Original Intent Of the Bible

OK Schrafinator, much of what you said came up in other posts/threads but I will deal with them one by one briefly:You say creaitonists just read the Bible and impose it via interpretaions of data. Yes this is partically true but IMO, the only reason I think about the flood much is that there is good evidence for it. Otherwise I would probably still believe it but I wouldn't think about it much. As such I find it a key to understading earth prehistory and understanding (the lack of) macroevoltuion.You commented on me 'feeling' things. 'We feel' is also commonly used in English to mean 'in our opinions' and I think you know that is more than 'emotional'.Some creaitonist sites are just 'quoters'. AIG and ICR are pretty good.I believe the early creationists were unaware that a catastrophe could generate neat layering. In addition they never proposed the simple idea (in my reading anyway) that Lyellian features could have been rapily carved out of soft sediments. Why not? - I'm not sure, possibly due to the first point in this paragraph.I understand that what we are saying is controversial and comes of sounding like a 'lunar landing hoax'. I'm sorry it feels like that to you. Having said that we retain a lot of mainstream concepts. Lyellian feautures just happaend fast, plate tectonics happened fast, magnetic reversals happened fast because - guess what - God probably accelerated radioisotopic decay. So if you did get it wrong you got it wrong for a good reason. I don't have a problem with this becasue although I love science I am utterly convinced there are far more important things than science.

I'm glad you asked about the 2nd law (of thermodynamics) Shrif. I disagree entirely with the creationist arguements and I intend to take them up on it. I agree with the open/closed system points made by evoltuionists.

Doubt about the validity of the OT did emerge in the 19th century. In the 20th century much evidence on cultures/peoples as well as specific cities and records of rulers mentioned in the Bible were uncovered. The Bible was proven right on many issues that had been raised against it. I know very little of these details but have been to a 6 part slide night on this about 20 years ago and have read a short book about it 10 years ago. I can't tell you the specifics but if you doubt there is validity in the Bible as a good historical document I suggest you go to the 'Biblical Archeaology' Dept of your mainstream university. There are lots of non-believers who use the Bible as a reliable source. This proves nothing except it's a test the Bible passed with flying colors. That is a historical fact I'm afraid.

Joe, in answer to your points:We propose that dinosaur footprints got there after a floodsurge and before the one that killed them.We do have evidence for accelerated radioactive decay. It's published in the RATE book and they have since done the helium difusion measurement. There is far too much helium in granties and too little in the air.Beehives etc could have temporarily resettled in between flood surges that might have been days to weeks apart. Presumably some fossilised habitats are pre-flood environments. I'll partially back down on that point and allow for a spectrum of possibilities here - in any location the catstrophism of the flood would have been modulated by the local topography.There are increasingly quantitaitve creaitonist models. I know of tectonic models, paelocurrent models and hydrodynamic sorting models. I'll link them soon.Your deep channels in the Mauv. You still think this is all you would get after tens of millions of years? These interfaces are flat for miles. I've haven't done a field trip so I 'll let you have the last say. Isn't there mainstream material talking about the lack of genuine unconformities?We don't get absolutely globally correlated strata in our model because there are still local effects - ecological, tectonic, morphological.I've authored papers with evoltuonary ideas in them by co-authors. To not do so would be professional suicide. I lecture on evoltuonary stuff. I think I'm quite fair about it and I talk about 'evolutionary/taxonomic relatedness' which I'm sure puzzles some of the students. Well Joe, our (life sciences) department doesn't have access to GEOREF but I'll wander over to the geology library and check out GEOREF when I need to from now on. Medline was made free to the world by Clinton a few years ago and it covers medical, biological and a lot of chemical journals so that's why it's more well known. I'll take a survey at our departmental coffee table and see howmany of our academics know what the geolgoical lit searching tool is called! Please give me some refs to 'origin of the geological column' type books/reviews from the mainstream point of view. I am genuinely interested and I have spent literally hours in the geology library wading through books and review papers. I can't find stuff on this. There truly appears to be no mainstream deterministic model for this other than making some analogy with modern day environments. This invariably ignores the generation of the vast beds that characterise the actual GC and instead concentrates how features wer gradually carved out and generated new sediments. The three 'Origin of Sedimentary rocks' books do not cover the issue. If you think these texts do cover it (PettiJohn, Blatt et al and Selley) then I would have to strongly disagree.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-21-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Joe, in answer to your points:We propose that dinosaur footprints got there after a floodsurge and before the one that killed them.[/QUOTE]JM: Does not work, sorry. The geology does not fit your story. Who is this 'we' you keep talking about? Do you know the sections I am speaking of? Can you show me where creationists have published field observations to support your scenario? If not, then it is nothing more than fanciful thinking.

quote:

---

We do have evidence for accelerated radioactive decay. It's published in the RATE book and they have since done the helium difusion measurement. There is far too much helium in granties and too little in the air.

