swampy air as once "believed", would be an example of one of thsoe things.

Science requires proof!

Religion relies on faith and belief in unsubstantiated "revealed" truth and when adequately questioned always, when being fully honest, admits that it relies on "unproven" faith.

Religion requires no proof, only faith, belief and acceptance of dogma as factual without test or examination.

Philosophy, metaphysics and religion are related study disciplines, however, they are not sciences. They are liberal arts rather than science. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Notice his descriptions are objective, not right/wrong/judgement/one-better-than-the-other. [ maybe that's unintentional and one slipped by... http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif ]

It is actually a three-legged stool: science, religion, and philosophy. They each have a purpose - distinct from the other - in supporting TRUTH.

Passionate arguments usually stem from one camp or the other contending that their leg is the only one with a purpose.

One can't sit on a stool with only one leg, or with legs of differing lengths. Philosphy can pose a question. Science can determine the answer. Religion helps us with why.

It could be argued there was too much focus on philosophy in ancient Greece. It could be argued there was too much focus on religion during the Middle Ages. And perhaps there's too much focus on science today.

I don't know the entimology of the three words, but I do suspect HARMONY is what sits atop the stool, and harmony is not sitting comfortably in the times I live in..

hm0504

01-06-2007, 02:15 PM

Now that we've nicely set up clear distinctions between science and religion ... is the age of the Grand Canyon a matter for science or religion? Hmmm.

LamontCranston

01-06-2007, 02:44 PM

Dunno...

Is this a 40 million year old block of granite? Perhaps the object itself is what's relevant, not it's group of labels.

Big-Thinker

01-06-2007, 04:11 PM

Mark, I use this very same argument if ever someone confronts me on my understanding of evolution. I say that if evolution did indeed not happen, then God went through an awful lot of work to trick us into thinking that it did. It's like a crime scene where you have all evidence imaginable pointing to what happened, including a grainy video tape, tons of motive, etc.. Sure maybe its astronomically possible it didn't happen, but someone went to extreme lengths to arrange things to look like it did happen that way. When the person arguing with me responds "God doesn't deceive like that." I say... "exactly my point!"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By either definition, the belief in a 6000 year old Earth would be blasphemy.

I think The explanation of how G*d made everything and how everything in the universe works is a perfectly good religious definition of science.

But by either definition you must consider anyone who rejects the clear scientific evidence of an Earth that is billions of years as shown by fossils and the geological record as a blasphemer - because they are clearly saying that God filled his creation with false evidence of a different sort of creation. Creationists clearly believe GOD is a deceiver. Or that Satan has the power of creation. Either way - Blasphemy.

-Mark[/QUOTE]

vintagecarguy

01-07-2007, 03:32 AM

strange...
my pet trilobite wont talk about it..says humans get too crazy arguing about it.
Little bugger never would tell me her age and here I thought all along it was just vanity.

harveym

01-07-2007, 05:00 PM

Semantics about the applicability of the term 'philosophy' isn't the important point.

What is important and significant about science is that it provides predictibility. Based on knowledge about the earth derived from observation we can predict backward and derive an age for the Grand Canyon. We can also predict what will probably happen in the future based upon the same data. This holds true in all branches of the disciplines included unbder the term 'Science'.

I don't believe that this is true about religion. As far as I can see religions's major function is to provide the rational for destroying any who don't hold your beliefs. (It also provides a basis for some interesting art, architecture, music and literature, so there are some positives.)

LamontCranston

01-08-2007, 07:35 PM

So Harvey... <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Based on knowledge about the earth derived from observation we can predict backward and derive an age for the Grand Canyon. We can also predict what will probably happen in the future based upon the same data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Is it going to rain tomorrow? Maybe you need more data? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

Or is it just *some* science that predicts things..? Or is it we're not concerned with accuracy? After all, what's a few million years amongst friends.

Sanslines

01-09-2007, 05:00 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As far as I can see religions's major function is to provide the rational for destroying any who don't hold your beliefs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In so many case this is true. Religion is used to brainwash and to control people. Sadly, many people do not question or reflect upon the real meaning of their religion. Religion is SUPPOSED to be about love, compassion, tolerance, understanding, acceptance, and forgiveness. It is NOT supposed to be about judging others and rejecting or hating others because they don't follow your beliefs.

usmc1

01-09-2007, 05:23 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LamontCranston:
So Harvey... <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Based on knowledge about the earth derived from observation we can predict backward and derive an age for the Grand Canyon. We can also predict what will probably happen in the future based upon the same data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Is it going to rain tomorrow? Maybe you need more data? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

Or is it just *some* science that predicts things..? Or is it we're not concerned with accuracy? After all, what's a few million years amongst friends. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Weather forecasting is a skill based on the application of science (models, radar, application of fractals, climetology and such) and empiricism (looking out the window and seeing strato-cumulus clouds), and experince (my arthritis says its going to rain).

But, it is a skill, not a science. So inserting it as a premise in your argument does not suffice.

But, for your edification, physics is a pure science which indeed makes "predictions" as does math.

You need to dredge deeper to come with something with which to validly quibble with Harvey's statement.

I'd suggest his use of the word "observation" leaves him open to challenge. Seems to me it reeks of empiricism, which is the anathema of the scientific method

gamblefish

01-09-2007, 05:58 AM

Speaking of evidence, if this is indeed true, the FAQ page of the Gov't website for the Grand Canyon (http://www.nps.gov/grca/faqs.htm#old) does not reflect it:

"How old is the Canyon?

That's a tricky question. Although rocks exposed in the walls of the canyon are geologically quite old, the Canyon itself is a fairly young feature. The oldest rocks at the canyon bottom are close to 2000 million years old. The Canyon itself - an erosional feature - has formed only in the past five or six million years. Geologically speaking, Grand Canyon is very young."

usmc1

01-09-2007, 12:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gamblefish:
Speaking of evidence, if this is indeed true, the FAQ page of the Gov't website for the Grand Canyon (http://www.nps.gov/grca/faqs.htm#old) does not reflect it:

"How old is the Canyon?

That's a tricky question. Although rocks exposed in the walls of the canyon are geologically quite old, the Canyon itself is a fairly young feature. The oldest rocks at the canyon bottom are close to 2000 million years old. The Canyon itself - an erosional feature - has formed only in the past five or six million years. Geologically speaking, Grand Canyon is very young." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's the most likely source of this story and ongoing debate:

Published on Friday, November 19, 2004 by Time Magazine
Faith-Based Parks?
Creationists meet the Grand Canyon

by Leon Jaroff

At a park called Dinosaur Adventure Land, run by creationists near Pensacola, Florida, visitors are informed that man coexisted with dinosaurs. This fantasy accommodates the creationists’ view that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that Darwin’s theory of evolution is false. Among the park exhibits is one that illustrates another creationist article of faith. It consists of a long trough filled with sand and fitted at one end with a water spigot. Above the trough is a sign reading “That River Didn’t Make That Canyon.” When visitors open the spigot, the water quickly cuts a gully through the sand, supposedly demonstrating how the Grand Canyon was created, practically overnight, by Noah’s flood. That’s nonsense, of course, but what else would you expect at a creationist park? Certainly, one might think, this couldn’t be acceptable at, say, a National Park, right? Think again.
Two-thirds of the way across the continent, some four million people annually visit Grand Canyon National Park, marveling at the awesome view. In National Park Service (NPS) affiliated bookstores, they can find literature informing them that the great chasm runs for 277 miles along the bed of the Colorado River. It descends more than a mile into the earth, and along one stretch, is some 18 miles wide, its walls displaying impressive layers of limestone, sandstone, shale, schist and granite.

And, oh yes, it was formed about 4,500 years ago, a direct consequence of Noah’s Flood. How’s that? Yes, this is the ill-informed premise of “Grand Canyon, a Different View,” a handsomely-illustrated volume also on sale at the bookstores. It includes the writings of creationists and creation scientists and was compiled by Tom Vail, who with his wife operates Canyon Ministries, conducting creationist-view tours of the canyon. “For years,” Vail explains, “as a Colorado River guide, I told people how the Grand Canyon was formed over the evolutionary time span of millions of years. (Most geologists place the canyon’s age at some six million years). Then I met the Lord. Now I have a different view of the Canyon, which according to a biblical time scale, can’t possibly be more than a few thousand years old.”

Vail’s book attracted little notice when it first appeared in the NPS stores in 2003, until a critical review by Wilfred Elders, a respected University of California geologist, brought it to light and took apart its pseudoscientific claims. That led David Shaver, who heads the Geologic Resources Division of the Park Service, to send a memo to headquarters urging that the book be removed from the NPS stores. “It is not based on science,” he wrote, “ but on a specific religious doctrine…and should not have been approved for in NPS affiliated book stores.”

The presidents of The American Geological Institute and six of its member societies also weighed in, expressing their dismay to the Park Service. Noting that the Grand Canyon “provides a remarkable and unique opportunity to educate the public about Earth science,” the scientists urged that, “in fairness to the millions of park visitors, we must clearly distinguish religious from scientific knowledge.”

But when Grand Canyon National Park superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale of Vail’s book at canyon bookstores, he was overruled by NPS headquarters, which announced that a high-level policy review of the matter would be launched and a decision made by February, 2004. So far, no official decision has been announced.

Even worse, according to the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), an organization that includes many Park employees, papers obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that no review has ever taken place. Indeed, PEER claims that the Bush Administration has already decided it will stand by its approval for the book and that hundreds more have been ordered. “Now that the book has become quite popular,” explained an NPS flack to a Baptist news agency, “we don’t want to remove it.”

Even more troubling, PEER charges that Grand Canyon National Park no longer offers an official estimate of the age of the canyon, and that the NPS has blocked publication of guidance intended for park rangers that reminds them there is no scientific basis for creationism. The group has been increasingly concerned about what it calls the Park Service’s “Faith-Based Parks” and the agency’s seeming indifference to the separation of church and state Among other moves, for example, NPS has allowed the placing of bronze plaques bearing Psalm verses at Grand Canyon overlooks. PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch is indignant, “If the Bush Administration is using public resources for pandering to Christian fundamentalists, it should at least have the decency to tell the truth about it.”

Is this religious bias, as some creationists charge? Hardly. It’s more than likely that the majority of scientists, environmentalists and others protesting the NPS stand are themselves intelligent, rational Christians who are convinced by overwhelming evidence that the Grand Canyon is no Johnny-Come-Lately. The creationists have demonstrated again that they are scientifically illiterate, and out of step with the 21st century.

Leon Jaroff was the founding managing editor of DISCOVER, the newsmagazine of science, and was a longtime correspondent, writer and editor for TIME and LIFE.

Additionally, the Institute for Creation Research has been leading tours through the Grand Canyon with their creationist spiel and spin.

But, I can not find any evidence out there that the NPS has been "instructed" to present the "Ceationist" view of the canyon's age to visitors.

Not exactly an urban legend, but a misinterpreetaion of known facts.

1. Serious scientists want a "Creationist" (non-scientific book removed from NPS bookstores.

2. Creationist groups (not NPS guides) escort tours of their compadres using spiels presenting the their views.

So, can we agree there are no dragons at the bottom, and one will not hurtle from the edge of the earth should one travel too far west.

Naturist Mark

01-09-2007, 04:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But, I can not find any evidence out there that the NPS has been "instructed" to present the "Ceationist" view of the canyon's age to visitors. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That isn't the issue. The issue was that the NPS STOPPED the telling of the scientific consensus on the age of the canyon. "Even more troubling, PEER charges that Grand Canyon National Park no longer offers an official estimate of the age of the canyon, and that the NPS has blocked publication of guidance intended for park rangers that reminds them there is no scientific basis for creationism."

In other words, Park Employees are expected to keep quiet about any science that contradicts a very specific misinformed religious dogma of a particular religious group. Why no equal treatment of the Turtle (http://members.tripod.com/TheoLarch/turtle.html) version of reality?

-Mark (turtles all the way down)

Baron Lake

01-09-2007, 04:57 PM

They only have to go down to where the irresistable force meets the unmovable object.

b.l.

LamontCranston

01-09-2007, 05:31 PM

Fair nuff usmc1... To recap, Harvey sez, <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Based on knowledge about the earth derived from observation we can predict backward and derive an age for the Grand Canyon. We can also predict what will probably happen in the future based upon the same data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> From such knowledge of the earth what can we predict?
Path and strength of hurricanes?
Tornado formation?
Earthquakes within a decade and 100 miles?
A tsunami?
When global warming will peak?
How long beachfront property will still be on the beach?

I don't quibble with the ascertion. I'm an engineer and know about extrapolating evidence. But a distinctly *unscientific* statement like, "what will probably happen.." could reveal someone who's faith in the scientific method isn't really much different than my faith in religion.

And Mark, with all due respect, <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The oldest rocks at the canyon bottom are close to 2000 million years old. The Canyon itself - an erosional feature - has formed only in the past five or six million years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> at 0.25% the age of the bedrock, within measuement error of 2,000 million years old the Grand Canyon doesn't even exist http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/idea3.gif

When science throws around fantastic numbers like that it's hard to take seriously.

Here's what's interesting --
Nacky says the Sphinx is 12,000 years old or more as proven by water erosion features. Where'd the water go when compared to the steady stream of 5 million years?
How'd the river that formed the Canyon sustain a flow (or repeatedly resume its flow) during many Ice Age cycles?

How can we use that knowledge to hydrate a desert into farm land?

Applied Science now we're talking.

usmc1

01-09-2007, 06:31 PM

Unless one fully understand, Lamont, fractals and chaos theory one can cling to the notion that certain things will forever remain inscrutable and unpredictable for science.

To assert that because one or more things remain unpredictable by science does not substantiate that all or any other thing is not predictable.

If you're going to argue against Harvey, you nee to disprove that what he claims is predictable is not predictable, not that other things are not predictable.

You ask, how did the water flow sustain itself? Who knows, but, I can say this with tremendous certainty, there is a very strong liklihood that it is now part of vast underground rivers and lakes in the Southwest of the United States and with the proper upheavals, plate shifts and climate changes could very well become, once again, a surface flow.

I read a few years ago, a fascinating book that included a chapter or two about such as that. I think its title was "Water".

Naturist Mark

01-09-2007, 07:44 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How'd the river that formed the Canyon sustain a flow (or repeatedly resume its flow) during many Ice Age cycles? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The white line is the approximate southern limit of glaciation during the ice age cycles:

http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/geology/features/images/glaciallimit.gif

The Colorado river system (http://www.durangobill.com/PaleoriversPart1.html) existed long before the ice age cycles began and continued throughout the ice age cycles, far south of the glaciated areas. The ice ages actually resulted in a wetter climate than existed during the river's pre ice age existence. Indeed the Colorado existed when the Rocky Mountains were much smaller than they are now - the Grand Canyon itself is the result of the gradual (but geologically rapid) uplift of the land while the river flowed through it. If not for the gradual uplift from a lower level plain, the canyon would never have been formed because the Colorado would have been diverted to another course.

Rivers don't flow uphill, but the plateau above the Canyon is higher than the elevation of the river's course upstream, the only explanation is that the plateau started out lower, and gradually rose through geological uplift - the river maintaining its course by carving the canyon.

-Mark (Turtles all the way down)

nacktman

01-09-2007, 08:28 PM

Ah, Mark leave us remember actual data and facts are not what the petitioner truly desires.

The world is flat and the heavens revolve around it ... nothing is going to change that! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif

DoctorSurferDude

01-09-2007, 09:15 PM

I'm a creationist... I've seen some irrefutable evidence to support a creation model. I've also seen irrefutable evidence to support an evolutionary model. But I've never seen absolute evidence either way....just unexplainable evidence credited to both.

When it comes to geologic formations like the Grand Canyon, I don't think the argument is on whether or not water formed it. It was certainly water. The fact that a glacier sat there doesn't say much about timelines. We still have glaciers.

A deeper question isi how did the polar caps and glaciers form to begin with? Evolutionists/Big Bang theorists will claim it weather patterns, deep ocean currents, earth axis shifts, etc. in support of their theory. Creationists will cite flood evidence, talk about seashells on Mount Everest, discuss mammoths found frozen in ice with grass in their mouths, etc. Which one is right?

Maybe both.... The thing is, each party is very selective in their evidence gathering. Both will make excuses for the other's evidence such that it inevitabley becomes a CIRCULAR DEBATE. Neither party has enough evidence to make a conclusion, and neither has enough evidence to disprove other.

Either way, it boils down to FAITH. Creationists place their faith in the God/Flood/Bible model, and see the evidence through those goggles. Scientists place their faith in Mankind/Billions of years/Textbooks and see the evidence through those goggles.

Whether one places their faith in creation or in science is an individual choice. Either is a suitable religion http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

LamontCranston

01-10-2007, 04:21 AM

Right, but I'm still fishing for an example of something we can predict based on observations of the Earth sciences. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you're going to argue against Harvey, you nee to disprove that what he claims is predictable is not predictable, not that other things are not predictable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Will the Mississippi R. become a canyon too? Or the river feeding the Niagara Falls?

I'm not arguing *against* Harvey, I'm fishing for examples of predictions. Or is it that everything takes millions and billions of years, so I need to take it on faith.

I agree with the SurferDude..
There's a lot more faith in scientific theories than folks like to admit. I don't believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old (an number which does not appear in scripture) but I don't listen when people say, "millions of years either way, I'm sure of it."

And thanks for the graphic, Mark. I thought the glaciers descended much farther south.

nacktman

01-10-2007, 05:03 AM

Flat-worlders denying the evidence and fabricating their own even has the ship's mainmast gets shorter on the horizon.

(Clue: if the world was flat the mainmast would remain the same proportionally until it just disappeared all together when it reached the distance away that the human eye could no longer make out the details ... instead it appeared to shrink in height the farther away it would get, thus proving that the horizon was in fact curved, and one can not be flat and curved the only way to be curved is to be rounded. Second clue: the majority of the people knew the world was rounded then as well.)

Just as the flat-worlders were a very small minority doing their "time", creationists are just so today. Both shrill in their denials and belief in lies. Both laughed at with hysteric fits of hold your back and bend at the waist hilarity by the rest of the world.

Given the data and evidence to prove beyond doubt that they are completely in error they still bay at the moon and caterwaul incessantly their dogma (and yes I mean DOGMA - as it is their religious dogma not actual truth that they believe in), with their fingers in their ears and their eyes shut ... now if only they'd do like the third monkey and not speak ...

Naturist Mark

01-10-2007, 05:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The fact that a glacier sat there doesn't say much about timelines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There WASN'T a glacier on the Grand Canyon's plateau during the formation of the Canyon or since. It is too far south.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Will the Mississippi R. become a canyon too? Or the river feeding the Niagara Falls? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Canyon forming reguires a change in elevation and a low outlet, otherwise you just get a slow river that maintains its elevation by depositing sediment, or a lake. The Mississipi has carved a very shallow canyon along much of its length - that is the cause of the bluffs you see miles in the distance. The Canyon of the Niagara exists downstream from the falls, this is canyon making in progress, baring human intervention the falls will continue to move southward towards Lake Erie.

-Mark

Sanslines

01-10-2007, 07:27 AM

I dunno about the glacier map. At least in the Northeast, glaciers extended further south then the map indicates. Must be a very rough approximation.

gamblefish

01-10-2007, 08:32 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
Flat-worlders denying the evidence and fabricating their own even has the ship's mainmast gets shorter on the horizon.

(Clue: if the world was flat the mainmast would remain the same proportionally until it just disappeared all together when it reached the distance away that the human eye could no longer make out the details ... instead it appeared to shrink in height the farther away it would get, thus proving that the horizon was in fact curved, and one can not be flat and curved the only way to be curved is to be rounded. Second clue: the majority of the people knew the world was rounded then as well.)

