Hi Buzsaw!
buzsaw writes:
With all due respect, for the good of your students I hope you did a better job on understanding these books than you've demonstrated for the book of Amos here.
While I agree our interpretations differ, I think you've drifted off the main point. I originally suggested you read an introductory geology textbook so that you could stop making fundamental errors, and you replied that it would be like trying to persuade me to read the Bible. Well, Buzz, I read the Bible. How about you read a geology textbook?
quote:
This is perhaps worth exploring a little. Scientists everywhere around the globe of many different nationalities, cultures and religions share the same views on physics, geology, biology and cosmology. What do you believe they have in common ideologically that leads them to the same misinterpretations of evidence?
Either very liberal view on Biblical interpretation, or little regard for it's credibility.
As Schraf has already noted, you've misunderstood the argument. You claimed the views represented in science textbooks are "not on the same page ideologically wise" as the Bible, and so they are misinterpreting the evidence. But despite the different cultures, nationalities and religions of scientists around the globe they all reach the same conclusion regarding the flood: there wasn't one.
Also keep in mind that we're talking about science, and that means that your views must be supported by evidence. It would have been convenient if the Bible had turned out to be an accurate record of Creation, and in fact this is what many scientists believed until well into the 19th century. But once science began gathering and interpreting geological evidence it rapidly became apparent that Genesis was not how things happened, and the Bible was abandoned as a scientific reference source regarding origins.
Because it was evidence that forced abandonment of the Bible by science, the only way to reestablish the Bible's legitimacy is through evidence. What evidence do you have supporting the reality of the Biblical flood?
You see how little time I have for this activity. I just don't have time for much reading. I pick up quite a lot from the web now.
A wise maxim says that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. If you're really so determined to maintain your ignorance about geology, then silence might prove a more fortuitous course for you.
quote:
Both proposals are inconsistent with known evidence. For item 1, not only is there no evidence for the flood, according to the Bible the flood was about 5,000 years ago, while the end of the last ice age was more than 10,000 years ago, so we already know there could have been no major post-flood glaciation episodes.
But my statement was based on my time frame, not yours. Didn't you understand it would be so when you asked?
Well, of course I understood this, Buzz. But I provided evidence for my timeframe, and though you've been repeatedly asked for evidence for your timeframe you've refused to provide any. So until you provide some evidence for your side of the discussion I have no reason to grant any validity to your claims. Besides, you're repeatedly violating rule 4 of the forum guidelines:
- Assertions should be supported with either explanations and/or evidence for why the assertion is true. Bare assertions are strongly discouraged.
And so when you say this:
There would have been substantial glacer movement, especially early post flood.
And this:
.....Or it must interpret according to the flood timeframe and recognize as I have stated that there was considerable glacial movement after the flood which I believe it does for the most part.
You're simply repeating unsupported assertions. The discussion can't move forward until you present evidence supporting your assertions. Only then can we weigh the evidence on both sides and reach valid conclusions. We are already well aware that you believe there was a substantial glaciation period after the flood. But without evidential support this opinion carries no weight, and the evidence presented so far clearly indicates the last period of glaciation was over 10,000 years ago.
Every time you say "imo" we know it means "I have no evidence to support this."
quote:
The Answers In Genesis website has a webpage titled Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. Carl Baugh is included in the list. About him they say:
Sorry to say, AiG thinks that he's well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically.
That's their perogative. Others would not agree with their opinion of him and his good work.
So on what basis do you conclude that Mr. Baugh is doing good science? Have you done anything more than look at his website? AiG has people who have actually read his papers and gone to Glen Rose and seen his evidence first hand. By the way, about the vapor canopy this AiG webpage titled
Maintaining Creationist Integrity says:
Many other creationist researchers have also expressed doubts about the canopy theory. Walt Brown was one of the first. Physicist Russ Humphreys points out that if ‘waters above’ in Psalm 148:4 (as seems to be conceded above) cannot refer to a canopy, since the writer is living in post-Flood times, then why insist that ‘waters above’ earlier in Genesis refers to a canopy? Larry Vardiman has spent many years modeling a canopy at ICR. Though he says that there may well have been a canopy of some sort with water vapor, any attempt to put enough water up there for 40 days and nights of rain ends up with a surface temperature which will ‘cook’ all life. Note that Hovind supports this exegetical theory because of scientific, not Biblical, reasons, it seemsbecause he can conceive of no other way to explain giant insects (there may in fact be a host of other ways for all one knowse.g. genes for giantism lost in the Flood). So, if other scientific indications suggest huge difficulties for a canopy theory, it is a good reason to look again at the Biblical evidence, using the same sort of reasoning.