---

JM: There is no evidence for accelerated decay in the RATE book. There is some conjecture about what 'mighta been', but no experimental verification. I've also asked you this before. Surely a 'Phded' physicist understands a little about the physics of helium in the atmosphere? By the way, how much is too much? Why do you think it is too much?

quote:

---

Beehives etc could have temporarily resettled in between flood surges that might have been days to weeks apart. Presumably some fossilised nabitats are preflood environments. II'll partially back down on that point and allow for a spectrum of possibilities here - in any location the catstrophism of the flood would have been modulated by the local topography.

---

JM: Yes, but isn't the simplest explanation that they fossilized in place and no flood occurred. The more you try to explain, the more twisted the explanations become and the less consistent they become. On the one hand, you present Baumgardner's catastrophic plate tectonics as an explanation for the flood. The flood is said to 'rip' trees roots out and Baumgardner's scenario is even more chaotic. Through all this chaos heat and death, you propose that beehive, crayfish burrows and termite mounds survive without much damage. Footprints are preserved in the same flood that is 'washing soil' (your words, not mine) hither and yon to produce the appearance of rooted trees. Dinosaur bones found intact are explained by the flood because they were killed and then floated away to be hydrodynamically sorted...with the exception of those that decayed and were disarticulated during a 'massive flood' that washed all the bones into a scrap pile. In the meantime, magnetic fields are reversing back and forth and then magically stopped-- despite the fact that the Tertiary shows many reversals and is supposed by some to be post flood. Further, the Precambrian strata shows evidence of reversals and these are supposed to be pre-flood. The paleocurrents are constant (except that they vary) and are supposed to reflect a single giant pulse of water (that ripped out all the forests) that also magically preserved bee hives, termite nests and dinosaur nests. I'll stop, but perhaps you can sense my cynicism for your 'model'. In trying to fit all geology into a single flood, you merely create more problems.

quote:

---

There are increasingly quantitaitve creaitonist models. I know of tectonic modles, paelocurrent models and hydrodynamic sorting models. I'll link them soon.

---

JM: Might as well, the physical evidence does not work so computer simulation might hold your only hope. Computers gave us Jurassic park, perhaps they can give you Noah's flood.

quote:

---

Your deep channels in the Mauv. You still think this is all you would get after tens of millions of years? These interfaces are flat for miles. I've haven't done a field trip so I 'll let you have the last say. Isn't there mainstream material talking about the lack of genuine unconformities?

---

JM: Yes, this might be some of the evidence for an erosional hiatus. Why? What is a 'genuine unconformity'? Perhaps when you explain that term, I can answer your questions

quote:

---

We don't get absolutely globally correlated strata in our modle because there are still lcoal effects - ecological, tectonic, morphological.

---

JM: Baloney. You don't get global correlation because there was no flood!

quote:

---

I've authored papers with evoltuonary ideas in them by co-authors.

---

JM: Then you are a hypocrite if you don't believe it and choose to co-author anyway.

quote:

---

To not do so would be professional suicide.

---

JM: So, according to Christian principles, you'll lie to make a buck. I am sure that ICR would hire old John B. if he just quit. Sorry, as a professional scientist I find that type of behavior unprofessional and frankly, disingenuous.

quote:

---

I lecture on evoltuonary stuff. I think I'm quite fair about it and I talk about 'evolutionary/taxonomic relatedness' which I'm sure puzzles some of the students.

---

JM: When I lecture on young earth creationism I explain that it is without scientific merit. When I publish papers, I either agree with my co-authors on the major points or I do not put my name on the document. That sort of scientific integrity seems to be absent in the creationist side.

quote:

---

Well Joe, our (life sciences) department doesn't have access to GEOREF but I'll wander over to the geology library and check out GEOREF when I need to from now on. Medline was made free to the world by Clinton a few years ago and it covers medical, biological and a lot of chemical journals so that's why it's more well known. I'll take a survey at our departmental coffee table and see howmany of our academics know what the geolgoical lit searching tool is called!