Just as the flat-worlders were a very small minority doing their "time", creationists are just so today. Both shrill in their denials and belief in lies. Both laughed at with hysteric fits of hold your back and bend at the waist hilarity by the rest of the world.

Given the data and evidence to prove beyond doubt that they are completely in error they still bay at the moon and caterwaul incessantly their dogma (and yes I mean DOGMA - as it is their religious dogma not actual truth that they believe in), with their fingers in their ears and their eyes shut ... now if only they'd do like the third monkey and not speak ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoa, a "mad" smiley and everything...this sounds like caterwaulin' to me. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif

I've been thinking about your "flat-worlder" analogy.

In their time, the flat-worlders were the vocal majority. They were convinced they were right, and they laughed at the round-worlders, which, as it turned out, were really the ones who were right. So...that makes you the flat-worlder and us creationists the round-worlders...neener neener neener!!! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/tongue.gif

hm0504

01-10-2007, 09:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
...
A deeper question isi how did the polar caps and glaciers form to begin with? Evolutionists/Big Bang theorists will claim it weather patterns, deep ocean currents, earth axis shifts, etc. in support of their theory. Creationists will cite flood evidence, talk about seashells on Mount Everest, discuss mammoths found frozen in ice with grass in their mouths, etc. Which one is right?

Maybe both.... The thing is, each party is very selective in their evidence gathering. Both will make excuses for the other's evidence such that it inevitabley becomes a CIRCULAR DEBATE. Neither party has enough evidence to make a conclusion, and neither has enough evidence to disprove other.

Either way, it boils down to FAITH. Creationists place their faith in the God/Flood/Bible model, and see the evidence through those goggles. Scientists place their faith in Mankind/Billions of years/Textbooks and see the evidence through those goggles.
... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong! scientists do not place their faith in "Mankind/Billions of years/Textbooks"; they place it in empirically measurable data and postulate from that. For example, the age of the Universe can be ascertained by measuring the distance between stars and galaxies and measuring the speed of light, forces of gravity, and velocities of objects. These measurements easily and clearly show the Universe is Billions of years old.

As I espoused earlier, an authentic creationist would also be arguing that the Earth is the centre of the Universe just as the church argued, because the Bible said so, for centuries after Copernicus and Galileo.

usmc1

01-10-2007, 09:58 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
...
A deeper question isi how did the polar caps and glaciers form to begin with? Evolutionists/Big Bang theorists will claim it weather patterns, deep ocean currents, earth axis shifts, etc. in support of their theory. Creationists will cite flood evidence, talk about seashells on Mount Everest, discuss mammoths found frozen in ice with grass in their mouths, etc. Which one is right?

Maybe both.... The thing is, each party is very selective in their evidence gathering. Both will make excuses for the other's evidence such that it inevitabley becomes a CIRCULAR DEBATE. Neither party has enough evidence to make a conclusion, and neither has enough evidence to disprove other.

Either way, it boils down to FAITH. Creationists place their faith in the God/Flood/Bible model, and see the evidence through those goggles. Scientists place their faith in Mankind/Billions of years/Textbooks and see the evidence through those goggles.
... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong! scientists do not place their faith in "Mankind/Billions of years/Textbooks"; they place it in empirically measurable data and postulate from that. For example, the age of the Universe can be ascertained by measuring the distance between stars and galaxies and measuring the speed of light, forces of gravity, and velocities of objects. These measurements easily and clearly show the Universe is Billions of years old.

As I espoused earlier, an authentic creationist would also be arguing that the Earth is the centre of the Universe just as the church argued, because the Bible said so, for centuries after Copernicus and Galileo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, observing, measuring and postulating is part of the process, but proving those postulations require more. hence the scientific method, publication and peer review.

They don't just pluck those things out of their bum and insist on them as fact, as the religionist do.

hm0504

01-10-2007, 10:25 AM

You are right usmc1 but what I'm saying is that with reference to what scientists have "faith" in, is the objective data. Scientists have peer reviews exactly because they do not have faith (absolute, unquestionable trust) in their postulations.

DoctorSurferDude

01-10-2007, 03:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Wrong! scientists do not place their faith in "Mankind/Billions of years/Textbooks"; they place it in empirically measurable data and postulate from that. For example, the age of the Universe can be ascertained by measuring the distance between stars and galaxies and measuring the speed of light, forces of gravity, and velocities of objects. These measurements easily and clearly show the Universe is Billions of years old.

As I espoused earlier, an authentic creationist would also be arguing that the Earth is the centre of the Universe just as the church argued, because the Bible said so, for centuries after Copernicus and Galileo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are as many different kinds of creationists as there are evolutionists, you should try not to lump the whole gambit together as a bunch of old world fools.

I have a degree in Biology with a minor in Molecular Cell Biology, I've read books and taken classes soley dedicated to qualitative analysis, spent countless hours in labs collecting and reporting data so I consider myself a little more than a novice when it comes to understanding and practicing the scientific method. So if you want to blast a "Wrong!" at me for saying that scientists DO have a form of faith and religion, and that they place their trust in themsleves, their books, and their billion year theories, then that is your opinion. But please forgive me if I assume that your expressions stem more from a grudge against christianity than from an actual scientific background or experience.

To those who hold SCIENCE up on a pedastal, let me explain something... We don't know very much at all. In binary code, on vs. off is annotated with a 1 or 0, that is a single "bit of information". Now, if you look inside a single cell, microscopically, there are more bits of information (more events) occuring within that cell than there are in the entire universe outside of it, earth included. We havn't even begun to scratch the surface of understanding even the most simple cellular events. We, as scientists, just come up with a story (theories) based on the limited things we can see and then write into textbooks "here is how DNA replicates". People who read these textbooks assume it is hard unquestionable scientific evidence, but if you ever move past the textbooks you'll quickly learn that things which seem so simple in books are vastly more complex in real life, and those very things which seem well documented and well explained, may never be explained or truely understood.

In terms of space....we look out hoping to find answers. 50 or so years ago we peered to what we thought was the edge of our "universe" or galaxy....and saw a red shift and scientists said "There you go....red is a radiologic marker of expansion....concrete evidence of an expanding universe and solid proof of the big bang theory", and that was quickly adopted as unquestionable evidence and adopted deeply into the astronomic psyche. A few decades pass and we developed bigger better telescopes...and low and behold the red shifting universe/galaxy is not the end of the map, as it turns out we are not the only galaxy, there are many, so far it seems endless. And what we thought we were looking at as the "edge of the universe" 40 years ago turns out to be short sighted, since the further we look the more we see, those scientists are having to recalculate everything. In case you havn't been keeping up, the latest reports are a bit of a mixed bag depending where you look. There are still unquestionable reports of red shifting, which you'll find heralded in Scientific America and other publications, but there are also many reports of unquestionable blue shifting, which speaks of a collapsing universe. So basically the rug has been pulled out from underneath the establishment and CURRENTLY they are scrambling to recalibrate their theories of an "expanding universe". One explaination is that the edge of the universe might be kind of an amorphic blob, much like a large scale amoeba. So it is a current FACT that we can no longer say that we live in an expanding universe as science so long held. We can hope that we do (faith), and we can hope that we don't (faith), but any scientist who keeps preaching that kind of rhetoric needs to be questioned. Many questioned it before the new evidence arose. Now the old scientists are questioning themselves as they try to explain why their scientific model was wrong. But all it proves for certain is that SCIENCE knows much less than it thinks it does, and that the more we look, the more we look the more we come back with questions that cannot be readily explained. The thing is, Science was never meant to answer....it was only meant to be a method for answering questions and forming new hypotheses so as to answer more questions.....there is never an answer, that is just poor science to those who try.

One final thought before I go to Target.

When viewed externally, a sponge appears to be a fairly solid object. But any microscopic animal who has ever lived in a sponge will quickly tell you that there is much more empty space in there than there is filled space. They will also quicky recommend against placing much weight on the sponge, especially if anything of meaning depends on it. SCIENCE is like that sponge, mostly empty and void of answers, but somehow has managed to convince people that it is solid. Of course there will be those who cry heresy with religious fervor, but to those individuals...all I can say is, you havn't been inside the sponge.

nacktman

01-10-2007, 04:43 PM

Nope, yer wrong Gamble, the flat-worlders were a very small minority of the populus of their time just as creationists are today and just as shrill and belicose as well.

As a matter of fact surferdude I have been in a sponge off the eastern side of the Great Barrier Reef and surferdude it's a lot more SOLID than you think.

The analogy is that a sponge (read: science) can take all the pressure in the world distorting it from its true form and still return to its true form when the pressure is released ... a rock (read: religion) can not take all the pressure of the world distorting it from its true form without its form being warped forever when the pressure is released.

Fresh Air

01-10-2007, 05:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY — Orders to Cater to Creationists. See here.

When is the Park Service ever going to cater to nudists?!

Soundman </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pride is a bigger factor than anything else.

The usual situation is this:
A complain is filed due to theory and approximation being presented as fact. Powers that be still want something presented as fact, instead of how it is meant to be presented in science. Lawsuit filled. No recant....

For, if there was a recant, then there would be a theory and when there are theories, there are alternatives, and if there are alternatives, then they deserve to be proportionally addressed and nobody wants that.

Solution: Just take it all away.

Motto: Don't share.

Theme: Self Righteousness.

Purpose: None.

It's not science that causes these tragedys to happen. It is the fear to address things as they are and precieved inability to compromise for more than a singularity of scientific opinion.

http://www.prochoiceproject.com/graphics/R65.gif

LamontCranston

01-10-2007, 05:29 PM

Mark,
Thanks for staying with me. That glacial map is cool. I'd like to see that line around the other continents.

I've been to Niagara Falls and what you say about it moving west over time is true. It's leaving a whitewater canyon behind it.

It could become another Grand Canyon with the Great Lakes there feeding it for millenia.

On the other hand, I figure the Mississippi River will be more like New Orleans working it's way north, rather than a canyon. Too much silt is carried along and deposited. Plus, there's a fault line near there that'll end up diverting the river's path before a million years passes.

So, it I can stretch your research skills a bit further --
Given a GIANT chunk of ice shelf broke off this month, when do the experts say the Arctic Circle will break up. We called that ice-out in New Hampshire.

And I ask because I'm interested, not because I'm prodding.

I'm a science fiction fan and remember reading a novel many years ago where the author postulated a flip in the Earth's magnetic field. It's happened several times, but in the story it's happens "next week."

As for science and creationism... what matters really is what I do today. I find as I grow older that religion serves me better. But that's just me.

And Nackty... when your ship gets out there, can you peek over the edge and tell us whether it's Atlas or the Turtles? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

Fresh Air

01-10-2007, 05:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Wrong! scientists do not place their faith in "Mankind/Billions of years/Textbooks"; they place it in empirically measurable data and postulate from that. For example, the age of the Universe can be ascertained by measuring the distance between stars and galaxies and measuring the speed of light, forces of gravity, and velocities of objects. These measurements easily and clearly show the Universe is Billions of years old.

As I espoused earlier, an authentic creationist would also be arguing that the Earth is the centre of the Universe just as the church argued, because the Bible said so, for centuries after Copernicus and Galileo.

Albinus </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I could agree that "science" doesn't have a place for faith...but science is a blind judge of data. Humans are not.

Faith is a part of every human. When you hear a scientific opinion, you need to screen for faith. The most common "faith" in evolution is what I call a "faith in time". It works like this...

Observed: a small change

Assumed: A huge amount of time and nothing more than the natural world (this is a belief).

Faith: "Well, given enough time, that 'small change' could lead to 'X'.

Faith and belief are even more rampant in the populous of laymen who have no background in true science. There some sort of imaginary picture of science that they find reassurance in and actually place belief and faith in enough to consider it a reality. Science is guessing and asking questions. There is nothing certain about it, so we can't treat it as such.

I don't believe what you say a creationist must be. However, I consider myself an authentic creationist. With knowledge comes understanding and you can't judge anyone for having a lack of knowledge. There was a time when the whole world didn't know any better. I accept evolution and I understand evolution theory better than 95% of the US population. There are no lines...unless we choose to draw them. What we have is a spectrum.

BTW, Copernicus and Galileo were both creationists...

Fresh Air

01-10-2007, 05:51 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nope, yer wrong Gamble, the flat-worlders were a very small minority of the populus of their time just as creationists are today and just as shrill and belicose as well.

As a matter of fact surferdude I have been in a sponge off the eastern side of the Great Barrier Reef and surferdude it's a lot more SOLID than you think.

The analogy is that a sponge (read: science) can take all the pressure in the world distorting it from its true form and still return to its true form when the pressure is released ... a rock (read: religion) can not take all the pressure of the world distorting it from its true form without its form being warped forever when the pressure is released. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure where you got your statistics. Most people believe in some form of creation. The errors in this preception can arise depending on how the questions are asked.

Here's a better question asked by CBS news:
Do you believe God was not involved in the process that led upto life on earth?
Yes = 13%
No = 87%

I would consider that 87% creationists...

Also, by your response, I don't think you understood surferdudes anology. But, so you get it, here's sponge anatomy 101:

Sponges are made up of water, living tissue and a supportive matrix. If we disolve everythihng living/transient, and look at it carefully, we don't see the solid structure that it appears to be with a superficial look, we get a structure like this...
http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/faculty/sally_leys/uploads/personal/bleached%20%20skeleton%20copy.jpg

The sponge is made up of many individual and mobile (transient) animals (ideas). When examined form the outside at a distance, it might appear to be very solid. However, for those who have the skills and knowledge to probe deeper, it is hardly as solid as it seems.

Evolution is exactly like that. Many ideas, transient ideas upclose, appears solid from the outside, is actually very unsolid on the inside.

http://bio1152.nicerweb.com/doc/class/bio1152/Locked/media/ch33/33_04SpongeAnatomy.gif

nacktman

01-10-2007, 08:20 PM

Fresh, those numbers are only from the USA and do not come close to the true picture of the world's populus.
What is that citation again ... "There are more things in the heavens and the earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio!", or words to that affect.

I have the skills needed to "probe deeper", and have, and know the indefensable dogma of creationists and religion in general for what it is.
Also, while I am by no means the world's foremost expert on sponges I did learn a few things in all those biology, cellular biology, oceanography, physics, engineering, chemistry, and theology classes I had while obtaining my education.
Besides any second hour Palentology student can tell you that 'nothing' can not be fossilized and only objects that are solid* can be, and the vast number of fossilized sponges found already point to their solidity.
*(ok at the vary minutest molecular level absolutly nothing is "solid" as all matter is in state of constent "movement", but for the purposes here they're 'solid'.)

The canyon was formed due to the changes in elevation and the constant flow of the river over a forty million year span with the last 6 million years or so forming the canyon we see today. The reason there is exposed rock of varying ages of billions to millions of yeras old is due to the upheavals in the plain over the forty million year span were of differing intensity abd duration ... raising and lowering the area several times.

DoctorSurferDude

01-10-2007, 11:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
The canyon was formed due to the changes in elevation and the constant flow of the river over a forty million year span with the last 6 million years or so forming the canyon we see today. The reason there is exposed rock of varying ages of billions to millions of yeras old is due to the upheavals in the plain over the forty million year span were of differing intensity abd duration ... raising and lowering the area several times. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now...did you observe that directly? Or did you read that in a book somewhere?

It is a valid theory, no discredit to the author. There is, however, the assumption of 40 million and 6 million years, the validity of carbon sampling, and the resting issue that the grand canyon is very large and scientists have studied far far less than 1% of it, typically picking the most ideal locations to gather their data....

So, that is one theory, there are dozens of others, how shall we choose? Which should be preached?

Sanslines

01-11-2007, 04:51 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So, that is one theory, there are dozens of others, how shall we choose? Which should be preached? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The scientific method is the generally accepted way of acquuiring new knowledge. In general, someone postulates a theory. It is then up to a group of experts in that field to prove or disprove that theory. If the theory is proven, then it eventually becomes part of the accepted body of scientific evidence. It is important to note that theories are not fact. They are ideas, suggestions, or postulates and must undergo the rigorous scientific approach before they become fact or scientific laws.

ie:

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning[1].

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. These steps are repeated in order to make increasingly dependable predictions of future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry serve to bind more specific hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn aids in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of specific hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective so that the scientist does not bias the interpretation of the results or change the results outright. Another basic expectation is that of making complete documentation of data and methodology available for careful scrutiny by other scientists and researchers, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempted reproduction of them. This also allows statistical measures of the reliability of the results to be established. The scientific method also may involve attempts, if possible and appropriate, to achieve control over the factors involved in the area of inquiry, which may in turn be manipulated to test new hypotheses in order to gain further knowledge.

Sanslines

01-11-2007, 05:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The analogy is that a sponge (read: science) can take all the pressure in the world distorting it from its true form and still return to its true form when the pressure is released ... a rock (read: religion) can not take all the pressure of the world distorting it from its true form without its form being warped forever when the pressure is released. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a broad generalization that is not exactly true. The proper scientific terms to be referred to here are deformation and elasticity:

In engineering mechanics, deformation is a change in shape due to an applied force. This can be a result of tensile (pulling) forces, compressive (pushing) forces, shear, bending or torsion (twisting). Deformation is often described in terms of strain.

In the figure it can be seen that the compressive loading (indicated by the arrow) has caused deformation in the cylinder so that the original shape (dashed lines) has changed (deformed) into one with bulging sides. The sides bulge because the material, although strong enough to not crack or otherwise fail, is not strong enough to support the load without change, thus the material is forced out laterally. Deformation may be temporary, as a spring returns to its original length when tension is removed, or permanent as when an object is irreversibly bent or broken.The concept of a rigid body can be applied if the deformation is negligible. Depending on the type of material, size and geometry of the object, and the forces applied, various types of deformation may result.

Elastic deformation

This type of deformation is reversible. Once the forces are no longer applied, the object returns to its original shape. As the name implies, elastic (rubber) has a rather large elastic deformation range. Soft thermoplastics and metals have moderate elastic deformation ranges while ceramics, crystals, and hard thermosetting plastics undergo almost no elastic deformation.

Misconceptions
A popular misconception is that all materials that bend are "weak" and all those which don't are "strong". In reality, many materials which undergo large elastic and plastic deformations, such as steel, are able to absorb stresses which would cause brittle materials, such as glass, with minimal elastic and plastic deformation ranges, to break. There is even a parable to describe this observation (paraphrased below):

"The mighty oak stands strong and firm before the wind, while the willow yields to the slightest breeze. However, in the strongest storm, the oak will break while the willow will bend, and thus survive. So, in the end, which is the stronger of the two ?"

Elasticity

Elasticity is the property of an object or material which causes it to be restored to its original shape after distortion. It is said to be more elastic if it restores itself more precisely to its original configuration. A rubber band is easy to stretch, and snaps back to near its original length when released, but it is not as elastic as a piece of piano wire. The piano wire is harder to stretch, but would be said to be more elastic than the rubber band because of the precision of its return to its original length. A real piano string can be struck hundreds of times without stretching enough to go noticeably out of tune. A spring is an example of an elastic object - when stretched, it exerts a restoring force which tends to bring it back to its original length. This restoring force is generally proportional to the amount of stretch, as described by Hooke's Law. For wires or columns, the elasticity is generally described in terms of the amount of deformation (strain) resulting from a given stress (Young's modulus). Bulk elastic properties of materials describe the response of the materials to changes in pressure.

Naturist Mark

01-11-2007, 05:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now...did you observe that directly? Or did you read that in a book somewhere? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a misconception that scientific observation is only valid if directly observed.

