Which came first: the young earth, or the inerrant scripture?

No, that was me, not Charles Knight. He partially disagreed, with "This isn't quite correct." Darwin did assume Lamarckian inheritance, but Chiroptera correctly points out that the theory depended very little on the details of inheritance.Incidently, Chiroptera wrote "his theory of evolution was independent of any particular theory of inheritance." You misquoted, and have the wording backwards. Use cut-and-paste with your mouse so that you can get the quotations correct.I won't comment on the rest of your post, since that consists of responses to other people. You might find it better to write several short responses, one per post, instead of combining responses to several post in one reply.

I would suggest this has more to do with math's relationship to engineering.Besides, which building it's located doesn't make much difference. When I was in college the Anthro dept was under the library and the Gym and Art dept shared a building.As for the Library of Congress, I think they are approaching math and science from a layman's perspective.If you ask a man on the street, is math a science, they'd probably say yes. This is because math seems more "science-like" than, say, French.But it doesn't mean that the layman is correct. If you asked them if coral was a rock, they'd probably say yes to that as well.

Let me ask you this Arach, is English science?I don't think it is. I think it useful for describing what I am observing so that others can understand it. I think if you tried to have science without any language, we'd be back at the hit two rocks together stage.Math is like language, you could even argue that math is a language. It's used to describe something.It happens to be a very useful language in that it can describe things very accurately, even if you don't know what they are to begin with.

An excellent description. Math is basically a language with very rigid grammar.

I'm sorry, I didn't think you would misinterpret the post that way. I quoted IN FULL two of my posts from ANOTHER thread that is now closed so that they would be part of this totally off topic rant session on this thread, and everyone would know the basis behind my ALSO ....... posting YOUR (previous) answer from that thread, WITH MY COMMENTS interjected to show the logical lapses, the missing information and the need to provide actual substantiation for your assertions.You only repeated them ONCE (oh dear), in answer to the repeated posts and NOT to the comments I made on your post. Sorry to put you out so. Again, you make an assertion but absolutely fail to provide any substantiation. Sorry, but denial of evidence is not refutation or in any way a challenge to the evidence: it will continue unabashed by your opinion.Previously you said "The world is full of debates about fossil evidence" to which I replied: "but NOT that they (1) exists or (2) show compelling evidence for common decent. Nor is there fossil evidence that contradicts evolution" and you have made no dent in those statements. This makes your position of blind denial tenuous at best, deceitful at worst. So it is allegorical and open to interpretation depending on the spirit inspired whim of the person reading it? Whose history do we use? How does math help reading? I repeat, they were already history when the bible was written, thus cannot be PREdiction but are POSTdictions -- just another record of history, with the caveat thrown in that {{our}} god caused it. ad hominem attacks and not addressing the points raised. Why do you feel you need to insult instead of just providing the information?Your quoting {scripture} at me is worthless, because it is not providing substantiation for your position, and makes you look like you have no real answer. Please provide real substantiation for your positions or withdraw them. Failure to do one or the other means that you do not debate in good faith.Shakespeare said it best when he said "the devil can cite scripture for his purpose" as it does not substantiate anything but a facile knowledge of the words of one book (and not necessarily the meaning). Prove it. Put up the evidence, provide the substantiation. I will respect what you demonstrate, and not what you claim. Making a claim to know God is, to me, the height of arrogance and self-delusion. Again I asked for information to substantiate the date "especially from a source other than the bible" not just a bald assertion of your personal interpretation.Tell me again (1) how you arrive at these dates and (2) where there are dates in the bible such that interpretation is not needed.Tell me again how a tree is 4,844 years old if the flood happened during its lifetime? One continuously living tree. Surrounded by others, several older than 2500 years. Still living, still growing.It seems to me that either:(1) The bible, in accordance with {your correct interpretation of it} is incorrect, OR
(2) That your interpretation is incorrect.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Hi, I think you must have mixed me up with someone else.I have never said anything remotely like "evolution has been constantly changing."You still havent supported a single thing you have said.Referencing a page in a book isnt really supporting an argument, you should at least give some indication of how the author reached their opinion.Brian.