---

JM: It's not necessary to know what it is called, it takes two minutes to ask your librarian. Most scholars know how to use a library!

quote:

---

Please give me some refs to 'origin of the geological column' type books/reviews from the mainstream point of view. I am genuinely interested and I have spent literally hours in the geology library wading through books and review papers. I can't find stuff on this.

---

JM: Impossible! I simply don't believe you've spend HOURS and have not been able to find a discussion on the origin of the geologic column (reminds me of conversations with freshman when they don't turn their papers in on time). This discussion is found in just about every freshman level text on historical geology. Once you get the basics, go to the end of the chapters. Usually you'll find 'extra readings' referenced in the textbooks that will help you with your research. Please, I don't want to offend you, but these types of questions and assertions make you look something less than what you have claimed to be.

quote:

---

There truly appears to be no mainstream deterministic model for this other than making some analogy with modern day environments. This invariably ignores the generation of the vast beds that characterise the actual GC and instead concentrates how features wer gradually carved out and generated new sediments.

---

JM: Then you're not looking hard enough! Try Krumbein and Sloss' text. It's old, but it contains some useful explanations and discussions. I don't mind doing literature searches for those with no training, but you should be skilled at these things.CheersJoe Meert<

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-21-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-21-2002]

The flood stuff is just too much for me....I really can't see the logic in trying to scientifically proove a folk tale. I mean really.
Also, I can never understand the creationist term "kind".
"Kind" can conveniently be used to make Noah's ark more plausible (well not really) by saying that only one "kind" of each animal was required and so he didn't have to fit thousands and thousands or organisms on board.
However, if a definition of "kind" is ever asked for, you get met with silence.
Why can animals freely change into multiple forms within a "kind" and yet automatically halt before they become a new species? One "kind" of dog ancestor can change into all the "kinds" of dog on the planet but can't change into a different species??
You can't pick and choose little bits of theories to suit your ideas - in for a penny in for a pound. You can't say "well, mutations leading to genotypic and phenotypic change can occur to an animal....oh unless of course they lead to a new species forming....that can't happen!".
WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF "KIND"????

kind 1 [knd ] (comparative kinder,
superlative kindest) adjective1. compassionate: having a generous,
warm, compassionate nature
2. generous: showing generosity or
compassion
3. agreeable or safe: not harsh, unpleasant,
or likely to have destructive effects a
detergent that is kind to the environment
4. caring: showing courtesy or caring about
somebody (formal) my kindest regards to
your family
5. loving: full of love (archaic)
6. Creationist buzz word. Has no relevant meanining in biology.
Ambiguous, unclear meaning when applied to scientific argument.

I honestly did find books and thought - now I'll get to the bottom of this. And let down after let down - most of these - all so far - and I've perused probably 50 'origin of sedimentology books' - do not systematically study the origin of the GC. Thanks for the ref tip.

kind 1 [knd ] (comparative kinder,
superlative kindest) adjective
1. compassionate: having a generous,
warm, compassionate nature
2. generous: showing generosity or
compassion
3. agreeable or safe: not harsh, unpleasant,
or likely to have destructive effects a
detergent that is kind to the environment
4. caring: showing courtesy or caring about
somebody (formal) my kindest regards to
your family
5. loving: full of love (archaic)
6. genomically distinct organism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I honestly did find books and thought - now I'll get to the bottom of this. And let down after let down - most of these - all so far - and I've perused probably 50 'origin of sedimentology books' - do not systematically study the origin of the GC. Thanks for the ref tip.

---

JM: Sorry, I am not sure that K&S discusses the GC. You may want to start with "Roadside Geology of Arizona" and follow that with the Geologic History of Utah. Both discuss the GC strata in detail, one is more general than the other. You may also look at "Geology of National Parks textbooks. These are 3 off the top of my head and I am sure there is a Geology of the Grand canyon book out there somewhere.CheersJoe Meert

A kind to me (a YEC) is a genomically distinct organism related via microevoltuion within and macroevolution/creation to other kinds. A recent creationist conference came to the consensus that a kind is approximately a Linnean family (ie just above genus and species) but this is a generalisation. So eg, this means that horse/zebras/mules are a kind for example (I think). Biology and genomics is currently consistent with this idea. When more genomes are in this will clarify the issue. At the moment science is consistent with a world of several thousand distinct genomes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
A kind to me (a YEC) is a genomically distinct organism related via microevoltuion within and macroevolution/creation to other kinds. A recent creationist conference came to the consensus that a kind is approximately a Linnean family (ie just above genus and species) but this is a generalisation. So eg, this means that horse/zebras/mules are a kind for example (I think). Biology and genomics is currently consistent with this idea. When more genomes are in this will clarify the issue. At the moment science is consistent with a world of several thousand distinct genomes.