Science reveals the past by precise measurement of the evidence in existence today. By experimental validation of dating techniques. By rigorous comparisons of such results with known exemplars. And many other objective means of validation. Valid science doesn't just wave a hand and say this or that is so - no matter how urgently its critics wish that were so.

-Mark

nacktman

01-11-2007, 06:14 AM

Sanslines, thanks for the more detailed response, but as I was going for the lower intellectual level I used a simple to understand analogy.
Obivously, I missed the target demographic with my posting.
Because the demographic showed that they still were unable to comprehend even as simplified of an analogy that I used as proved by their responding posting.

hm0504

01-11-2007, 09:05 AM

Well, there's been a lot of responses to my last post so I'll just try to sum things up in one counter-response.

Much of the discussion has centered on the notion that if one believes that God may have participated in some way in the creation of the universe and of mankind, then one is the creationist. If that is true, then count me and Charles Darwin as creationists too. As far as Copernicus and Galileo being creationists too, sure why not. Too bad both the Roman Catholic and many Protestant churches certainly didn't think so for a few hundred years and opposed them and their cohorts so vehemently.

I'm well aware there is a spectrum of creationists -- in my preceding comments, I am only refering to those who fall into the category of believing the Earth is no older than 10,000 years because that is their interpretation of the Bible and they reject any contradictory information from any source, scientific or otherwise. If you are a creationist who believes the Earth is billions of years old and that life has been on Earth much of that time but reject evolution, theistic or otherwise, it would be great to hear from you.

I find myself in strong agreement with Dr. Francis Collins, a very active Christian and head of the Human Genome Project, that Creationism (the 6000 year variety) is a perversion of both Christianity and science.

xgsft

01-11-2007, 09:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by soundman:
HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY — Orders to Cater to Creationists. See here. (http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801)

When is the Park Service ever going to cater to nudists?! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is just completely retarded. Haven't these people hindered science enough? Blind faith can't hold out to the truth forever, holding the ears, closing the eyes, and yelling "La! La! La!" can only work so long. While I don't care what a person beleaves, do not force your faith on another. *Don't try putting science as faith as it CAN be proven*

Baron Lake

01-11-2007, 01:33 PM

Hey, how come my last two posts have the same number? Gad I'll never make "gold"
b.l.

gamblefish

01-11-2007, 02:51 PM

Now isn't this thread just the shining example of how nudists/naturists are the most friendly, kind, accepting people you would ever want to meet!! Boooooooyaaa!!!!!

Naturist Mark

01-11-2007, 03:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Boooooooyaaa!!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I counter your Boooooyaaa with a minty flower:
http://dnr.state.il.us/lands/education/ExoticSpecies/images/catnip.jpg

-Mark

gamblefish

01-11-2007, 04:51 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

I counter your Boooooyaaa with a minty flower:
http://dnr.state.il.us/lands/education/ExoticSpecies/images/catnip.jpg

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

NOW-WAIT-HERE-JUS-ONE-MIN-IT!! (Quick Draw McGraw anyone?)

I know what that is Mark, and I find your droll humor very.......well.....droll.

Adopt, adapt and improve as the British boy scouts would say...perhaps we can lure Killer here with that foul weed so's we could throw him into the aforementioned, not-so-very-old Grand Canyon. Double Booooooya!!

Naturist Mark

01-11-2007, 05:18 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm well aware there is a spectrum of creationists -- in my preceding comments, I am only refering to those who fall into the category of believing the Earth is no older than 10,000 years </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, there are Creationists and then there are creationists (http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/origins.htm) .

Science by its very nature seeks physical rather than metaphysical explanations for how the world works - as a process science has been exceedingly successful. So while religion does not have a role in science (although it often has an important role in scientists), the opposite is not true - science can indeed reveal a lot of things that are religiously relevent. Almost trivially science can disprove religious dogma about science. Less trivially science can supply a lot of 'how' answers that complement religion's 'why's'.

A long while back I was engaged in study on the quantum mechanical basis for free will and its religious implications, the object being publication and possible expansion into a book on teleology and the Anthropic Principle. Then I was spectacularly scooped (and humbled) by John Barrow and Frank Tipler in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (http://www.amazon.com/Anthropic-Cosmological-Principle-Oxford-Paperbacks/dp/0192821474). Last year Barrow won the Templeton Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templeton_Prize) for "Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities" for his "writings about the relationship between life and the universe, and the nature of human understanding [which] have created new perspectives on questions of ultimate concern to science and religion."

-Mark

hm0504

01-11-2007, 05:27 PM

Very interesting Mark! We are very fortunate to have your insights on CFF.

Fresh Air

01-11-2007, 06:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fresh, those numbers are only from the USA and do not come close to the true picture of the world's populus.
What is that citation again ... "There are more things in the heavens and the earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio!", or words to that affect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True enough, but I don't have those statistics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have the skills needed to "probe deeper", and have, and know the indefensable dogma of creationists and religion in general for what it is.
Also, while I am by no means the world's foremost expert on sponges I did learn a few things in all those biology, cellular biology, oceanography, physics, engineering, chemistry, and theology classes I had while obtaining my education.
Besides any second hour Palentology student can tell you that 'nothing' can not be fossilized and only objects that are solid* can be, and the vast number of fossilized sponges found already point to their solidity.
*(ok at the vary minutest molecular level absolutly nothing is "solid" as all matter is in state of constent "movement", but for the purposes here they're 'solid'.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing is solid...I like that. I would agree that nothing is and can only be precieved as such.

Now apply that sort of openmindedness to religion and creationism. Just because someone is religious and/or a creationist does not mean that they fit the generalized stereotype. We're not all what you might like us to be.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The canyon was formed due to the changes in elevation and the constant flow of the river over a forty million year span with the last 6 million years or so forming the canyon we see today. The reason there is exposed rock of varying ages of billions to millions of yeras old is due to the upheavals in the plain over the forty million year span were of differing intensity abd duration ... raising and lowering the area several times. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the best explaination out there, but not the only one.

Fresh Air

01-11-2007, 06:36 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is a misconception that scientific observation is only valid if directly observed.

Science reveals the past by precise measurement of the evidence in existence today. By experimental validation of dating techniques. By rigorous comparisons of such results with known exemplars. And many other objective means of validation. Valid science doesn't just wave a hand and say this or that is so - no matter how urgently its critics wish that were so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Science gives us the best explaination it can and if it's wrong, "oh well". Science itself never claims to be for certain, only the humans are baised in this account. When the future tells us otherwise, science adapts and humans feel smarter with our new aquired "knowledge" than those poor dead people in the past.

We are the future poor dead people. We only think we know. The best practice is to recognize our own weaknesses...cause then we don't look like such idiots in the future.

We don't know, because we can't know. But science will guide us throughout.

Fresh Air

01-11-2007, 06:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Science by its very nature seeks physical rather than metaphisical explanations for how the world works - as a process science has been exceedingly successful. So while religion does not have a role in science (although it often has an important role in scientists), the opposite is not true - science can indeed reveal a lot of things that are religiously relevent. Almost trivially science can disprove religious dogma about science. Less trivially science can supply a lot of 'how' answers that complement religion's 'why's'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's called 'The Naturalistic Axiom'. A necessary thing in science.

I use science in my own religion. But, I don't think one should ever serve as a replacment for the other. They're two different things in two different domains.

DoctorSurferDude

01-11-2007, 11:43 PM

I dare say we may be coming to some agreement here....

Life is a great mystery, as is the existence of our earth and our universe. Religion and Science both provide a way of explaining the things we will never fully comprehend. One could even say they both give us a false sense of security and which one is right? Does it matter? They are simply looking at the same crystal ball from different sides.

Religion chooses to focus on the larger picture, meanings in life, principles, reasons, ethics....and there are stories told, and the stories are taken as truth.

Science chooses to focus on the small limited view of what man can see, collecting data, cross-referencing, building theories, ideas, explainations for things observed, building a collective database of otherwise random data.....and there are stories told, and those stories are taken as truth.

So next time you are at the Grand Canyon, don't worry about how old it is, because truth be told, NOBODY knows for sure. Instead, just enjoy the breath-taking view and have the kind of day that will be worth telling your own stories, instead of somebody elses.

Unwired

01-12-2007, 04:19 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:

So next time you are at the Grand Canyon, don't worry about how old it is, because truth be told, NOBODY knows for sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of all the back-and-forth I've read (and for the most part tried to stay out of) during this debate, it is probably that statement that I take the most exception to. What if Isaac Newton had decided not to worry about why the moon didn't fall from the sky like the apple fell from the tree? Suppose a series of renegade thinkers from ancient Greek times up through Ben Franklin and his contemporaries had decided not to worry about what caused those "sparks"? If a patient came to you with a particular complaint, would you advise them not to worry about what caused it?

As for the argument about the "limited view" of science, I don't particularly take issue with it limiting iteself to what can be empirically observed and proven, i.e. "fact". Yet whenever it does attempt to extrapolate scientific laws to explain unobservable behavior that occured in the past (such as the Earth's formation, for example) it is criticized for reaching with the same kind of zeal and fervor that religion uses to formulate and promote its own explanations. Because science cannot prove something (especially something that might upset someone's theistic worldview), we are to simply abandon the matter? If you believe at all in the concept of a "designer" of the universe and its inhabitants, then wouldn't mankind's innate curiosity and yearning for knowledge be somewhat of a design flaw then?

Sanslines

01-12-2007, 05:14 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:

So next time you are at the Grand Canyon, don't worry about how old it is, because truth be told, NOBODY knows for sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Curiosity is the driving force behind the advancement of science and technology. The field of science is expanded because people 'worry about things'. Science can not explain everything but people are hard at work trying to learn more, understand more, and contribute more to our understanding of the worlds around us and our relationship to those worlds. With the many serious problems facing us on this planet (ie global warming) we all better hope that someone somewhere is worrying enough about these problems to find solutions to them.

nacktman

01-12-2007, 06:02 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Religion chooses to focus on the larger picture ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

... and I have this bridge I'll sell ya or maybe you'd be interested in some real estate I want to unload about five miles east of Miami, either one real cheap!

Quite few (almost everybody, actually), that go there want to know how old the canyon is, and that is what the creationists don't want people to know as it is completely out of their frame of reference ... and as proven here on this thread they cannot handle anything outside their frame of reference.

Oh, and I do have my own canyon stories to tell; but that would be telling and I promised the Havasupai I wouldn't, so I haven't

Nude in the North

01-12-2007, 07:42 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you believe at all in the concept of a "designer" of the universe and its inhabitants, then wouldn't mankind's innate curiosity and yearning for knowledge be somewhat of a design flaw then? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that is covered in the "Original Sin" Chapter of the Bible.

However, Now that we have a thirst for knowledge, I think it would be a sin to ignore it.
When the Bible says all was Created in 6 days, we need to remember that the concept of a "day" to those doing the writing may have been far different than the time frame that the creator uses.
A "day" to God could well be 1 billion years to us. We may never know.

We are still infants in the universe. Only our Arrogance will keep us from the truth.

Steve

DoctorSurferDude

01-12-2007, 10:31 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nude in the North:
When the Bible says all was Created in 6 days, we need to remember that the concept of a "day" to those doing the writing may have been far different than the time frame that the creator uses.
A "day" to God could well be 1 billion years to us. We may never know.

We are still infants in the universe. Only our Arrogance will keep us from the truth.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A few of my science professors who believe in God have postulated this theory, although it is one among many. They leave room to consider that the "7 days of creation" may have taken place over millions of years. It is an interesting way of blending science and religion into a context where they both make sense.

In response to my previous statement, I didn't intend to stir the pot. I'm not saying that people should stop researching and learning facts, what I'm saying is that if you limit your view to just numbers, facts, jaded sentiments, you'll really miss out on seeing it with purity of thought. While you are there, just focus on taking it in, and don't try to solve any of it's mysteries.....scientists have been trying to explain the mysteries for years and chances are you won't be discovering any profound answers if they havn't stopped asking "how did this happen?". So just take it in, then go home and read your choosen text, and feel free to believe in what you read.

01-12-2007, 11:19 AM

I vote for the scientific side about life and all that makes up life (in all forms). If those out there want to believe in a "god" creating it all, that is fine, but don't deter the human mind and need to seek more knowledge, explore and discover more.

The Park Service should post and inform people what science has found out to-date about the Grand Canyon. I, for one, would want to know. If these "creationists" have a problem with that, then maybe they shouldn't read any information and just simply take in the beauty and magnificence of the Canyon.

Had it not been for science and our continuing curiosity to know what makes this or that work, we would not be here today with all that surrounds us and from a medical standpoint, most of us would never have been born as disease and shorter life-spans would have taken our parents away.

One who always seeks to learn more,
Allie

DoctorSurferDude

01-12-2007, 11:31 AM

A word about RADIOMETRIC DATING?

First of all, Carbon Dating is not a very good method for determining any age except that which is unliving. The half life of carbon-14 is around 5800 years, but one half-life is hardly evidence of any actual change since carbon is not as stable as it seems (occurs in various forms at various alititudes, decay rates are pressure dependant, i.e. diamonds, etc.). The LIMIT of carbon dating is 60,000 years. The lower limit is loose and unreliable....for instance, if I put in one of my socks into the carbon dater, it would yeild data that proved my socks were between 12,000 and 24,000 years old. Part of the flaw is in the lack of consideration of other aging (decay accelerator) factors, such as P=pressure. If you took an authentic diamond and a CZ diamond and they would both be estimated to near the same age, because they've taken similar environmental paths to be transformed into their state and are structurally (isotopically) very similar. The other thing about carbon, and the reason it makes for a poor organic measure, is that when I eat food, I eat carbon, the carbon is not new, it is as old as bean I just ate, which got it's carbon from dirt and cow feces, which got it's carbon form grass in some far away field, which got it's carbon from a seed dropped by a bird on migration, which got it's carbon from some old Icelandic tree, which got it's carbon from deep rock beds, which got it's carbon from some unfortunate wooly mammoth, which got it's carbon from the ancient grass in it's mouth that it never got to finish chewing, etc, etc.

So if you chopped of my hand and stuck it into the carbon dating machine, you would find that I am as old as dirt. So either that is true....or the carbon dating system is as dumb as dirt...one of those...hmm.

So how then do we know how old the fossils and rocks are? Well....since we can't measure a "stable" element, we measure an unstable element. We measure URANIUM, which is so "stable" I dare any of you to play baseball with a chunk of it. So one special property of uranium is that when it decays it turns into an isotope of lead. Lead is indeed quite stable, not as "stable" as carbon, but compared to Uranium it is relatively stable, although you can easily change it's properties in a lab (i.e. old alchemists trying to turn lead into gold). Bear in mind that each of these elements occur randomly in nature. SO....scientists have estimated that Uranium (U-235) has a 50/50 chance of decaying into lead (Pb-207) in 704 million years. You don't have to be a skeptic to understand why that would leave some room for calculation errors....when you are measuring the ratio between a famously unstable element and a naturally occuring element. A single sample can have a range of ERROR of nearly a BILLION YEARS. So how did they standardize it? Well....you can't really, the readings from the earth's crust are too random. So what did scientists do? They got their hands on a meteorite in Mexico named "Allende" and ASSUMED that it must have formed at the same time as our universe, and therefore earth. They radio-dated it and it was estimated to be 4.6 billion years old according to the estimated decay rate of Argon, a gas used for welding. NOW....based on 4.6 million years as a top measure you are able to say that anything found on earth that measures older than that according to uranium decay is bad data, garbage. You then take a look at the rocky stratum of our earth's crust and go down until you can't find life anymore....you kind of guestimate how old that "might be" bearing in mind the ASSUMPTION that it is likely at least a few billion years old, then you take massive samples and calculate average age, constrained by the BILLION YEAR assumptions and therefore throwing out any data that reads "too old" or "too young". Eventually you come up with an average number....and THAT is the standard upon which to date all other things in our earths crust. It is, to say the least, EXTREMELY INDIRECT and in my opinion some of the worst science I've ever encountered.

Back to fossils.... Fossils mostly occur in limestone and slate levels of the geologic column. Unfortunately neither one of those can be radiometrically dated, so you find a nearby rock that can be. Granite and Pegmatite are two of the saving graces in the geologic column, because they can be dated and they occur above or below the unmeasureable fossil rich rocks. Of course both granite and pegmatite are volcanic rocks formed under extremely unstable/random conditions and permiating into rock beds as lava tends to do....but hey, it's all we have, so let's measure the famously unstable uranium's activity in lava rocks that may or may not belong where we find them due to their permiating ability....we'll just assume everything occured in a stable fashion, afterall, we "KNOW" we are dealing with billions of years instead of thousands of years based on such good science, right? So....granite and pegmatite are aged, "bad readings" thrown out and once we've come up with a suitable number, we write it in a book and use that as reference. The unmeasureable fossils found inbetween these lava fingers of rock are then estimated to be "X" years old according to the data in the books. In that way aging the whole geologic column has been propgated such that geologists nad palentologists no longer need to measure the rocks and ask questions, but rather they just look at their books and say "well...it is below this level, so it must be at least 500 million years old". It is very detached science, built on very weak assumptions.

Of course you can build science on top of science, that occurs a lot. There are tons of studies that strenghthen the top end of these theories....but that is not what I'm trying to point out. I'm trying to show the flaws of the scientific method when it comes to forming the basis of the entire thing. Sure you can be proud of the strength of the science that it produced, but I'm unamused because I can't get past the assumption pluaged sloppy science that it was built upon.....what good are today's "facts" if they are built on yesterday's speculations?

Read the roots with a discerning eye and you'll see the structure colapsing.

How old is the world? .....well.....take a guess.

DoctorSurferDude

01-12-2007, 11:50 AM

A Mystery:

The oldest rocks in the Grand Canyon are named Cardenas Basalt, they are found at the bottom of the canyon, thought to be roughly Precambrian and independant labs have estimated the age to be at 1 billion years old.

The youngest rocks are recognized by all scientists to be the lava rock found at the top of the canyon and flowing into the canyon. It makes sense of course. These rock formations measured at the same independant labs are estimated to be 1.3 billion years old.

So the mystery question is....

How are the "youngest" rocks older than the "oldest rocks"? How are the rocks at the top of the canyon 300 million years older than the rocks at the bottom of the Grand Canyon?

Feel free to answer....

My answer is implied in the previous post.

nacktman

01-12-2007, 01:33 PM

No mystery ...

The oldest rocks are not the Cardenas Basalts, the oldest are the Vishnu Schist which are two(2) billion years old and are found at the bottom of the Inner Gorge.

The youngest rocks in the canyon are the Kaibib Limestone Formations which at a mere 230 million years old are newborn in geological terms.

The lava flows which are NOT recognized by scientists as the "youngest' rocks in the canyon are four(4) times as old as the youngest rocks in the canyon.

As to rocks at the rim being older than at the bottom ... well any five year old can tell you the answer to that one ... the "dirt" was turned over ... the various upheavels and depressions of the area over millenia lead to the existance of older material being on top of younger material.

DoctorSurferDude

01-12-2007, 02:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
...any five year old can tell you the answer to that one ... the "dirt" was turned over ... the various upheavels and depressions of the area over millenia lead to the existance of older material being on top of younger material. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A five year old would say a monster did it. Or power rangers. To say it was "upheavels and depressions of the area over mellenia" is mere speculation and an attempt to come up with a STORY to explain something that is incompatible with a rigid theory in science. I'll let five year olds and scientists do all the storytelling they want..... my hunch is that the age-o-meter is wrong.