I don't dispute the scientific facts that are facts. But on some of the material that you stand on as fact, I offer the viewpoint that is conveyed by Biblical text. So when the age of the universe is said to be 20 billion, 24 billion, 17.4 billion, 17 billion, 13.4 billion and then 9.6 billion years old, I don't have any trouble injecting that it is the age that the Bible says that it is.I read enough scienctific journals to know that all of the values for the age of the universe are drived by observations and then superimposed over assuptions. Nobody knows what the real age of it is because nobody was there in the beginning. But the Bible accurately predicts what one of the first and primary questions of man would be. "What the hell is all of this and who made it if anyone?". So it says in the beginning God created it.As far as the definition of social values, any attempt to talk about good or evil without a morale standard given by someone outside of our own time dimension is bunk. Humans are self serving and even examples of good morale behavior are still simply self serving if they are not inspired by the fear and worship of the absolute morale standard author.Human behavior makes no difference if there is no eternal consequence. All that matters is species perpetuation by any means so at that point morality is only self serving to accomplish the goal of perpetuation.So while you see me as troll like, I see as you argueing over how this puddle of water got on the floor in your cabin, while the whole rest of the Titanic is filling with inrushing sea water.

You are correct on the technicallity. But evolution makes no sense unless it is incorporated as one of the legs holding up the table with the position that all of this happened on it's own. This forum is even namesd creation vs. evolution because it must walk with the origin of the universe.From what Bibilcal Grand Design conveys, the universe and the Earth were created to be in a usable form for the centerpiece of the creation, man, to be able to flourish. So a very hot rapidly expanding young universe by Abiogenisis standards would not work. Likewise an old Abiogenisis universe that was collapsing in on itself would not work either. So what you see is a universe that is at it's apex for allowing a planet like the Earth to exist within the physics of it's enviorment. Neither young nor old. Just there created to fill the need, and once humans were created, time began to matter because Biblically, it is referenced to humans on this planet.I say that time only matters to humans because the Bible says that a day to God is like 1000 years to man so outside of our physical reality, it is irrelevant.

brian,hoaryhead doesn't quote directly, but apparently runs your post through his perception filter and then puts down the message that he recieved.read through all his supposed quotes and compare them to the actual statementsthe advantage is that you can see he doesn't understand the questionthe disadvantage is that it is the classic strawman logic approach.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

don't tell that to a mathematician. they won't like you very much. aroudn the department, they spend hours making fun of the stupid engineering students, and how engineers just build stuff like mousetrap cars. yeah, but this isn't the same thing. this is a fairly large college. even if you look at one of the largest math departments, such as waterloo which has its own 5-story math building, it's grouped with things like computer science. math is the language of science.

---

אָרַח

no, of course not.but english:technical writing::math:science.one is the application of the first's language. and in cases like newtonian physics it's completely inseparable from the math. newtonian mechanics is calculus.

---

אָרַח

What's the big deal here?Math is often refered to as the {one} perfect science (because you can make proofs) This still does not make writing or reading sciences, and thus still makes hoaryheads assertion an overstatement.

---

This thread is terminally of topic, imho. I don't believe holmes has been back since the OT, and there are no YEC to evo conversions posted. Perhaps it should be moved to coffeehouse and re-titled?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

any solution here?

To: RAZD - #110.1) "I repeat, they were already history when the Bible was written thus cannot be PREdiction but are POSTdictions -- just another record of history, with the caveat thrown in that {{our}} god caused it."If I reply to this question by universal historical documentation; you will look mighty dumb.But I do not want to do that to you.Do you want the message sent privately; or, would you like to withdraw the post (this would save you great shame).Let us be friends, and begin to seek truth instead of strife.The man of strife is condemned by the Living God.Your more moderate evolution buddies do not talk in such a radical and uninformed manner.2) "another source for the flood" (paraphrased).
Tom Brokaw, anchorman for NBC News, showed a film of the shoreline of the ocean etched into the Himalayas about 10,000 feet above sea level, in about 1995.
The news media is pro-Atheism, and so, this has been suppressed, and never repeated or enlarged upon.
What is your honest opinion; could carbon-dating have dated this shoreline, and adjacent artifacts?Sent in love and hope,hoaryhead"The simple believes every word, but the prudent looks well to his going" - Prov 14.15.

Nuggin - #108You have mistaken another man's quote for mine.Thank you for the editing advice, but I do not seem to have the knack for it.I live in Illinois. Come and teach me.In love,hoaryhead