We would maintain that a canopy is not demanded from Scripture, and to say matter-of-factly that ‘it appears that the layer above our atmosphere fell down at the time of the flood’ goes way beyond the Biblical and scientific evidence. We hasten to add that we ourselves have in past years written as if it were a Biblical ‘given’ that there was such a canopy. But as long ago as 1989, we cautioned that while it might seem an excellent model, it should never be construed as a direct teaching of Scripture (see ‘Hanging Loose’: What should we defend?). This editorial used this as a classic example of why one needs to always ‘hang loose’ on man-made theories of ‘how’ and keep going back to the bedrock of Scripture, trying not to read our preferences and pet notions into it.
You all would date the coal the artifacts are incased in as billions of years older than the artifact in it. That's your big problem. What is your explanation for this?
About this the same AiG webpage says:
[KENT H]:
Gold chains have been found in coal
AiG: The evidence is strictly anecdotal.
KENT H: I disagree and cover this in The Hovind Theory. Only one gold chain has been found in coal to my knowledge [On June 11, 1891, The Morrisonville Times reported; A curious find was brought to light by Mrs. S.W. Culp last Tuesday morning. As she was breaking a lump of coal apart, embedded in a circular shape a small gold chain about 10 inches in length of antique and quaint workmanship ]
[AiG]: This is exactly what is meant by anecdotal evidence. The word is derived from ‘anecdote’ meaning ‘story’. There is a story, but no coal sticking to a chain.
In other words, Buzz, where is the actual evidence?
quote:
Here again dating methods are what's bogus, imo.
But since we're doing science, can you cite any evidence supporting your opinion?
I've heard and read about the problems with these, but not able to rattle it off to you. I'd have to refresh up on it all. It's not all that simple to explain and imo, too much of another topic.
But this scenario is inconsistent with the evidence.
What evidence? You haven't presented any evidence. I repeat the question. What is the evidence supporting your opinion that "dating methods are what's bogus?"
quote:
We know that dinosaurs lived long ago, becoming extinct about 65 million years ago. The age evidence comes from multiple dating methods, including both radiometric and geological.
There's no way anybody can factor in all that has gone over the dam in all these eons of ages. That's just liberal lackademic allegation, imo.
Once again you give us opinion but no evidence. What is the evidence supporting your accusation of "liberal lackademic allegation?"
quote:
Snakes and dinosaurs coexisted for about 40 million years through many, many geological layers. Your postulated scenario requires the dinosaurs who laid the eggs which bore snakes to live millions of years afterward, an impossibility in itself, and to show a rapidly declining population since no new dinosaurs are being born, only snakes.
You're not being fair, Percy. You're making my statements look foolish by framing my statements in your timeframes and not the timeframe I had in mind when I made the statements.
I'm framing my arguments in terms of the available evidence. Give me some evidence for your timeframe.
quote:
Plus you have to explain how our current understanding of snake evolution is wrong. Plus you invoke a miracle, which lies outside the realm of any Creation Science that could be presented in science classrooms.
.......And, of course, you have the task of proving my understanding of the supernatural transformation of the long legged into the shortie false, don't you? For to do that, you've gotta prove God (Jehovah that is) doesn't exist. (Btw, for the record I'm not a so called Jehovahs Witness) I often designate which god I refer to as there's so many gods emerging on the western scene nowadays.}
Wow! I almost don't know where to begin with this.
First, I don't have to prove your understanding wrong because you haven't yet provided any evidence to evaluate. All you've provided is opinions. Science is based upon interpretations of evidence.
Second, I'm beginning to wonder whether you think you're doing science or religion. Do you think you're doing Creation Science? The kind of Creation Science that Creationists want taught in science classrooms? If so, how can you invoke the supernatural?
Third, God's existence is independent of your opinion that he committed a supernatural act transforming the dinosaurs into "belly crawlers". As AiG would note, it has no direct scriptural support and therefore caution is advised.
And fourth, I guess I don't want to even touch that business about "so many gods emerging," though I gotta admit I'm curious.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2