But good call on the rocks, I'm not a geologist...although a non-speculative answer still remains unanswered.

nacktman

01-12-2007, 03:16 PM

Doc, "upheavals and depressions of the area" is not mere speculation it is completely within the scientic method and the laws of physics ...
It's something called Plate Techtonics and its properties are measurable and observable ...
And with increasing accuracy, its most clearly observed effect by the layman ...the earthquake ...is being able to be predicted as to when and where it would occur.
Followed closely in accuracy of prediction as to when and where it will occur, by the most recognized causation by the layman ... the eruption of a volcano.

DoctorSurferDude

01-12-2007, 05:54 PM

Forgive me for perseverating on this.....but the reason it is considered an acceptable explaination is BECAUSE it is the only way to make sense of it. You'll never find the scientific community shooting themselves in the foot. Rather they come up with logical STORIES to satisfy their lack of actually knowing. Somebody told you the story, so you are telling me the story, think I've heard that story before.

So...of course "plate techtonics" sounds better than if I told you it was elves. But if you take earthquake and volcano data, you still are only extrapolating limited data to fabricate an explaination for something nobody saw happen. The evidence is NOT clear, it is scattered. The explaination is not good science, it is speculation, which science actually does a lot of, believe it or not.

Faith is the glue that binds them all together....faith in themselves, their billion year theories and the textbooks they read in college and took as "truth".

Earthquakes are natural, we have observed them directly.

Plate Techtonics and continental shifting is supernatural, becuase none of us have seen it, we only believe it based on limited evidence of what we have seen (small measurements in a snapshot of time).

Science is religion.

hm0504

01-12-2007, 05:59 PM

DoctorSurferDude, do you regard the Universe as being no more 10,000 years old?

nacktman

01-12-2007, 06:19 PM

For a clear view of the closed mind please refer to the post, two posts above.

As another has pointed out ... clueless!
(There must be a club of them or something?!?!)

You have failed your final exam and must attend remedial classes forthwith.

Naturist Mark

01-12-2007, 06:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Plate Techtonics and continental shifting is supernatural, becuase none of us have seen it, we only believe it based on limited evidence of what we have seen (small measurements in a snapshot of time). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Plate Tectonics theory made a number of falsifiable predictions. So far it remains unfalsified (http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/activities/p_number12.html) .

Plate Tectonics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics) describes an ongoing natural process. Many people have indeed seen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bridge_across_continents_iceland.jpg) it in action. Satellite observations have provided precise measurements of ongoing plate movement.

Unlike religion, Plate Tectonics is a scientific theory subject to testing by the scientific method.

-Mark

Fresh Air

01-12-2007, 07:52 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No mystery ...

The oldest rocks are not the Cardenas Basalts, the oldest are the Vishnu Schist which are two(2) billion years old and are found at the bottom of the Inner Gorge.

The youngest rocks in the canyon are the Kaibib Limestone Formations which at a mere 230 million years old are newborn in geological terms.

The lava flows which are NOT recognized by scientists as the "youngest' rocks in the canyon are four(4) times as old as the youngest rocks in the canyon.

As to rocks at the rim being older than at the bottom ... well any five year old can tell you the answer to that one ... the "dirt" was turned over ... the various upheavels and depressions of the area over millenia lead to the existance of older material being on top of younger material. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough. Sounds like 5 year old reasoning to me.

Fresh Air

01-12-2007, 07:53 PM

....come up with an answer first, then find the explaination, hehe.

Fresh Air

01-12-2007, 07:54 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Doc, "upheavals and depressions of the area" is not mere speculation it is completely within the scientic method and the laws of physics ...
It's something called Plate Techtonics and its properties are measurable and observable ...
And with increasing accuracy, its most clearly observed effect by the layman ...the earthquake ...is being able to be predicted as to when and where it would occur.
Followed closely in accuracy of prediction as to when and where it will occur, by the most recognized causation by the layman ... the eruption of a volcano. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Observable? I'd love to see the video then. Is it on You Tube?

Fresh Air

01-12-2007, 07:57 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">DoctorSurferDude, do you regard the Universe as being no more 10,000 years old?

Albinus </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't speak for Doctorsurferdude, but I don't...

Fresh Air

01-12-2007, 08:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For a clear view of the closed mind please refer to the post, two posts above.

As another has pointed out ... clueless!
(There must be a club of them or something?!?!)

You have failed your final exam and must attend remedial classes forthwith. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The classic "side step".

I don't think Doc is saying that your hypothetical scenario can't be "true". I think what he is saying is there is no way to be certain if it is true or not and if you believe it to be true, then be sure to recognize your own beliefs, lest they infiltrate into your science.

I don't see what is so upsetting about recognizing our beliefs as beliefs...but obviously something is upsetting.

DoctorSurferDude

01-12-2007, 08:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
DoctorSurferDude, do you regard the Universe as being no more 10,000 years old? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The entire Universe? I cannot speculate as to the age of the entire universe....it's probably too old to measure with those short units we call "light years". It is probably in the neighborhood of FOREVER years old. The galaxies that fills it probably varies in age, but who knows, maybe we should try to get a human to mars before we try and think about soil samples in some other galaxy.

I don't know how old this rock we live on is....might be a billion years old for all I know, it doesn't really matter too much to me. I just don't like sloppy science.

I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory.

I believe LIFE was created on this planet less than 10,000 years ago. I don't believe we came from fish, I believe fish were created too. I believe God designed life and it's genetif fabric with the ability to adapt to a changing world, but that snakes don't become horses, and horses don't become monkeys, and monkeys don't become humans.

I believe fossilization occured from a mass catastrophe, just like everybody else would agree. Where I probably differ is that instead of a meteor I believe in a global flood, followed by major shifts in the earth's crust, a glacier age (ice age) with lots and lots of water moving around and shaping the earth we have today.

I know both theories, I've seen evidence for both sides, some arguments are good, some are very weak. My only bias is that I believe in God, although it is true that to not believe in God is a bias too.

What frustrates me about these topics is that there are always those which take a very one-track-mind approach....those who cannot see the forest for the trees. Those of whom I speak will lump me into "narrow minded" because I am a skeptic when it comes to the scientific establishment. But I can't help but think the same of them for believing so strongly in such things. The difference is I've seen and considered your side of the argument....have you seen and tried to make sense of my side of the argument?

People who don't question religion are zealots.

People who don't question science are zealots too.

I think we should question both....regularly.

Tampanude

01-12-2007, 08:12 PM

Fresh Air

01-12-2007, 08:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What frustrates me about these topics is that there are always those which take a very one-track-mind approach....those who cannot see the forest for the trees. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Naturalistic Axiom

It's not their fault, it's their belief. Not everyone can break out of (or recognize) their beliefs. So we get that, and we get other types of fundementalists.

Fresh Air

01-12-2007, 08:22 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:

Fresh Air,,,,, You're wrong because (insert imperical data here),,,,and you're wrong again because (insert my unquestionable credentials here) and lastly you are so very misinformed because (insert religious text here)

Sorry to expose your innocent inexperience

Mad </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's Funny http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

DoctorSurferDude

01-12-2007, 08:23 PM

Hey Fresh Air.... How is FL?

It's true....I'll readily admit that on a few accounts (God, flood, created life) I generally don't budge. It is simply what I believe.

Any science fans willing to admit to their fundamental beliefs?

TampaNude....who are you? (insert something that makes sense here)

DoctorSurferDude

01-12-2007, 08:28 PM

I had to look it up...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Naturalistic axiom: everything can be explained by the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm posting too much....I'm going to go eat now.

Fresh Air

01-12-2007, 08:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hey Fresh Air.... How is FL?

It's true....I'll readily admit that on a few accounts (God, flood, created life) I generally don't budge. It is simply what I believe.

Any science fans willing to admit to their fundamental beliefs?

TampaNude....who are you? (insert something that makes sense here) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I took it a cynical humor...

FL was cold for a couple days. Will warm up this weekend. Kids are awesome, Peds isn't always awesome.

- I have a fundemental belief that we can never know anything for certain.
- I have a fundemental belief that everything we do know is wrong on some level or another.
- I have a fundemental belief that knowledge and information are the fifth independent element that have no good scientific answer in regards to 'origin' (the other four are time, energy, matter, and life).

Fresh Air

01-12-2007, 08:37 PM

Axioms = self evident assumptions.

The Naturalistic Axiom wouth then be 'the assumption that everything can be explained by the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics, based on the belief that this alone is self evident.'

It is a fundemental basis of science and a necessary thing in many ways, though possibly, and by definition limiting.

Fresh Air

01-12-2007, 08:46 PM

Were we just edited?

Unwired

01-12-2007, 08:58 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:

In response to my previous statement, I didn't intend to stir the pot. I'm not saying that people should stop researching and learning facts, what I'm saying is that if you limit your view to just numbers, facts, jaded sentiments, you'll really miss out on seeing it with purity of thought. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I certainly didn't mean to go after you in a personal sense for that statement; it's just that I find it somewhat unsettling whenever I hear it suggested that "you needn't concern yourself with such things." The extreme form of that attitude has manifested itself in the flat earth belief, the geocentric/heliocentric view of the universe, and the young-earth Creationist movement (note the capitalization). Thank God for the handful of people who, often at great personal risk, did try to solve the mysteries of what they saw!

I also don't believe that a disharmony needs to necessarily exist between scientific inquiry and spirituality either, but I do get frustrated to continually read about how "they're really just two sides of the same coin". To me, scientific inquiry is a lot less subjective than that; it's only "religious devotion" to speak of is towards facts and the pursuit of truth, wherever it may lead. Science starts with hypotheses and tests them objectively to either prove, disprove or theorize them. It does not start with a foregone conclusion supported only by superstition or religious dogma, then proceed to cherrypick or discard whatever evidence will support or disprove whatever it's looking to promote. That's what young-earth Creationism does (again, caps) and I get weary of seeing science painted with the same brush.

UW

Unwired

01-12-2007, 08:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fresh Air:
Were we just edited? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, there was some editing done, to deal with an entirely unnecessary and gratuitous personal attack made on someone. Your post in response to it just happened to get caught in the crossfire.

Fresh Air

01-12-2007, 09:03 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes, there was some editing done, to deal with an entirely unnecessary and gratuitous personal attack made on someone. Your post in response to it just happened to get caught in the crossfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Understandable, both were unecessary...but it was funny IMO.

Fresh Air

01-12-2007, 09:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I also don't believe that a disharmony needs to necessarily exist between scientific inquiry and spirituality either, but I do get frustrated to continually read about how "they're really just two sides of the same coin". To me, scientific inquiry is a lot less subjective than that; it's only "religious devotion" to speak of is towards facts and the pursuit of truth, wherever it may lead. Science starts with hypotheses and tests them objectively to either prove, disprove or theorize them. It does not start with a foregone conclusion supported only by superstition or religious dogma, then proceed to cherrypick or discard whatever evidence will support or disprove whatever it's looking to promote. That's what young-earth Creationism does (again, caps) and I get weary of seeing science painted with the same brush. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Science definately does not do what you describe. It can not, it is a methodological system. However, humans (scientists included) are prone to the biases of which you speak. It is hardly beyond anyone to be aware that this will sometimes go on in scientific opinion (which again is not the same thing as science).

Unwired

01-12-2007, 09:15 PM

Scientists as fallible human beings who may have agendas? Of course they exist. But what exactly might those agendas be...? I do sense more than a little defensiveness on the part of the Creation (caps!! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif) crowd when they suggest that scientists are "out to get God". I personally don't think the Creator of the universe has much to fear from the very limited intellectual graspings of His creation, so exactly who is threatened by the scientists' "agenda"?

Naturist Mark

01-13-2007, 03:44 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">People who don't question religion are zealots.

People who don't question science are zealots too.

I think we should question both....regularly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that is an excellent attitude.

Proper science must be approached with skepticism, even the proponent of a hypothesis is expected to devise falsifiable tests and attempt to disprove their own ideas, else they aren't to be taken seriously.

In my view skepticism is appropriate in religion too. Except in cases where dogma makes foolish statements about the physical world religion is not intrinsically subject to falsifiable testing, but religions do typically have first principles and over riding moral underpinnings that can be applied to religious teachings with logic. For instance, how does the Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2021:18-21&version=9;) square with the Sermon on the Mount (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount).

-Mark

Longhairbear

01-13-2007, 03:46 AM

There was a very interesting biography of Gallileo on the History Channel the other night. His discoveries using a telescope landed him big trouble with the church, and conventional wisdom of the time. He was proving that the earth was not the center of the universe,or even of our solar system. People refused to admit what they saw through his telescope as it went against everything they believed.

EricNY

01-13-2007, 04:56 AM

I know this really doesn't add to the conversation at all, but I need to say:

Damn, you all are fun to watch http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

Sanslines

01-13-2007, 05:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:

........I think we should question both....regularly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, we should. The big concern that I have about religion is that the bible is a very old document consisting of an Old Testiment and a New Testiment. Many people even today would consider questioning anything within the Bible as pure heresy. Yet, who are the 'authorized' people who interpret and apply the ancient biblical scriptures to modern day living and what are their qualifications for doing so? Why would so many consider someone with a divinity degree as some 'saintly holy man' who is above question? As most people would agree, the bible was written in a very different time and as such the writings must constantly be adapted to the ever changing modern times. When the bible was written, there was no DNA, stem cell research, etc, etc and so what is written in the bible can only be used as a interpreted guide when forming religious policies concerning these modern day issues. Since, in so many ways the bible contradicts itself (ie forgive your enemies versus an eye for an eye.....etc) who decides what applies and what does not apply?

usmc1

01-13-2007, 06:15 AM

Actually, aren't we, and our knowledge and beliefs, all slaves to our individual senses and perceptions?

If one holds one's thumb up just several inches from one's face to observe it and always held it at exactly that same spot to observe it and never observed it held it out at arms length to observe it, because one believed that was the "ordained" way to observe one's thumb, wouldn't one believe that one's thumb was pretty good sized.

And vice versa for one who always observe's one's thumb by holding it out at arm's length never bringing it to close to one's face.

Those persons, to me, illustrate the "creationist/religious" world view. Conclusions based on beleif/faith/dogma that there is but one "right" way to do things leading to the debate that big thumb is right and smaller thumb is wrong: full immersion versus a drop on the forehead.

The scientists on the other hand would be the one's that observe their thumb both close to face, further out and at arm's length, and offer up the theory that our perception of the size of our thumb changes when viewed from different distances and publishes that theory for other scientists to test and challenge/modify/enlarge.

In terms of this thread, and using the above Cartesian illustration, this is what I "think"; it is very wrong for federal employees to offer the "religionist/creationist viewpoint" of the age of the Grand Canyon.

Separation of church and state would be one reason, but favoring the "creationists" viewpoint over that of another religion, say one that believes the earth is riding on the back of a turtle swimming in a vast sea would be unfair to other or minority religions. We've seen here that not all creationists see completely eye-to-eye on the timeline thing. Do we want the Feds to validate one religions viewpoint over anothers?

I should think that the proper way to present the "religious" viewpoint is with the disclaimer or acknowledgement that there are various religions, based on their interpretation of their various bibles or faith structure, that believe that the Canyon can't be as old as the scientists have concluded.

For me, personally, operating from a secular base does not mean we completely ignore the sensibilities of all the various religions.

Finally, back to the thumb. Since the size of that thumb depends on several factors, including, most importantly, how the brain is perceiving it, couldn't one rationally conclude that "reality" is not always what we believe it to be, but more a matter of what and how we perceive the incoming data from our senses amd how our brains interpret that data.

Thsoe arguing against the 7-day model for creation often offer up the theory perhaps that for that which we call God, a day is billions of our human "perceived" years. Why not the theory that for that which we call God, a day is an eye wink of time for humans?

The bottom line here, we do not really "know" a damned thing as well as we "think" we do. Science, religion, metaphysics and so forth, are all dependent human senses and the interpretations made by our brains. The thumb exercise illustrates that, and taht "reality" 'taint quite as definite as we "believe", whether scientist or religionist.

What is reality? only that which we call God knows for certain.

hm0504

01-13-2007, 11:47 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
Actually, aren't we, and our knowledge and beliefs, all slaves to our individual senses and perceptions?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed. You who are reading this, you who think you live on a planet called Earth, who think you have a body with hands and feet, well, it could all be an illusion; you could be merely some glob in an alien petri dish being fed stimuli solely for the aliens' amusement.

Yours,
the Matrix

hm0504

01-13-2007, 11:51 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
DoctorSurferDude, do you regard the Universe as being no more 10,000 years old? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The entire Universe? I cannot speculate as to the age of the entire universe....it's probably too old to measure with those short units we call "light years". It is probably in the neighborhood of FOREVER years old. The galaxies that fills it probably varies in age, but who knows, maybe we should try to get a human to mars before we try and think about soil samples in some other galaxy.

I don't know how old this rock we live on is....might be a billion years old for all I know, it doesn't really matter too much to me. I just don't like sloppy science.

I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory.

I believe LIFE was created on this planet less than 10,000 years ago. I don't believe we came from fish, I believe fish were created too. I believe God designed life and it's genetif fabric with the ability to adapt to a changing world, but that snakes don't become horses, and horses don't become monkeys, and monkeys don't become humans.
.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds you believe some of the days mentioned in Genesis 1 are 24-hour days and some of the days in Genesis 1 are of inderterminate length. Correct?

DoctorSurferDude

01-13-2007, 03:02 PM

You know what? I don't know....I wasn't there.

But what I believe is that all we can see was created by the hand of a supreme artist that I call God.

hm0504

01-13-2007, 03:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
You know what? I don't know....I wasn't there.

But what I believe is that all we can see was created by the hand of a supreme artist that I call God. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll try not to make this 20 Questions, but do you believe one can be an authentic Christian and also regard the theory of evolution as fact? If not, why not?

Sanslines

01-13-2007, 04:30 PM

19 more questions to go............

18

17

16.........

lol......lol

Poor doc,

Time to split this scene and go surfing - but NOT today as the earthquake off the southern calif coast generated some nasty surf and so peeps in San Diego were warned to stay out of the surf and away from the beach. Thankfully, no Tsunami was generated!

DoctorSurferDude

01-13-2007, 05:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
I'll try not to make this 20 Questions, but do you believe one can be an authentic Christian and also regard the theory of evolution as fact? If not, why not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The theory of evolution is multifaceted and most of it is good solid science. But there is a point where the science of it all turns to speculation and follows the logic that "if A can become B, then B can eventually become 42", that part is really sketchy and would be categorized better as science fiction than as science.

One of the issues I have with the theory of evolution is the concept of "speciation". In population genetics we were taught that a "species" requires reproductive isolation due to genetic drift, etc. etc. What makes something a seperate species is when there are pre and post-zygotic barriers due to changes over time and that pre-requisite of reproductive isolation.

Now....we were taught dogs are a species, because at the time the scientists were drawing up the species tree (one of the greatest works of science fiction), dogs were domesticated and so variations were labeled as subspecies. Tigers and Lions, however, were on different continents (sub-saharan africa vs. asia) seperated for hundreds of thousands of years by a desert, a continent and thousands of miles. So they are classified as different "species" each owning their own twig on the species tree. But now we have these things called LIGERS, which is half lion and half tiger. Oops....

In case you are unaware, there is a rule in science regarding theories which states that all that is required to disprove a theory is to find one incidence where the theory is wrong. The burden or proof lies on the theorists.

So....a Liger is in conflict with the basic tennant of speciation. And speciation is the assumption upon which all belief in evlutionary process rests. That is just ONE flaw in the larger theory of evolution, there are more.....but as the rules state, it only takes one incident to disprove a theory, so....I just disproved evolution.

You can't make exceptions. The theory must be rewritten (of course it won't be). If two "species" can just start breeding like that, then we can assume horses and humans could breed to form Centaurs. And if that is impossible, then we must assume the assignment of Tigers and Lions into different species categories was wrong...if that was wrong then none of the species tree is worth jack and the theory of speciation is flawed and therefore void, which negates the theory of evolution. Oops...

hm0504

01-13-2007, 05:45 PM

BlobbyBob

01-13-2007, 06:51 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
Tigers and Lions, however, were on different continents (sub-saharan africa vs. asia) seperated for hundreds of thousands of years by a desert, a continent and thousands of miles. So they are classified as different "species" each owning their own twig on the species tree. But now we have these things called LIGERS, which is half lion and half tiger. Oops....

So....a Liger is in conflict with the basic tennant of speciation. And speciation is the assumption upon which all belief in evlutionary process rests. That is just ONE flaw in the larger theory of evolution, there are more.....but as the rules state, it only takes one incident to disprove a theory, so....I just disproved evolution. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lions and Tigers are cats, not entirely different species, and yes they can breed, and just like when a Donkey and a Horse breed to give a Mule, the resultant offspring is generally infertile.

I'm not going to go into the whole religion vs science war because I've done it enough in the past on other forums and I just get annoyed and bored with it, mostly because I can't believe some peoples beliefs. Here though I can't believe especially how any person can believe that a magic being made us all, based on a 1,700 year old book, but then go on to try to pick holes in science, which never claims to be perfect, but gives much more solid reasoning and arguments than just out-dated dogma.

DoctorSurferDude

01-13-2007, 07:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Sorry DoctorSurferDude, but I cannot find the answer to my question in your response. Please point it out to me. ;-) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Paragraph #1 hm0504.... when you see "theory of evolution" you think it's all factual stuff. When I see it I see a blend of fact and fiction. I respect and accept the scientific fact within, but I have little respect for scientific fiction portion of it, aside from it's creativity.

DoctorSurferDude

01-13-2007, 07:52 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BlobbyBob:
Lions and Tigers are cats, not entirely different species, and yes they can breed, and just like when a Donkey and a Horse breed to give a Mule, the resultant offspring is generally infertile.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought this discussion had moved past Biology 101...

Kingdom - Phylum - Class - Order - Family - Genus - Species

When you say "cats" you are speaking of the FAMILY, named Felidae....they share that in common with all cats in the world. But then comes Genus and THEN comes species. Lions and Tigers are classified as different species (P. leo vs. P. tigris), which as biological rules mandate must be incapable of interbreeding in order to earn that classification.

Mules are not a species, they are considered a hybrid. But yes....that is another example of speciation falling apart.

It is basic fundamental science. Theories are not intended to make exceptions, although many scientists treat them like they are. They try and change definitons by adding words like "usually" to those definitions. Science is intended to be black & white, not gray. But when you start making exceptions, tweaking fundamentals to fit a new picture, re-writing the stories....well....it all gets pretty grey. And if you want to place faith in something that questionable and unfounded, then your faith is as strong as my own http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

nacktman

01-13-2007, 08:40 PM

Bobblybob, I'm afraid you just found out someone did not listen in Biology 101 very well, nor Geology 101, nor Physics 101. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif
Dogma got in the way and unfortunately it still is. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/freak.gif

The topic of this thread is that of the Park Service, who we pay for, is bending over backwards to kiss the arses of one particluar hopelessly myopic cult's dogma in lieu of the facts accepted worldwide and that is not only illegal in this nation, it is immoral and an insult to all with a brain that they can use for themselves.

As you said the fanciful text of a book which has been altered way beyond its original text by each and every "translator" or "interpetor" to ever scribble on paper, parchment, etc., is naught but a collection of fairy tales gleaned from far older stories.
A book which if submitted to the "litmus test(s)" used by its devotees in seeking to ban other books would be destroyed posthaste for it's content of fratricide, homicide, mass murder, incest, devient sexual practices, war, rape, drug use, and more, all of which are presented in vivid and lurid detail.
If written today the manuscript would never see the light of day.

These are the people mankind needs to be concerned about and they need watched closely.

The canyon is older, far, far older than the creationists want it to be and the Park Service needs to tell those that inquire the real age of the canyon, not the lie the creationists want told.

DoctorSurferDude

01-13-2007, 11:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
These are the people mankind needs to be concerned about and they need watched closely.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read statements like that coming out of the mouths of people like Senator McCarthy or Adolf Hitler, but I'm kind of suprised to find that smack talk in here....I didn't realize creation theory was such a threat to society.

If my words do nothing but stir up hate and paranoia, then I find it best to sign off of this topic. Let me leave you with the words of philosopher John Locke....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"This was that which gave the first rise to this Essay concerning the understanding. For I thought that the first step towards satisfying several inquiries the mind of man was very apt to run into, was, to take a survey of our own understandings, examine our own powers, and see to what things they were adapted. Till that was done I suspected we began at the wong end, and in vain sought for satisfaction in a quiet and sure possession of truths that most concerned us, while we let loose our thoughts into the vast ocean of Being; as if all that boundless extent were the natural and undoubted possession of our understandings, wherein there was nothing exempt from its decisions, or that escaped its comprehension. Thus men, extending their inquiries beyond their capacities, and letting their thoughts wander into those depths where they can find no sure footing, it is no wonder that they raise questions and multiply disputes, which, never coming to any clear resolution, are proper only to continue and increase their doubts, and to confirm them at last in perfect scepticism.....Whereas, were the capacities of our understandings well considered, the extent of our knowledge once discovered, and the horizon found which sets the bounds between the enlightened and dark parts of things; between what is and what is not comprehensible by us, men would perhaps with less scruple acquiesce in the avowed ignorance of the one, and employ their thoughts and discourse with more advantage and satisfaction in the other." - John Locke </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

nacktman

01-14-2007, 05:20 AM

Religious dogma has ever been the greatest threat to society and the refuge of hate and paranoia ... you have just cited your own poison.
Eugene and Adolf were both dogmatic ideologues so it is fitting they were cited ... though in typical fashion in the wrong context as they only serve to prove the fallacy of the dogmatic stance not to bloster its piteous cries of "not me"!
These people are indeed in need of watching lest they destroy mankind. Remember the shrub is a dogmatic ideologue and so is a certain tall Saudi fellow and you know what kind of clusterfu(k they have orchestrated in the world today, or do you?

Allowing a single completely erroneous myopic dogmatic fairytale to be foisted onto the population is crimminal at the very least and morally bankrupt. It will not be tolerated. The truth will always win out over lies.

gamblefish

01-14-2007, 06:46 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:

Allowing a single completely erroneous myopic dogmatic fairytale to be foisted onto the population is crimminal at the very least and morally bankrupt. It will not be tolerated. The truth will always win out over lies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree completely!! Death to evolutionism!!!!!! Vive la fixisme!!!!

Naturist Mark

01-14-2007, 07:39 AM

Back on subject:

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20070114/ldb070114.gif

NudeTopher

01-14-2007, 07:52 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Back on subject:

Mark, this is more true then you can imagine. My cousin called me one night to tell me the story of a girl in his class. She was from a very religious background, I think Mormon even though that is immaterial. She, like my cousin, were doing well in school and well on their way to being the first physicians in their families.

When they got to oncology - she had a problem. What she was able to see was in conflict with her religion. No, we are not talking about a theory - we are talking about that which she could observe.

In the end, she left medicine. She was happier keeping her belief structure intact despite the emperical evidence.

(She has actually entered dental school since they won't have to face these issues.)

Naturist Mark

01-14-2007, 07:56 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Eugene and Adolf were both dogmatic ideologues so it is fitting they were cited </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've met Eugene McCarthy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_mccarthy) , great guy. Would have made a fine President.

Joe McCarthy on the other hand was bastard of the first order.

-Mark

Sanslines

01-14-2007, 08:56 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gamblefish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:

Allowing a single completely erroneous myopic dogmatic fairytale to be foisted onto the population is crimminal at the very least and morally bankrupt. It will not be tolerated. The truth will always win out over lies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree completely!! Death to evolutionism!!!!!! Vive la fixisme!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This will NOT be TOLERATED@!!!!

The truth ALWAYS wins out in the end.

Gothmog

01-14-2007, 12:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
Religious dogma has ever been the greatest threat to society and the refuge of hate and paranoia ... you have just cited your own poison.
Eugene and Adolf were both dogmatic ideologues so it is fitting they were cited ... though in typical fashion in the wrong context as they only serve to prove the fallacy of the dogmatic stance not to bloster its piteous cries of "not me"!
These people are indeed in need of watching lest they destroy mankind. Remember the shrub is a dogmatic ideologue and so is a certain tall Saudi fellow and you know what kind of clusterfu(k they have orchestrated in the world today, or do you?

Allowing a single completely erroneous myopic dogmatic fairytale to be foisted onto the population is crimminal at the very least and morally bankrupt. It will not be tolerated. The truth will always win out over lies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very well said! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif

hm0504

01-14-2007, 01:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Sorry DoctorSurferDude, but I cannot find the answer to my question in your response. Please point it out to me. ;-) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Paragraph #1 hm0504.... when you see "theory of evolution" you think it's all factual stuff. When I see it I see a blend of fact and fiction. I respect and accept the scientific fact within, but I have little respect for scientific fiction portion of it, aside from it's creativity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My question was
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Do you (DoctorSurferDude) believe one can be an authentic Christian and also regard the theory of evolution as fact? If not, why not?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your answer (1st paragraph) was
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The theory of evolution is multifaceted and most of it is good solid science. But there is a point where the science of it all turns to speculation and follows the logic that "if A can become B, then B can eventually become 42", that part is really sketchy and would be categorized better as science fiction than as science.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note that I am NOT asking whether evolution should be regarded as a fact or not. I am asking you whether believe one can be an authentic Christian and also regard the theory of evolution as fact? If not, why not?

If possible, please start your answer with "Yes" or "No" and then go on from there.

Thanks.

nacktman

01-14-2007, 04:52 PM

Ok, Mark you caught me. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sneaky.gif
I was hoping one of the devotees would catch the miss, but, alas, you gift wrap a bone and still they can not grasp it. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

Fresh Air

01-14-2007, 07:14 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Mark, this is more true then you can imagine. My cousin called me one night to tell me the story of a girl in his class. She was from a very religious background, I think Mormon even though that is immaterial. She, like my cousin, were doing well in school and well on their way to being the first physicians in their families.

When they got to oncology - she had a problem. What she was able to see was in conflict with her religion. No, we are not talking about a theory - we are talking about that which she could observe.

In the end, she left medicine. She was happier keeping her belief structure intact despite the emperical evidence.

(She has actually entered dental school since they won't have to face these issues.)

Stupidity may be a handicap and therefore an excuse. But, choosing ignorance should be painful! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could you be more specific?

I didn't have a problem with it...

In the end I love medicine even more because it coencides with my beliefs quite prefectly. So, I have to imagine it was something very specific as far as beliefs go (for her).

Fresh Air

01-14-2007, 07:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Religious dogma has ever been the greatest threat to society </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would simplify that and say Dogma in general...

Fresh Air

01-14-2007, 07:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do you (DoctorSurferDude) believe one can be an authentic Christian and also regard the theory of evolution as fact? If not, why not?.....I am asking you whether believe one can be an authentic Christian and also regard the theory of evolution as fact? If not, why not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I may...

My belief is that anyone can believe what they wish. So, if it was an actual question, I think you should have been able to answer it yourself.

But, "Christians" are a diverse subset of peoples with a wide variety of beliefs. The unifying belief of Christians is to live their lives to reflect the life of Jesus Christ. (ie. Christ-tian)

Belief for, against, or inbetween any kind of evolution or evolution theory has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity and is a totally seperate belief set (unless further understood).

The only people, I feel, who deserve to claim evolution as fact are those who can explain it as such on the scientific level it deserves. For everyone else, I view it as a belief. Also, Evolution Theory and Evolution are two totaly different things (and people can't seem to grasp that either).

I personally think evolution is a fact. I personally think evolution theory is a theory. I personally think scientific opinions in regards to evolution theory are opinions. I also personally think the entire spectrum of "evolution" in the laymen world is full of varying beliefs that do not correlate well with the science.

I'm a Christian. I'm a Creationist. Evolution is easily a part of both of those. Evolution Theory isn't specific enough to deny either of those.

So....Yes.

But, just a reminder, whenever one chooses to consider a "theory as fact", they expose their own belief (and again, any belief is acceptable, since anyone can believe what they wish)....but, personal beliefs, while having a place in personal opinion, actually have no place in science. In science, we leave belief at the lab door.

....So, when practicing science, no scientist in the right mind considers "theory as fact". It's bad form. Considering theory as fact is the job of the laymen believers. And, God bless them, there's a lot of them.

Fresh Air

01-14-2007, 07:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Actually, aren't we, and our knowledge and beliefs, all slaves to our individual senses and perceptions? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.soulmanlarry.com/scienceofspirit/sam-howwesee.gif

Naturist Mark

01-14-2007, 08:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But, just a reminder, whenever one chooses to consider a "theory as fact", they expose their own belief </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Theory" in science means something different from the common layperson's terminology.

In everyday speech "Theory" means conjecture - a hypothesis. In science "Theory" is more akin to the colloquial term "law".

In Science a Theory is an hypothesis that has been tested. While nothing can be absolutely proven as "true" in all circumstances, science seeks to prove the hypotheses false. Only after passing those tests, repeatedly, is a Theory considered settled ... to an extent.

Even "Laws" of science are subject to revision. Newton's laws of motion have been modified by Einstein's relativity. It doesn't mean they were wrong, just incomplete. To be sure, even Einstein's discoveries are incomplete. As is Evolution.

A creationist (small 'c') should have no problem with Evolution. Those who believe in a God created universe should revere the genius of evolution as God's tool in a continuing act of creation. Those who can't accept it are putting limits on their understanding of God.

-Mark

Unwired

01-14-2007, 09:40 PM

I see the debate rages on. Personally I think all the disagreements could be solved if we simply taught The Truth About De-Evolution.

http://www.geocities.com/unwired_nudist/yellowsuits.jpg

UW

NudeTopher

01-15-2007, 04:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unwired:
I see the debate rages on. Personally I think... UW </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is there a way for you to think and it not be personal? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/tongue.gif

Now, more importantly - Whip It Good!

usmc1

01-15-2007, 05:40 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fresh Air:
If I may...

But, "Christians" are a diverse subset of peoples with a wide variety of beliefs. The unifying belief of Christians is to live their lives to reflect the life of Jesus Christ. (ie. Christ-tian)[QUOTE]

Fresh, i think you spawned yourself a false syllogism here, bud.

One can follow the teachings ascribed to the Jewish rabbi, Jesus, and dilligently apply those teachings in all facets of one's life without being a Christian, as the term is understood and defined by "Christians".

For Catholics, as an example, I recall, maybe wrongly--but I don't think so, that the Nicean Creed is the definitive thing defining a Christian.

In real simple terms, a Christian is one who believes that Jesus was the promised Messiah, God's son, God made man, who died to cleanse all mankind of original sin, and who rose again from the dead, walked among the quick, and then rose, bodily, into heaven. Most Christians believe that one must engage in rituals; baptism and so forth to close the deal.

You might, maybe not, be interested in the Jeffersonian bible. It was written by Thomas Jefferson and contains only those words and stories in which Jesus was actually present or that were ascribed directly to him, omiting the thid party interperative stuff.

Very interesting, if we all were to pattern our lives along the teachings of the sermon on the mount, as that rotund hornblower of color sang, Oh What A Wonderful World.

But, sorry, neither Jesus of Nazereth nor Louis Armstrong of New Orleans ever shed a bit of light on the age of the Grand Canyon.

nacktman

01-15-2007, 06:17 AM

You're not incorrect usmc1, the Nicean Creed is the definitive point as to what is a christian, not only for catholics but for all that claim to be.
It should be noted that catholics and only catholics have the "right" to claim to be called christians as they are followers of the original cult.
All others presume to something they are not in fact entitled to. While one may be 'christ-ian' in their beliefs unless one is catholic one is not a "christian", one is a methodist, a presbyterian, a lutheran, etc., and so on and so forth.

None of the above has anything to do with the age of the canyon which is around 6 million years old making it a very new thing on the geological time scale.

hm0504

01-15-2007, 08:47 AM

hm0504

01-16-2007, 05:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
...
One of the issues I have with the theory of evolution is the concept of "speciation". In population genetics we were taught that a "species" requires reproductive isolation due to genetic drift, etc. etc. What makes something a seperate species is when there are pre and post-zygotic barriers due to changes over time and that pre-requisite of reproductive isolation.

Now....we were taught dogs are a species, because at the time the scientists were drawing up the species tree (one of the greatest works of science fiction), dogs were domesticated and so variations were labeled as subspecies. Tigers and Lions, however, were on different continents (sub-saharan africa vs. asia) seperated for hundreds of thousands of years by a desert, a continent and thousands of miles. So they are classified as different "species" each owning their own twig on the species tree. But now we have these things called LIGERS, which is half lion and half tiger.
... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally, I don't believe in Dog. You could call me an a-dog-ist, or more generally, an a-speces-ist if by species you mean ones that absolutely cannot be combined.

Species boundaries to me are dynamic and evolving. So, while I do see dogs and cats, I make no grand requirement that, while there are species, that the barriers between species cannot be breached.

Overall, I would say the speciation argument as presented is an example of the strawman fallacy.

Naturist Mark

01-16-2007, 06:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Overall, I would say the speciation argument as presented is an example of the strawman fallacy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cladistics is a classification system, not the equivalent of Evolutionary Theory. At its best it should reflect the best knowledge about the evolutionary tree of the organisms in question. Knowledge being incomplete there is a good deal of conjecture and best fit analysis.

Definitions of species are conventions that aren't always followed in strictly the same way. The rule that members of different species can't interbreed is very loosely interpreted. Lions and Tigers cannot naturally interbreed because they would never encounter each other in their natural habitats - thus they can be considered separate species. Nearly all dogs - domestic and wild are interfertile, but wolves and coyotes are considered different species from domestic dogs. All domestic dogs are considered a single species, even though some of the breeds are so different in size that a successful mating is all but impossible.

Classification is not the same as theory, although it should be firmly based in verifiable knowledge, even when the knowledge is incomplete.

Hypotheses are validated by falsifiable tests, not by an insistence on omniscience.

-Mark

Fresh Air

01-17-2007, 11:47 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Theory" in science means something different from the common layperson's terminology.

In everyday speech "Theory" means conjecture - a hypothesis. In science "Theory" is more akin to the colloquial term "law".

In Science a Theory is an hypothesis that has been tested. While nothing can be absolutely proven as "true" in all circumstances, science seeks to prove the hypotheses false. Only after passing those tests, repeatedly, is a Theory considered settled ... to an extent.

Even "Laws" of science are subject to revision. Newton's laws of motion have been modified by Einstein's relativity. It doesn't mean they were wrong, just incomplete. To be sure, even Einstein's discoveries are incomplete. As is Evolution.

A creationist (small 'c') should have no problem with Evolution. Those who believe in a God created universe should revere the genius of evolution as God's tool in a continuing act of creation. Those who can't accept it are putting limits on their understanding of God. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...wrong. Close, but there are less subjective definitions of the terms your explaining.

An interesting perspective, though.

I agree with the last paragraph.

Fresh Air

01-17-2007, 12:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fresh, i think you spawned yourself a false syllogism here, bud.

One can follow the teachings ascribed to the Jewish rabbi, Jesus, and dilligently apply those teachings in all facets of one's life without being a Christian, as the term is understood and defined by "Christians". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I put the word "Christ-tian" in italics to emphasize the latin root base of the word. It means "like Christ" It is from the Greek Christ or "annointed one" (a translation of the hebrew word for 'Messiah'). The -tian/-ian simply means 'belonging too or like' (eg. politician, physician, musician, acroceraunian, etc).

I prefer to take words at face value rather than argue the semantics of what any given socieity claims it means.

Fresh Air

01-17-2007, 12:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You're not incorrect usmc1, the Nicean Creed is the definitive point as to what is a christian, not only for catholics but for all that claim to be.
It should be noted that catholics and only catholics have the "right" to claim to be called christians as they are followers of the original cult.
All others presume to something they are not in fact entitled to. While one may be 'christ-ian' in their beliefs unless one is catholic one is not a "christian", one is a methodist, a presbyterian, a lutheran, etc., and so on and so forth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

.....if it's ok with you, I'll still be a skeptic about dogma. It remains a facinating point in history, but it is not the root or core of my beliefs. Perhaps in your eyes that might disqualify me from being a "Christian", but I still call myself one, because I think it describes me.

Also, the term "Christian" was first used in Antioch, shortly after Christ's death. It was actually a descriptive term used by those who hated the Christians (don't blame Christians for the term). Catholosism didn't exist till hundreds of years after the term "Christian" was first coined at Antioch. So, I don't know that I agree the Catholic Church has a trump card on the label (ok, I disagree). It is after all just an adjective.

Fresh Air

01-17-2007, 12:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm glad to hear your opinion but please note that I was specifically inquiring about DoctorSurferDude's opinion as I'm trying to understand his perspective. The question is "Does DoctorSurferDude believe one can be an authentic Christian and also regard the theory of evolution as fact?".

Albinus </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm pretty sure he's gotten bored with this post. So, you likely won't get a response to that. But, if it helps any, we are of the same religion with often similar beliefs. So, he would likely share a similar opinion to my own.

I answered cause I knew he wasn't going to and I didn't want to leave you hanging, or guessing.

Fresh Air

01-17-2007, 12:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Species boundaries to me are dynamic and evolving. So, while I do see dogs and cats, I make no grand requirement that, while there are species, that the barriers between species cannot be breached.

Overall, I would say the speciation argument as presented is an example of the strawman fallacy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think everyone who understands science would agree with that. However, the term "speciation" is not up for personal interpretation. It is well defined. Taxonomy serves a purpose one some level or another. But, I can see how evolution theory (more like laymen who don't understand evolution theory trying to explain it) will often cross the boundries of objective science to subjective explainations in regards to species, cladograms, history, etc. If there is indeed a strawman, I think it is easy to see where it might have come from.

Fresh Air

01-17-2007, 12:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hypotheses are validated by falsifiable tests, not by an insistence on omniscience. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True dat!

objectivity vs. subjectivity

hm0504

01-17-2007, 01:06 PM

Fresh Air

01-17-2007, 01:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now Fresh Air, I assume that when you write "we are of the same religion", I assume you mean that you are also an Adventist. From what I understand, Adventists have traditionally been strict Creationists (young Earth, no evolution) but are now more open to modern cosmology and evolutionary biology theories. Please note that I'm not stating that Adventists are accepting a 4.5 Billion year old Earth and evolution, just that one can regard the Earth as Billions of years old and be an evolutionist while also being a perfectly fine Adventist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Adventists don't have "traditions" like some other denominations. We have a very anti-dogmatic belief system. You will find the entire spectrum of beliefs on evolution within my denomination.

I would have used 'denomination' though, if I was refering to Adventism. By "Religion" I mean a global belief system that is more specific than denomination and more extensive than theism. Kind of like a world view but incorporating beliefs also.

I don't live to be, nor have any interest in being, a 'perfectly fine Adventist'. It is a label/association, not a life creed. I'd like to be a good human and a good Christian and perhaps life a life that effects others in a positive way, that's about all I care for in life.

But I agree that anyone could believe the earth is possibily is billions of years old, respect the science of evolution theory, and accept the fact of evolution; and call themselves an Adventist. Or I wouldn't call myself an Adventist (since I place faith in those three claims myself).

usmc1

01-18-2007, 04:02 AM

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

25,863 angels and 3 cherubs can dance on the head of a pin. Remove the cherub and you could fit quite a few more angels, probably 342.

So, the final answer 26,205 angels can dance on the head of a pin.

OH, wait. This is CFF. First we have to determine the meaning of pin, angel and cherub. And precisely what is meant by dance. And certainly ascertain the dimensions of the pin, where it was made, what it was made of and its weight bearing capacities.

Certainly we'd have to know and all agree as to what authority we would ascribe those conclusions.

Oh wait, I left out the possibility of a government conspiracy related to shoddy workmanship on the pin. And most certainly Lou Dobbs would have to check to see if those angels were here legally.

Nevermind, forget it. There are no angels or pins, they're all in your mind. Oh no, wait! What do we mean by mind?

Nude in the North

01-18-2007, 01:01 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

.........? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great post!
Finally some sense to all this.

Steve

Fresh Air

01-18-2007, 08:55 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Like water enclosed by banks of loose sand, the past finds fissures in time in order to seep through to the present. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wise words...

l2ltlarry

01-18-2007, 09:01 PM

How can scientists be so very certain that there is no god? So certain that there is no creator as yet undiscovered by themselves? So certain that the bible is a book of myths, filled with errors?

The word "science" is based on the Latin word "sciens" which means "to know". How do scientists know with such great certainty regarding these things that they feel confident in deriding, denigrating, putting-down, and dismissing others who hold--after much individual hard work to figure it out for themselves--that the likelihood of a creator god existing, and some understanding of the bible eventually turning out to be true is greater than the opposite?

l2ltlarry

01-18-2007, 09:17 PM

By Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Proper science must be approached with skepticism....

In my view skepticism is appropriate in religion too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The bible does say "question everything". It also says, "Be on guard against science falsely so-called". As I've said previously, it supports mathematicians, logic, intelligence, reason, rationality. It also supports the thinking that the earth is not flat, saying "god sits upon the circle of the earch." It'd be hard to be a flat-earther in light of that statement.

Big-Thinker

01-18-2007, 10:10 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
How can scientists be so very certain that there is no god? So certain that there is no creator as yet undiscovered by themselves? So certain that the bible is a book of myths, filled with errors? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The answer is that they cannot be certain there is no god. Any scientist that tells you differently is lying. I believe very much in evolution, but I know that science cannot yet model evolutionary history completely enough to determine that 1. there was no creator or 2. that evolution was not influenced/guided/shaped by a intelligent design. However there has not been any hard evidence for intelligent design either. It looks most like life freely evolved via natural selection alone so far. I believe eventually (maybe 100 years in the future) science will be able to model things to the degree that they could tell how life began on earth for certain, but at this time, they have only a best guess (such as the primordial soup theory or even innoculation via a comet/asteroid).

I would be suspicious of any scientist who spends all his energies trying to refute religious texts. I am not religious at this time in my life, but I don't see any need to mess with good religion. I don't like how some of the documentary channels (Nat'l geographic, Discovery, History Channels) are doing science-of-the-bible type shows. I just don't see it as a priority - they're not going to change any minds anyway.

PascoDoug

01-19-2007, 06:36 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
rationality. It also supports the thinking that the earth is not flat, saying "god sits upon the circle of the earch." It'd be hard to be a flat-earther in light of that statement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Saying the earth is circular makes no statement as to whether it is flat or not. Having a flat, circular shaped Earth (like a coin) is perfectly logical to the flat earthers..

Now if the Bible had stated "sphere" instead of circle...

nacktman

01-19-2007, 07:03 AM

The book IS a collection 'myths' and IS completely riddled with errors.

'Myth' is the proper term for 'story', nothing more, nothing less.
Assignation of accuracy or fallacy of any 'myth' is made by those hearing it.
The 'myths' collected in the book are from much older oral and written traditions.
Some are outright theft, some are reworked, none are original to the culture credited with authorship.

Errors in translations and misinterpetations abound in each translation.
Inclusion of text not originally in the collection.
Exclusion of text orginally in the collection.

These alone are reason to disbelieve the veracity of the book.
Not to mention the war, famine, pestilence, geneocide and more that it has spawned.

Science and scientists are not the "Only" ones to reputiate the book, any with reasoning ability, any with any sense of spirituality do as well.
It is very true, the statement: Religion is the pablum for the ignorant masses, for they are content being ignorant and are intent on remaining ignorant, therefore they will not know god.

hm0504

01-19-2007, 08:47 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
How can scientists be so very certain that there is no god? So certain that there is no creator as yet undiscovered by themselves? So certain that the bible is a book of myths, filled with errors?

The word "science" is based on the Latin word "sciens" which means "to know". How do scientists know with such great certainty regarding these things that they feel confident in deriding, denigrating, putting-down, and dismissing others who hold--after much individual hard work to figure it out for themselves--that the likelihood of a creator god existing, and some understanding of the bible eventually turning out to be true is greater than the opposite? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You seem to assume that scientists all are certain that God does not exist. Such an assumption is utterly false; science deals with things that are measurable and physically provable. If something is explained, science assumes there may be an explanation and that "God made it so" is not sufficient. Such thinking is not a rejection of God; it is agnostic about God's existence and role. Anyway, there are many scientists who believe in God but are also fully able to carry out their work in proper scientific, secular fashion.

hm0504

01-19-2007, 08:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PascoDoug:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
rationality. It also supports the thinking that the earth is not flat, saying "god sits upon the circle of the earch." It'd be hard to be a flat-earther in light of that statement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Saying the earth is circular makes no statement as to whether it is flat or not. Having a flat, circular shaped Earth (like a coin) is perfectly logical to the flat earthers..

Now if the Bible had stated "sphere" instead of circle... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exacty, as circles are two dimensional, if anything, the passage could be construed as evidence that the Earth is flat. Anyway, one thing we can be sure of from the Bible (if we read it as a science text) is that the Earth is the centre of the Universe and everything else revolves around it.

David77

01-19-2007, 09:56 AM

<center>Science, Religion and Ethics</center>

The following good speech, which I heard this month, is by a noted philosophy professor, Dr. Ronald Glossop of Southern Illinois University of Edwardsville IL. (retired).

http://www.firstuualton.org/Sermon_files/OnScienceReligionAndEthics.htm

usmc1

01-19-2007, 04:14 PM

So read this and nanner, nanner on you who insist science and religion can't come to terms on a scientific issue.

Q& A: Why Scientists Need Christians
Elite scientists and evangelicals put aside their differences to save the Earth.
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Samantha Henig
Newsweek
Updated: 11:13 a.m. CT Jan 17, 2007
Jan. 17, 2007 - A group of 28 scientists and evangelical Christians today announced their commitment to working together to address global and environmental climate change--an issue that they say is pressing enough to trump any theological differences between the groups. Eric Chivian, director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, is one of the scientists leading the collaboration. In an interview with NEWSWEEK’s Samantha Henig, Chivian discussed the origins of this peculiar union, what the two groups have in common, how the evangelical Christian community can help scientists and the spiritual significance of his fruit garden. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Scientists and evangelicals have announced that they are coming together to address global warming and environmental change. What exactly does this collaboration entail?
Eric Chivian: We believe that it was very important for these two groups--scientists and evangelical Christians--to get together and speak with one voice, because the public sees us as disagreeing on a whole variety of issues. And yet it was clear after we began to meet that we really shared a very deep reverence for life and we shared an enormous concern about what was being done to it by human activity. And that was a surprise to us.

What do you have planned?
We are planning to meet with a bipartisan group of members of the Congress this afternoon. I know we’re meeting with Sen. Barbara Boxer and with the staff of Sen. Dick Lugar, and others in both the House and Senate. We are planning a large meeting some time in the near future of our two communities, a large public meeting. This is just the beginning of this dialogue.

Who are the scientists working on this? Are any of them members of the National Association of Evangelicals?
Some in the evangelical group are also scientists. For example, Cal Dewitt is a professor of environmental science at the University of Wisconsin, but he’s also a prominent evangelical. Randy Isaac is a scientist who runs something called the American Scientific Affiliation, which is a group of some 2,000 scientists, most of whom are evangelicals, but are also scientists. So this distinction between scientist and evangelical is not a firm one.

It seems like an unlikely pairing, evangelicals and scientists.
Yes, it does.

How did the union originate?
At a lunch meeting a little over a year ago, Richard Cizik [vice president for governmental affairs at the National Association of Evangelicals] was saying to me, “You know, I’m very concerned about the divide between our two worlds and the level of distrust.” We both agreed that this was a very dangerous divide, that at this time it was extremely important for two of the most influential groups in our country to be speaking to each other, and yet they were hardly doing that.

Do you think that God created the Earth?
That’s an interesting question. I feel I’m a deeply religious person. I’m not identified with any particular faith. I actually have an orchard in central Massachusetts, and I spend a lot of time growing fruit, and I feel a very deep reverence for nature. And that reverence, I found, is very deeply shared by my evangelical colleagues in this effort.

That still doesn’t answer what your belief is about the origin of the planet.
I don’t think that’s relevant.

Are there any ground rules in terms of these two groups working together, any topics that are “off limits”?
Everyone acknowledged right at the beginning that we didn’t agree on everything but that it would be a waste of our time to be fighting about that or trying to resolve it. We agreed on the most important thing of all in our view, which wasn’t whether, as Richard says, whether God created the Earth in a millisecond or whether it evolved over three and a half billion years. The most important issue is that life is now imperiled by human activity.

Why is it to the scientists’ advantage to have the evangelical population involved?
They’re very well organized, they have a great deal of credibility in the United States and great numbers, and a great deal of influence in many sectors of our society.

What are you hoping will come out of this?
I think the country is really poised to make some major changes in our policies with regard to energy, for example greenhouse-gas emissions. I think you can see in Congress a great deal of interest--bipartisan interest--in moving these initiatives forward. I think that’s happening in the general public, as well. People are becoming much more aware that we have enormous problems that we are facing and that we can also do something about mitigating those problems. I think this initiative will just add weight and credibility to those public concerns. And also I think it will likely affect policymakers. Several policymakers and members of Congress have been very interested in this initiative and I think are struck by its uniqueness and its potential influence with millions of Americans.

Do you have any colleagues at Harvard who are criticizing this move, who think that a scientist working with an evangelical is somehow detrimental to the scientists’ cause?
I don’t think so, but you never know. Colleagues are pretty good at criticizing each other at times.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16671785/site/newsweek/

Fresh Air

01-19-2007, 05:19 PM

New campaign to censor different view of Grand Canyon (http://www.creationontheweb.org/content/view/4833/)

Well, it cuts both ways I guess. Hypocracy is so facinating sometimes.

nacktman

01-19-2007, 08:25 PM

Want to talk hipocracy!

How typical of those that wish to deny all outside what they deem that others should believe scream foul when they are censured.

Hipocracy indeed!

l2ltlarry

01-20-2007, 03:40 AM

From one of Fresh Air's links, 'A Who's Who of evolutionists':
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Even though 39% of scientists in the United States believe in a ‘personal god’,2 theistic scientists are conspicuous by their absence from the above lists of public promoters of evolution. Why are atheists at the forefront in promoting evolution?

Atheist Frank Zindler said,

‘The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.’3

We see, therefore, that evolution is foundational/necessary for their faith that there is no Creator and that everything made itself (i.e. evolution). So, that is why atheists are at the forefront in promoting the public acceptance of evolution—it promotes their atheistic faith. They recognise that if they can persuade the general population to accept evolution as ‘fact’, it will be the death of (real) Christianity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
By Big-Thinker:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The answer is that they cannot be certain there is no god. Any scientist that tells you differently is lying....

...I would be suspicious of any scientist who spends all his energies trying to refute religious texts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
By PascoDoug:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Saying the earth is circular makes no statement as to whether it is flat or not. Having a flat, circular shaped Earth (like a coin) is perfectly logical to the flat earthers..

Now if the Bible had stated "sphere" instead of circle... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
One doesn't typically stand a coin or disk on its edge. One doesn't usually think of sitting on the edge of a disk or coin (unless it's Cirque du Soliel). So applying some of the reason, rationality, logic, and intelligence, plus the "precise, rigorous, accurate thinking", i.e. mathematician thinking the bible demands, one would conclude a sphere.

By hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You seem to assume that scientists all are certain that God does not exist. Such an assumption is utterly false; science deals with things that are measurable and physically provable. If something is explained, science assumes there may be an explanation and that "God made it so" is not sufficient. Such thinking is not a rejection of God; it is agnostic about God's existence and role.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please see the quote above by Frank Zindler, who heads the American Atheist organization.

By nacktman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Errors in translations and misinterpetations abound in each translation.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What about if you review the underlying text before it is translated, and draw your own conclusions/do your own translation? That way you eliminate the pesky translation errors.

Also by nacktman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">These alone are reason to disbelieve the veracity of the book.
Not to mention the war, famine, pestilence, geneocide and more that it has spawned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I recently read it once and heard it said once that the atheistic dictators of the 20th Century in just 100 years killed more people than all of Christianity during all of its existence. I don't have the statistics on that, though.

Also by nacktman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How typical of those that wish to deny all outside what they deem that others should believe.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
My impression of people who hold themselves up as scientists is they are quite good at doing this very thing. Scientists most always say, "This far and no further. Anything that's beyond or outside of my belief system can't be true. Nature created itself."

Concerning who believes and who doesn't believe, a recent issue of 'Atlantic Monthly' stated that 95 percent of the people in the world believe that some kind of supreme being exists. It asked, "Did evolution cause people to have this belief?" An acquaintance one time made the antiquated, possibly racist statement that, "Fifty thousand Chinamen can be wrong." My response was, "yes they can." How many people believe something doesn't make it true--or false. I think putting our brains in gear and working hard to come to the best conclusions we can is about all we can do.

usmc1

01-20-2007, 05:43 AM

The issue that many of you on both sides of the debate really need to reaccess is your propensity to see and talk about "science" and "religion" as though they were monolithic.

That, and some really glaring non-sequiters. Not every believer is a "Christian" and not every "scientist" rejecting so-called "creationism" disavows that which we call "God".

How old is the Grand Canyon and what should be the response of federal empoyees when asked that really ought not generate such fuss.

"Science projects its age as yadda yadda, and there are some religions who believe yadda yadda, the Park Service takes no position in the debate; now, if you'll look over your right shoulder..."

Naturist Mark

01-20-2007, 06:22 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fresh Air:
New campaign to censor different view of Grand Canyon (http://www.creationontheweb.org/content/view/4833/)

Well, it cuts both ways I guess. Hypocracy is so facinating sometimes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That a group of scientists objects to a non-scientific religious dogma being disseminated by the government as science is hypocrisy? An interesting definition.

-Mark

PascoDoug

01-20-2007, 07:41 AM

By l2ltlarry:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Saying the earth is circular makes no statement as to whether it is flat or not. Having a flat, circular shaped Earth (like a coin) is perfectly logical to the flat earthers..
Now if the Bible had stated "sphere" instead of circle... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One doesn't typically stand a coin or disk on its edge. One doesn't usually think of sitting on the edge of a disk or coin (unless it's Cirque du Soliel). So applying some of the reason, rationality, logic, and intelligence, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would one conclude a sphere from the word "circle"? Especially a writer thousands of years ago. And how does standing a coin on its edge come into the picture? You can very easily sit on a circle which is lying flat.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">plus the "precise, rigorous, accurate thinking", i.e. mathematician thinking the bible demands </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're joking right? If the Bible demanded "precise, rigorous, accurate thinking" it would fail by its own criteria.

Nude in the North

01-20-2007, 09:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Science projects its age as yadda yadda, and there are some religions who believe yadda yadda, the Park Service takes no position in the debate; now, if you'll look over your right shoulder..." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be a great answer.

Steve

Thank God somebody finally ended this pointless debate.

Dick Springer

01-20-2007, 01:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nude in the North:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Science projects its age as yadda yadda, and there are some religions who believe yadda yadda, the Park Service takes no position in the debate; now, if you'll look over your right shoulder..." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be a great answer.

Steve

Thank God somebody finally ended this pointless debate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the contrary, this debate is of the utmost importance for our future. The important debate is between those who believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and those who do not.

A substantial majority of religious Americans do not believe in the literal truth of the Bible and therefore have no particular problem in accepting scientific truth. Those who do believe in the literal truth of the Bible have to believe that pi is not 3.14159..., but exactly three, as stated in First Kings. Based on the Bible, the universe has been calculated to have been created in October of 4004 B.C. Based on the Bible, you would have to believe that homosexuals, adulteresses, incorrigible children, and apostates such as me must be stoned to death (see Deuteronomy). Basing our present foreign policy on the Book of Revelation would make the world a much worse place than it already is.

Fortunately a majority of Americans, Catholics for instance, do not have this belief. Unfortunately, at least a quarter of Americans do, and God help us if they truly believe what they say that they do.

usmc1

01-20-2007, 01:38 PM

Nah Dick! You've just let yourself get a bit overwrought, this debate is no more important to our future than it ever has been.

The particulars of this specific debate might seem of great importance in the here and now, but variations have been going on for quite sometime. Read a little of Thomas Paine's Age of Reason to see what I'm referring to.

Look, the inerrent word of God crowd are what they are and to some of us, depending on our point of view, either ridiculous, ignorant, or scary but they are no more ascendent than they ever were. More vocal maybe, and certainly more willing to politicize their religious extremism, but, of no greater importance than any other marginal dogma over the long haul.

God, mother nature, the godess, Gaia, the green man, history, human common sense, or whatever it is, always restores some sort of equilibrium to the equation.

We're living in an age of heightened religious awareness, similar to others that have come and gone in the past. Already, there are signs that the majority of decent, thoughtful people are repelled by the extremism of Christian, Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists and dogmatists, and are less frightened to confront the ugliness they spawn.

Those who ignore the truth, or don't even bother to investigate the truth, of the bibles they use as the basis of their beliefs might hold temporary sway, but truth will always out.

And, the flip side of this is that ever since Constantine, and surely before I guess, politicans and rulers have been always cleverly able to provoke and mobilize the incipient ignorance, emotionalism and naivete of those people for their own dark purposes.

But, while they are a cause for awareness and vigilence, there is no need to fear them. The pendulum swings and in a decade or so, they'll become a footnote in history along with Billy Sunday, and old what's her name of the Four Square Church.

nacktman

01-20-2007, 02:12 PM

Larry since you seem to place so much worth on a dubious text to begin with you may be interested to know that "god' himself is credited with over 200,000,000 'kills' with is own hand (this is not including Noah's Flood, Sodam and Gamorrah or the Plauges of Egypt) in the book.
David about 200,000, Rameses only 100,000 or so, Hearod around 10,000 or so, and the 'dark one' himself a measly 10: ah, but who's counting -- well, actually several sources, none of which you'll find trying to justify the book and adherence to it.

In referencing your statistic of 20th century atheistic dictators killing more in 100 year than has christainity in all of christianity's years of existance -- not even close -- less than 50,000,000 'kills' are credited to all the dictators of the 20th century, religious or otherwise, and they'll be no more as the 20th century is over -- christainity is credited with over 3,000,000,000 and counting in it's 1700 plus year swath of terror.

The canyon is older than creationists want it to be and they don't want the world to know the truth -- sorry ain't happening -- truth ever trumps dogma.

hm0504

01-20-2007, 03:58 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dick Springer:
...

On the contrary, this debate is of the utmost importance for our future. The important debate is between those who believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and those who do not.

A substantial majority of religious Americans do not believe in the literal truth of the Bible and therefore have no particular problem in accepting scientific truth. Those who do believe in the literal truth of the Bible have to believe that pi is not 3.14159..., but exactly three, as stated in First Kings. Based on the Bible, the universe has been calculated to have been created in October of 4004 B.C. Based on the Bible, you would have to believe that homosexuals, adulteresses, incorrigible children, and apostates such as me must be stoned to death (see Deuteronomy). Basing our present foreign policy on the Book of Revelation would make the world a much worse place than it already is.

Fortunately a majority of Americans, Catholics for instance, do not have this belief. Unfortunately, at least a quarter of Americans do, and God help us if they truly believe what they say that they do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll have to disagee with the bit about pi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> 1 Kings: Chapter 7
23
The sea was then cast; it was made with a circular rim, and measured ten cubits across, five in height, and thirty in circumference.

24
Under the brim, gourds encircled it, ten to the cubit all the way around; the gourds were in two rows and were cast in one mold with the sea.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
First, the Hebrew version represents a number much closer to pi and second, the text is obviously just a general description of dimensions of a vessel, not a mathematical treatise.

hm0504

01-20-2007, 04:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by l2ltlarry:

Atheist Frank Zindler said,

‘The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.’3

We see, therefore, that evolution is foundational/necessary for their faith that there is no Creator and that everything made itself (i.e. evolution). So, that is why atheists are at the forefront in promoting the public acceptance of evolution—it promotes their atheistic faith. They recognise that if they can persuade the general population to accept evolution as ‘fact’, it will be the death of (real) Christianity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
...

By hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You seem to assume that scientists all are certain that God does not exist. Such an assumption is utterly false; science deals with things that are measurable and physically provable. If something is explained, science assumes there may be an explanation and that "God made it so" is not sufficient. Such thinking is not a rejection of God; it is agnostic about God's existence and role.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please see the quote above by Frank Zindler, who heads the American Atheist organization.
...[/QUOTE]

Are you saying the man Zindler epitomizes the concept of evolution? Would you also think that Rev. Fred Phelps epitomizes all of Christianity?

Evolution neither confirms nor denies God. Indeed, some would argue, as I would, that the issues of complexity and entropy and the Big Bang itself still leave plenty of room for God in scientific theory as we currently understand it. If scientists really were solely focused on destroying belief in God, they would have come up with something distinctly atheist.

There are plenty of Christians who are both scientists and who regard evolution, over billions of years, as the best explanation for life on Earth today. I suggest you read about some of them. Here's one for starters.

Dr. Francis Collins, Head of the Human Genome Project:
1) PBS interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/collins.html

2) Collins on The Colbert Report (video):
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?lnk=v&ml_video=79238 (part 1)
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?lnk=v&ml_video=79237 (part 2)

gamblefish

01-20-2007, 05:20 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
..."god' himself is credited with over 200,000,000 'kills' with is own hand (this is not including Noah's Flood, Sodam and Gamorrah or the Plauges of Egypt)... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were probably all liberals...can you blame Him? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/tongue.gif

David77

01-20-2007, 06:09 PM

One obvious example of the bible not being infalable, is in the area of astronomy where Biblical writers adopted the viewpoint of their time (roughly 200 BCE to 200 CE), namely, that the sun goes around the earth.
Also the bible states there could be daylight and darkness independent of the sun, which body, according to Genesis didn't get created until the fourth day!

Fresh Air

01-21-2007, 08:19 AM

Fresh Air

01-21-2007, 08:23 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Want to talk hipocracy!

How typical of those that wish to deny all outside what they deem that others should believe scream foul when they are censured.

Hipocracy indeed! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That a group of scientists objects to a non-scientific religious dogma being disseminated by the government as science is hypocrisy? An interesting definition.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, if only their objections were based on science and not personal beliefs.

Fresh Air

01-21-2007, 08:28 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One obvious example of the bible not being infalable, is in the area of astronomy where Biblical writers adopted the viewpoint of their time (roughly 200 BCE to 200 CE), namely, that the sun goes around the earth.
Also the bible states there could be daylight and darkness independent of the sun, which body, according to Genesis didn't get created until the fourth day! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean, Light and Darkness. Because the sun is the only source of that? FYI, light and darkness exist independent of the sun.

Read Job, the oldest book of the Bible, where the earth aparently goes around the sun. Also, refer to the hebrew/greek, instead of judging translations done in the time of King James.

usmc1

01-21-2007, 08:53 AM

What a wonderous world it would be, should Christians begin behaving as Christians.

hm0504

01-21-2007, 09:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fresh Air:
...
Read Job, the oldest book of the Bible, where the earth aparently goes around the sun. Also, refer to the hebrew/greek, instead of judging translations done in the time of King James. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could you specify what particular verses in Job you are referring to?

nacktman

01-21-2007, 09:21 AM

Job isn't the oldest text in the book either, but let's not be picky.

Yes, umsc1 it would be a wonderous world indeed.

David77

01-21-2007, 09:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
What a wonderous world it would be, should Christians begin behaving as Christians. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<center>GUIDELINES FOR LIVING
from the teachings of Jesus </center>

<LI>The times are critical for humanity. Follow me in seeking first the Kingdom of love on the path of justice. The rest will follow.

<LI>Sow the good word of love for all, wherever you go, and have faith that it will grow. Anticipate opposition, and be prepared to stake your life on your faith.

<LI>Let your love be all inclusive, like the sun shining on the good and the bad, like rain falling on the just and the unjust. Eat with anybody.

<LI>Treat with the respect with which you would wish to be treated.

<LI>Seek the good of your adversary.

<LI>Don't set yourself up as Judge of others; be prepared to forgive time without number.

<LI>Befriend the alienated, the troubled, and the needy. Human service is what the Kingdom's service is all about.

<LI>Any person who seeks the good of the human family is an equal partner in the Kingdom of love.

<LI>Religion exists to serve humanity, not the other way around. The clean heart and eye and the plain word have priority, not correct creed or ritual.

<LI>Be a contributing citizen of both the Kingdom of law and the kingdom of love. But love is your one master.

<LI>Be aware and alert, trusting as the lily, gentle as the dove, streetwise as the snake.
<hr>
Dr. John Hoad, Unitarian Theologian, compiled the above list of Jesus' teachings.

hm0504

01-21-2007, 09:49 AM

David77

01-21-2007, 10:17 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by usmc1:
What a wonderous world it would be, should Christians begin behaving as Christians. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You mean behaving as Christians or behaving as Christ [1]? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouild say "Behavior based on Jesus teachings".

This is because I believe that Jesus' anger, rage, got him in fatal trouble. He himself made a weapon in the form of a whip and threatened the people in the temple and created choas on the most holy day of the year, Passover. This social indignity resulted in the masses voting for his being (tortured and) killed.

A modern analogy is --- If someone ran through the Catholic Cathedral on Easter with a weapon causing choas, he would be taken to jail and possibly have psychiatric evaluation.
"Anger management" class? (No longer crucifixions!).

Baron Lake

01-22-2007, 09:26 AM

Freshair,
Ya mean something like moonlight? Or maybe those little insect thingys that fly around at night (dark).

b.l.

Ok maybe they they are not true insects. I guess we should look it up in the Bible.

l2ltlarry

01-22-2007, 09:24 PM

By nacktman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Larry since you seem to place so much worth on a dubious text to begin with.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
nacktman, I believe the owner(s) of this website likewise "place so much worth on a dubious text", based on 2 articles on the homepage. One is titled, 'Nudity & the Bible "Hiding your body for the reason Adam and Eve did is sin."' It also states, "Good article that explains it well."

The second place is on the homepage about halfway down. It says, "Your body is yours, a gift from God, and it is decent and wholesome just like God intended with Adam and Eve. Yes, the Bible does have a body positive message."

One time in 1988 or thereabout, comedian Steve Allen was challenged regarding his criticism of TV with the question, "But aren't you biting the hand that feeds you?" "Yes," he said, "as hard as I can." My point being, if you take me to task for believing that what you consider "a dubious text" is going to eventually turn out to be true in some understanding , aren't you by extension taking the owner(s) of the website to task as well? Both articles say people may quote from the articles freely as long as Clothesfree.com is given credit.

As your post continues, you give figures for how many people "god" himself killed, and how many christianity and others killed. Where can one verify your numbers?

Question--do you hold the uniformitarian view of time, when saying how old things are? I think the uniformitarian view is that time has always been the same speed as it is today. A clock on the front of Joe's garage where I live has the words around its face, "Joe's time is your time." My mental response is always, "But Joe's time isn't God's time." If some understanding of the bible turns out to be true, then God's capabilities are far beyond Joe's. My view is God, if he's who the bible says he is, can do far more in far shorter periods of time than Joe.

l2ltlarry

01-22-2007, 09:50 PM

By PascoDoug:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> quote:
plus the "precise, rigorous, accurate thinking", i.e. mathematician thinking the bible demands

You're joking right? If the Bible demanded "precise, rigorous, accurate thinking" it would fail by its own criteria. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I understand how you can think that. I agree that christianity fails by its own criteria. But nevertheless, every place the Bible says "disciple", the underlying word translated "disciple" is -- in the original Greek -- " mathetensate" (in Matthew 28:18-20) and " mathe tas" (in Acts 11:26). I have a book titled, 'Mathematics: A way of thinking'. Contrary to popular opinion, math is not primarily about numbers and calculating.

Looking up the word "mathematical" in my Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, its underlying Greek work is "mathematikos". The definitions are: "learning, to learn, to pay attention, rigorously exact, precise, certain."

tarsus

01-22-2007, 10:30 PM

please read the opening lines of genesis. note that in the begaining there was earth,with no mention of how long it was before land appeared. there are some deep trenchs in the ocean. and a day could and did mean in some cases eons. we think of days as 24 hours,but we all know days on other planets are shorter or or much longer. our concept of a "day" is not Gods concept of a "day"
the grand canyon is eons old. there is only conflict, in our thinking,and those of a closed mind.

nacktman

01-23-2007, 06:24 AM

Larry just count the numbers in your precious book.
That would be the obivious source to any with a working brain or so I would have thought having a working brain and all.
That is the source of the numbers that many have counted.
While you're at it count the number of rapes, assaults, infanticdes, homocides, cons, thefts, tortures, wars and genocide that are contained within the text.
If you count them all you'll be real surprised at how large a number it is.

nacktman

01-23-2007, 06:35 AM

This topic is about the Park Service, who work for US, is not answering people's questions about the age of the Grand Canyon with the truth due to the myopic dogma of a minor group of ideologues.

And true to form when opinions were expressed that hold that this is wrong the ideologues and their syncophants began howling and attempting to divert the topic away from the discussion at hand.

With such idiotic and moronic statements that needed to be pointed out, their attempts have swayed the topic, leave us now return to the topic at hand.

The Park Service must answer the questions as to the age of the canyon with the truth and that is that the canyon itself is young in geological terms at about 6 million years old and is a result of the area's plate techtonic actions over the last 40 million years or so and the constant flow of a water source for the last 6 million years of that time.

tarsus

01-23-2007, 09:24 AM

mmmm. has anyone went to the parks website [i am sure they have one] and just asked??
the park after all is not a "church". i just don't see an issue here.

nacktman

01-23-2007, 09:49 AM

Been there. URL is Grand Canyon (http://www.nps.gov/grca/).
The official site reflects the true age of the canyon as it always has.
The myopic dogma is want they tell you in person so they offend everyone with LIES except for the myopic ones.
That is the issue!

Fresh Air

01-23-2007, 12:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
Job isn't the oldest text in the book either, but let's not be picky.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you consider the oldest book?

Fresh Air

01-23-2007, 12:47 PM

Job 38:33, Job 26:10, Job 26:7

and the non Job: Luke 17:34-35, Genesis 1:14-18

Remember to not trust anything 'english' in the Bible, but instead spend time pondering the original Hebrew or Greek. That is the best way (aka only way) to "study" the Bible.

Unless you trust King James and the merry band of englishmen-translators that followed...

hm0504

01-23-2007, 01:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fresh Air:
Job 38:33, Job 26:10, Job 26:7

and the non Job: Luke 17:34-35, Genesis 1:14-18

Remember to not trust anything 'english' in the Bible, but instead spend time pondering the original Hebrew or Greek. That is the best way (aka only way) to "study" the Bible.

Unless you trust King James and the merry band of englishmen-translators that followed... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Re Genesis 1:14-18: "dome", "firmament", or the Hebrew [1] is considered to be a hemisphere. This is describing the heavens, not the Earth; the picture is like a domed stadium with the Earth being the center field.

Re Job, the verses do not seem any way related to the Earth as a sphere here either. [2] Indeed, the rest of chapter 38 strongly suggests the view of the Earth as flat under a dome re my stadium analogy.

Re Luke, I don't see how people in bed or preparing food has to do with the shape of the Earth.

[1] http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=07549

[2] http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=04896&page=1

David77

01-23-2007, 01:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fresh Air:

Remember to not trust anything 'english' in the Bible, but instead spend time pondering the original Hebrew or Greek. That is the best way (aka only way) to "study" the Bible.

Unless you trust King James and the merry band of englishmen-translators that followed... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you ponder the original Hebrew or Greek?

You still have to choose which translator has the correct meaning on a Hebrew or Greek word or passage. Linquistic experts disagree on the meaning of a a number of words and some passages used in the Bible.

Most likely, if you are a religious conservative, you will choose or trust a translator who is conservative. If you have a more liberal "take" on the Bible, you will probably choose and trust a more liberal translator to give you the correct translation.
Many translators argue among themselves as to the true mean of words use thousands of years ago.

I took two years of the ancient Greek language to fulfull my college requirement of two years of a foreign language. We were issued a lexicon (sort of an elaborate dictionery) to look up Greek words and meaning of words, and you can be assured that that particular lexicon was approved by the bias of the professor.

I have learned in class that a word or phrase can be translated several ways sometimes. Sometimes one must choose to translate a passage more or less literally, or else use a <u>transliteration</u> which may give a more true picture of the thoughts the writer was trying to convey.

Compare the translation of six different Bibles and you will see the difference in the translators understanding of the ancient language.

hm0504

01-23-2007, 01:51 PM

Good post David77, but due to importance of specific terms, I need to get into the spelling.

a) "Lexacon" should be "Lexicon"

b) What is "trasliteration"? Do you mean "transliteration" or something else?

BTW, I also took a short course in reading the Bible in the ancient Greek/Hebrew. Should be a prerequisite for participating on the CFF, don't you think. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

David77

01-23-2007, 02:07 PM

hm0504,

Thank you for correcting my spelling. I will correct it in my above post.

These days, seminaries (that I know of) do not any longer require ministarial students to study the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages. They leave this difficult translating task for the professional linguist to perform.

Therefore we will not require this study by members of CFF. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

Big-Thinker

01-23-2007, 03:44 PM

nacktman

01-23-2007, 07:41 PM

As usual, the myopic howl and as usual they are wrong.

Job is NOT the oldest text in the book, far from it.
The oldest text in the book IS, the Septuagint text in the ancient form of Semetic Aramaic which is the orignal language in which the book was written and was centuries old when Job was written in the Moersetic text in ancient Hebrew much later in time around 50ce.

Also, the myopic can not abide the fact that this is a discussion of the error of their dogma and the correction demanded by the truth as they attempt to ignore the topic under discussion here in their efforts to thwart the truth and contiune to post inane and insipid statements off topic in hope that we won't notice ... sorry but t'aint gonna happen.

The Park Service is wrong to bold-face lie in their face to those inquiring about the age of the Canyon by spouting the dogmatic line of the myopics, who can not comprehend the truth - as evidenced here - when it slams them across the face with a hard right cross, lest they 'offend' them ... so they instead OFFEND everyone else to appease the myopic few.

hm0504

01-24-2007, 07:20 AM

Part of the complexity in dating pieces like Job is that various parts of the Bible are derived from legends and commentary from various regions. The books of Job and Ecclesiastes for example seem to stem from the older Babylonian ponderings of a "Dialogue About Human Misery"[1].

[1] http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/WISINTRO.TXT

nacktman

01-24-2007, 04:37 PM

Albinus, Methinks thou hast got it!

Fresh Air

01-24-2007, 07:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Re Genesis 1:14-18: "dome", "firmament", or the Hebrew [1] is considered to be a hemisphere. This is describing the heavens, not the Earth; the picture is like a domed stadium with the Earth being the center field.

Re Job, the verses do not seem any way related to the Earth as a sphere here either. [2] Indeed, the rest of chapter 38 strongly suggests the view of the Earth as flat under a dome re my stadium analogy.

Re Luke, I don't see how people in bed or preparing food has to do with the shape of the Earth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Firmament a hemisphere?
Psalms 105:1 - Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.

Genesis 1:7 - And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.

It doesn't sound like a hemisphere to me. Sounds more 'global', as in protruding in all directions from a central object. Unless God's power is considered a dome (it isn't).

I suppose if I felt that the Job text in hebrew described a flat earth I wouldn't have cited it as an example. So, I guess we disagree there. I see quite a relation, but I may have studied it a little longer and in more depth...maybe (maybe not).

In regards to Luke. I guess, you have to understand all the other versed in regards to the Second Coming. But, it is basically described as an instant, something that happens immediately to the entire earth at once. Not something that occurs to different individuals and locations are different times. So, that it would be happening to two people at the same time where one is in the day and the other at night, sort of points to the concept that while it is day for me, it is night for another....why? Because we live on a rotating sphere. I can't think of another reason why.

Fresh Air

01-24-2007, 07:33 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How do you ponder the original Hebrew or Greek?

You still have to choose which translator has the correct meaning on a Hebrew or Greek word or passage. Linquistic experts disagree on the meaning of a a number of words and some passages used in the Bible.

Most likely, if you are a religious conservative, you will choose or trust a translator who is conservative. If you have a more liberal "take" on the Bible, you will probably choose and trust a more liberal translator to give you the correct translation.
Many translators argue among themselves as to the true mean of words use thousands of years ago.

I took two years of the ancient Greek language to fulfull my college requirement of two years of a foreign language. We were issued a lexicon (sort of an elaborate dictionery) to look up Greek words and meaning of words, and you can be assured that that particular lexicon was approved by the bias of the professor.

I have learned in class that a word or phrase can be translated several ways sometimes. Sometimes one must choose to translate a passage more or less literally, or else use a transliteration which may give a more true picture of the thoughts the writer was trying to convey.

Compare the translation of six different Bibles and you will see the difference in the translators understanding of the ancient language. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that life can be limited by language. However, we can hope that those who set translations are trying to be as accurate as they can in their own language or translation. I would hope anyhow that linguistic experts have some form of objectivity and science to their practise.

When I study it, though, I don't trust the straight defintion of the translator. I do, however, use that as a guide. But, I compare all the other places and contexts in which that same word was used in other areas; to try to get a better sense of what the word means. Often, that will give me insight beyond just a defnition. Though, it does mean figuring out the true meaning of one verse alone can take hours.

I do cross compare english too, but that grows too elementry since, to me, it's basically comparing six different biases. I prefer to find my own.

I believe in finding knowledge for ourselves over blindly adopting knowledge of others.

Fresh Air

01-24-2007, 07:52 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Albinus, Methinks thou hast got it! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think what Albinus was trying to say was that Job is possibly older/oldest.

We can't assume that the oldest peice of literature we find is representative of the exact book written. So, to date a book, we have to employe an analysis of the history and culture within the book. The beliefs, contents, and organization of the ideas. The books of moses are apparently much more young than the books of Job. Despite chronology or avaliable copies of the originals.

David77

01-24-2007, 08:23 PM

<center>Oldest New Testament To Go On Line

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.b...chnology/4739369.stm (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4739369.stm)
</center>

l2ltlarry

01-24-2007, 09:54 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Larry just count the numbers in your precious book.
That would be the obivious source to any with a working brain or so I would have thought having a working brain and all.
That is the source of the numbers that many have counted.
While you're at it count the number of rapes, assaults, infanticdes, homocides, cons, thefts, tortures, wars and genocide that are contained within the text.
If you count them all you'll be real surprised at how large a number it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And would the book be (I assume) "facetiously" referred to as "precious" were you addressing the owner(s) of this website, since they too use this "precious book" on the homepage in support of nudism?

Who are the "many" who have done the counting?

Re: "While you're at it count the number of rapes, assaults, infanticdes, homocides, cons, thefts, tortures, wars and genocide that are contained within the text.
"If you count them all you'll be real surprised at how large a number it is."

And these things don't happen in cultures that do not use the bible in any way, shape, or form in deriving their social norms? I bet they do. To my understanding, the bible presents reality -- the good, the bad, the ugly. It doesn't use euphemisms most of the time. Along with all that, it does call for higher ways of living, for example, "peace on earth, good will to men." I agree with other posters, that we could use more of that in the world. And here.

l2ltlarry

01-24-2007, 10:03 PM

As I recall, the word "hemis" is used many times in the bible to mean "a day". I don't recall if it tacks on "sphere" anywhere, but "hemi sphere " seems to be implied in "hemis".

hm0504

01-25-2007, 12:13 PM

hm0504

01-25-2007, 12:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fresh Air:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Re Genesis 1:14-18: "dome", "firmament", or the Hebrew [1] is considered to be a hemisphere. This is describing the heavens, not the Earth; the picture is like a domed stadium with the Earth being the center field.

Re Job, the verses do not seem any way related to the Earth as a sphere here either. [2] Indeed, the rest of chapter 38 strongly suggests the view of the Earth as flat under a dome re my stadium analogy.

Re Luke, I don't see how people in bed or preparing food has to do with the shape of the Earth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Firmament a hemisphere?
Psalms 105:1 - Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.

Genesis 1:7 - And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.

It doesn't sound like a hemisphere to me. Sounds more 'global', as in protruding in all directions from a central object. Unless God's power is considered a dome (it isn't).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You mean Psalm 150 not 105. This is hardly a statement that the Earth is a sphere. The verse, taken alone, is irrelevant to the shape of the Earth.

Re the Genesis verse, if Fresh Air's house has a roof and above the roof is sky and below the roof is the rest of Fresh Air's house, must I then conclude that Fresh Air lives in a spherical house suspended in space? Take a look at the Strong's reference I gave earlier. If the world's best know authority on ancient Biblical languages interprets its as hemisphere/dome, that's hard to ignore.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fresh Air:
I suppose if I felt that the Job text in hebrew described a flat earth I wouldn't have cited it as an example. So, I guess we disagree there. I see quite a relation, but I may have studied it a little longer and in more depth...maybe (maybe not).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe not! ;-) We've got a few other Bible scholars here like nacktman, let's see what they think. When you (anyone) read Job 38, do you find the description more in line with a flat-Earth writer or spherical-Earth writer?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fresh Air:
In regards to Luke. I guess, you have to understand all the other versed in regards to the Second Coming. But, it is basically described as an instant, something that happens immediately to the entire earth at once. Not something that occurs to different individuals and locations are different times. So, that it would be happening to two people at the same time where one is in the day and the other at night, sort of points to the concept that while it is day for me, it is night for another....why? Because we live on a rotating sphere. I can't think of another reason why. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like you generally accept Rapture theology as depicted in Left Behind? True?

David77

01-25-2007, 06:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Larry just count the numbers in your precious book.
That would be the obivious source to any with a working brain or so I would have thought having a working brain and all.
That is the source of the numbers that many have counted.
While you're at it count the number of rapes, assaults, infanticdes, homocides, cons, thefts, tortures, wars and genocide that are contained within the text.
If you count them all you'll be real surprised at how large a number it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And would the book be (I assume) "facetiously" referred to as "precious" were you addressing the owner(s) of this website, since they too use this "precious book" on the homepage in support of nudism?

Who are the "many" who have done the counting?

Re: "While you're at it count the number of rapes, assaults, infanticdes, homocides, cons, thefts, tortures, wars and genocide that are contained within the text.
"If you count them all you'll be real surprised at how large a number it is."

And these things don't happen in cultures that do not use the bible in any way, shape, or form in deriving their social norms? I bet they do. To my understanding, the bible presents reality -- the good, the bad, the ugly. It doesn't use euphemisms most of the time. Along with all that, it does call for higher ways of living, for example, "peace on earth, good will to men." I agree with other posters, that we could use more of that in the world. And here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

GOD AS REPORTED IN THE <u><span class="ev_code_RED">OLD</span> <span class="ev_code_GREEN">TESTAMENT</span></u>

It is amazing that moral persons can completely overlook the concept of the cruelty of God of the Old Testament: worshiping the concept of this cruel God who performs acts such as world genocide by drowning, (except for Noah and family), who kills some babies during passover, etc.

If a person values morals/ethics in himself, would he not require a God, whom he worships, to be moral/ethical?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a list of Bible references of God's cruelty and evil deeds. This is a terrible concept of God in the "holy?" bible's Old Testament.

References in the Bible;

"I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children." (Leviticus 26:22)

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31:17-18)

"The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women" (Ezechial 9:4-6)

"When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males .... As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves." (Deuteronomy 20:13-14)

"You will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you." (Deuteronomy 28:53)

"The Lord said to Joshua [...] 'you are to hamstring their horses.' " (Exceedingly cruel.)
(Joshua 11:6)

"... Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword and; also the
women and little ones.... every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy." (Judges 21:10-12)

"This is what the Lord says: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and *** .... And Saul ... utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword." (1 Samuel 15:3,7-8)

"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their women with child ripped open." (Hosea 13:16)

"A curse on him who is lax in doing the LORD's work! A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed!" (Jeremiah 48:10)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this really the "word of God" or the cruel thoughts of Bronze age warriors?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Bible, God admits he performs evil acts.

(As if the above was not proof enough!)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Exodus 32:14
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Joshua 23:15
Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things.

Judges 9:23
Then God sent an evil spirit

1 Samuel 16:14
But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.

2 Samuel 12:11
Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house

1 Kings 9:9
...therefore hath the LORD brought upon them all this evil.

1 Kings 14:10
Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam

2 Kings 6:33
....Behold, this evil is of the LORD;

2 Kings 21:12
Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Behold, I am bringing such evil upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whosoever heareth of it, both his ears shall tingle.

2 Kings 22:16
Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place

2 Chronicles 34:24
Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof...

Nehemiah 13:18
Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city?

Jeremiah 4:6
Set up the standard toward Zion: retire, stay not: for I will bring evil from the north, and a great destruction.

Jeremiah 6:19
Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people

Jeremiah 11:11
Therefore thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon them

Jeremiah 25:29
For, lo, I begin to bring evil

Jeremiah 35:17
Therefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon Judah and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil that I have pronounced against them:

Jeremiah 44:2
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Ye have seen all the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem, and upon all the cities of Judah

Jeremiah 45:5
...behold, I will bring evil upon all flesh, saith the LORD

Jeremiah 49:37
...I will bring evil upon them, even my fierce anger, saith the LORD; and I will send the sword after them, till I have consumed them:

Micah 1:12
.... evil came down from the LORD

Micah 2:3
Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, against this family do I devise an evil

<hr>

<center><span class="ev_code_RED">The New Testament says God is LOVE</span></center>

01-25-2007, 08:05 PM

Isn't the whole premise of the bible to instill fear? Such a listing from the bible certainly supports such.

This is terror of biblical proportions!

One testament is about evil, death, destruction by a wrathful god and the one testament is about love.....interesting how the line is drawn here.

I am thankful we have science ......

Allie

Fresh Air

01-26-2007, 09:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You mean Psalm 150 not 105. This is hardly a statement that the Earth is a sphere. The verse, taken alone, is irrelevant to the shape of the Earth.

Re the Genesis verse, if Fresh Air's house has a roof and above the roof is sky and below the roof is the rest of Fresh Air's house, must I then conclude that Fresh Air lives in a spherical house suspended in space? Take a look at the Strong's reference I gave earlier. If the world's best know authority on ancient Biblical languages interprets its as hemisphere/dome, that's hard to ignore.

.....

Maybe not! ;-) We've got a few other Bible scholars here like nacktman, let's see what they think. When you (anyone) read Job 38, do you find the description more in line with a flat-Earth writer or spherical-Earth writer?

.....

Sounds like you generally accept Rapture theology as depicted in Left Behind? True?

Albinus </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What if I had a globe that fit the same description? Must I force a conclusion one way or another based on personal bias? I'm not saying the evidence is conclusive, I'm simply pointing out that there is evidence.

.....

I'm happy to hear other opinions, I'm just sharing my own. I was under the assumption you had asked for it. I'm also not a Bible scholar. Ignoring the doctorate, I did a double science major, not a theology major. But after 25 years of studying a book, it would be boring if I didn't delve a little deeper into it.

.....

I don't believe in the Rapture. I do believe in the Second Coming of Christ.

l2ltlarry

02-03-2007, 02:49 AM

By David77 on Jan. 23rd:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How do you ponder the original Hebrew or Greek?

You still have to choose which translator has the correct meaning on a Hebrew or Greek word or passage. Linquistic experts disagree on the meaning of a a number of words and some passages used in the Bible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is the idea sometimes called "back to the bible", in which one says, "What if I had never seen this book before, and happened upon it at the bookstore. What would I think it said?" One of the things I would do is try to figure out how to understand the original writing and not rely on any translator. The bible does say, "Work our your own salvation...."

l2ltlarry

02-03-2007, 03:02 AM

By David77 on Jan. 25th:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Here is a list of Bible references of God's cruelty and evil deeds. This is a terrible concept of God in the "holy?" bible's Old Testament. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
One question I would ask is, "Is there any way to look at these things so that we can understand why things happened as they supposedly happened?"

People today drown their 5 kids in a bathtub or throw their 3 kids off a cliff to their deaths and say "God told me to do it." I wonder if that's how much of the Old Testament came about.

Neverless or whatever it might mean, I'm not smarter than God. Satan thought he was. And since then, many others have thought so as well.

I'm not casting aspersions; it's a difficult subject. And I appreciate your research in this listing.

usmc1

03-07-2008, 11:13 AM

Remember this rollicking episode, about this time last year? Well, it turns out that big old hole in the ground, which we call the Grand Canyon, is actually nine-million years older than we argued awhile back. And way, way older than the single god concept.

This would make it older than the ten-commandments. And the flood too. Wonder how the Park Service will cope with this "revelation".;)

<TABLE id=story cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=tsHeadline style="COLOR: black">Grand Canyon Much Older Than Thought, But Still Young</TD></TR><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=authorLinks id=padT10>By Julia Bonelli
11:28, March 7th 2008
</TD><TD class=userVotes align=right width=150></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=storyBody id=padT20>Over the time, Grand Canyon was the subject of millions of photographs, probably leaving no spot unseen or unsearched. The place that everybody wants to see, the symbol of the nature’s greatness, the Grand Canyon still holds mysteries for us, despite the close attention it got over the ages.

The canyon’s towering walls are made of several layers of rocks, and scientists have spent a long time to accurately date the age of the layers. But if this was hard, it was even more difficult to date the exact age of the canyon.

The latest findings suggest that the Grand Canyon might be more than 11 million years older than scientists previously thought, The New York Times reported on Thursday.

While researchers estimated that Grand Canyon's earliest age was around 6 million years, the US geologists used an improved uranium-lead dating technique that is able to detect the age of minerals in order to discover which was the actual age of the canyon. This is how geologists came to the conclusion that the canyon was created around 17 million years ago.

However, scientists say that this is still a young age, taking into consideration the Earth’s 4.5 billion years age.

Victor Polyak of the University of New Mexico reported that an analysis of the water levels demonstrated that small streams have created one side of the canyon on the west, while the east side was formed separately. According to the report, the two sides formed the giant canyon around 6 million years ago, when they united by breaking through an area known as the Kaibab Arch.

The details of the new findings will be published in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD id=hr></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

nacktman

03-07-2008, 11:32 AM

I will have to remember to pick up a copy of the journal this weekend.
It will be interesting reading to see the data which is indicating the much older date.
Not surprising though ... even the 'accepted' date of 6 million years old or so has been thought to be on the short side for quite a while.

Fitz1980

03-07-2008, 12:38 PM

Now I'm waiting to hear (either here or on another site) of how this is an example of why he doesn't like to hear "scientific mumbo jumbo." It keeps changing. The more we learn the more we refine what we know, while if we except the bible as the literal word of God and absolute truth we can call the issue closed and not have to bother with things like facts.

SpiderThug

03-07-2008, 03:09 PM

This is why many people stay away from organised religion, including the Christians. Imagine suppressing the bible or the koran? Imagine the anger that this act would generate.

When fundamentalists went and burnt Harry Potter books, imagine how they would react if some other group went and started their bible burning bonfire adjacent to theirs.

nacktman

03-14-2008, 03:32 PM

A slight sidebar to the discussion, but worth the effort.
(may be that it opens a new vein of discussion)
Grand Canyon Flood Created New Sandbars

 PHOENIX (AP) - The Grand Canyon boasts new sandbars ranging in size from small nooks and crannies to ones as large as football fields, the results of a manmade flood designed to nourish the ecosystem of the Colorado River, an official said.
"On a couple of big sandbars there were already beaver tracks, bighorn sheep tracks," Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent Steve Martin said. "You could see the animals already exploring new aspects of the old canyon."

The three-day flood last week was designed to redistribute and add sediment to the 277-mile river in the Grand Canyon, where the ecosystem was forever changed by the construction of a dam more than four decades ago.

The sediment provides a habitat for plants and animals, builds beaches for campers and river runners and helps protect archaeological sites from erosion and weathering.

But since 1963, the Glen Canyon Dam just south of the Arizona-Utah state line has blocked the sediment from the Colorado downstream, turning the once muddy and warm river into a cool, clear environment that helped speed the extinction of four fish species and push two others near the edge.

Martin, who returned on Tuesday from a five-day trip down the river to see the initial impacts of the flood, said even the ambience of the canyon has changed.
"It changes the feeling of the canyon as you see the sediment along the shoreline from a feeling of increased sterility to one of a greater amount of vibrance," he said. "The benefits are substantial."

During the flood, flows in the Grand Canyon increased to 41,000 cubic feet per second for nearly three days - four to five times the normal amount of water released from the Glen Canyon Dam. Water levels along the river rose between 2 and 15 feet and left sediment behind when the four giant steel tubes releasing the water from the dam were closed.

Officials released similar man-made floods into the canyon in 1996 and in 2004.
But those floods actually resulted in a net reduction in overall sandbar size because they were conducted when the Colorado River was relatively sand-depleted, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Officials believe this year's flood will be beneficial because sand levels in the river are at a 10-year high and are three times greater than 2004 levels.

Whatever benefits come from this year's flood, however, will be eroded within 18 months without additional floods every year to 18 months depending on the amount of sediment available, Martin said.

In its environmental assessment on Glen Canyon Dam releases, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation calls for no other high-flow releases until after 2012.

The Grand Canyon Trust, a Flagstaff-based group that has been critical of the bureau's management of the dam, is calling for more regular high flows and plans to legally challenge the bureau's environmental assessment in federal court.

"It's kind of like when President Bush landed a jet on the aircraft carrier and held up a banner that said `Mission Accomplished,'" said Nikolai Lash, senior program director at the trust. "Reclamation has come in with a lot of show and fanfare from last week's event and we're seeing the benefits of doing these high flows. But we know that they're short-lived and the Grand Canyon deserves long-lived benefits, long-lived restoration."

Scientists will collect data on the flood's effects through the fall. Initial reports will be available late this year or early next year. A complete synthesis of the results, which will include comparisons to the 1996 and 2004 floods, will be finished in 2010.

(Story from the Associated Press)