---

Yeah, here's a repeat showing how incredibly flexible kind is. So flexible that it includes bacteria to man:I don't know if everyone saw this on another thread. At first, I thought it was a joke by CobraSnake. Then I read more of his/her posts and realized he/she is a creationist. I asked a creationist to define the barrier for evolution (i.e. what limits 'micro' evolution from 'macro'). Here is the response (I still don't know if this is a serious response or a joke):quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind.
On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind."--------------------------------------------------------------------------------In other words, according to creationists a bacteria may, or may not be descended from the same original created kind. I can't tell you how many creationists have lamented that evolution is a 'bacteria to man' myth. When pressed for the limits on what evolution can accomplish, they reach the same exact conclusion. Is this really the definition creationists are touting as the limits to evolution. I still think someone is yanking my chain.CheersJoe Meert

I don't think it was a joke. We simply believe that God created several thousand distinct genomes which have diversified. With the genomes in hand it should be quite easy to re-catalog them into their kinds. We'll see.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I'm glad you asked about the 2nd law (of thermodynamics) Shrif. I disagree entirely with the creationist arguements and I intend to take them up on it. I agree with the open/closed system points made by evoltuionists.

---

Well, you didn't really answer my question fully.You said that Creationists are very thorough. I pointed out that they have been mangling the 2nd LoT for years and years. I am wondering why it is you have such confidence in Creation "science" if they do such a disservice to Physics.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]OK Schrafinator, much of what you said came up in other posts/threads but I will deal with them one by one briefly:

​

You say creaitonists just read the Bible and impose it via interpretaions of data. Yes this is partically true but IMO, the only reason I think about the flood much is that there is good evidence for it.[/QUOTE]

​

Look, AIG states plain as day on their website that any data which contradicts the Bible is going to be rejected. This means that you, and others who read AIG, are not getting the whole picture, by definition. That's why they call their sites ministries. They don't care about full disclosure of the data, or about free inquiry, or about. (This is also why they don't present their data to profesional journals or at conferences.) They just care about convincing as many people as they can that the Bible is correct, and they don't care if they mislead people along the way.

​

I just don't understand how someone who says they have a PhD would be OK with this. I would think it would be offensive to you from an intellectual standpoint.

​

quote:

---

Otherwise I would probably still believe it but I wouldn't think about it much.

---

​

That's nice from a faith standpoint, but I thought we were talking about science here?

​

quote:

---

As such I find it a key to understading earth prehistory and understanding (the lack of) macroevoltuion.

---

​

What you don't understand is a lot.

​

quote:

---

You commented on me 'feeling' things. 'We feel' is also commonly used in English to mean 'in our opinions' and I think you know that is more than 'emotional'.

---

​

I knew exactly what you meant, and I meant what I said. You may have the "opinion" that Creationists have "opened up" a great deal of understanding about Earth history, but this is demonstrably not the case.

​

quote:

---

Some creaitonist sites are just 'quoters'. AIG and ICR are pretty good.

---

​

Pretty good at what? Science? I don't think so.

​

Creation 'science' violates every tenet of scientific inquiry. I find it amazing that someone with a PhD has to be told this.

​

[QUOTE]I believe the early creationists were unaware that a catastrophe could generate neat layering. In addition they never proposed the simple idea (in my reading anyway) that Lyellian features could have been rapily carved out of soft sediments. Why not? - I'm not sure, possibly due to the first point in this paragraph.

​

I understand that what we are saying is controversial and comes of sounding like a 'lunar landing hoax'. I'm sorry it feels like that to you. Having said that we retain a lot of mainstream concepts. Lyellian feautures just happaend fast, plate tectonics happened fast, magnetic reversals happened fast because - guess what - God probably accelerated radioisotopic decay. So if you did get it wrong you got it wrong for a good reason. I don't have a problem with this becasue although I love science I am utterly convinced there are far more important things than science.[/b]

---

You can't possibly love science if you think what AIG and ICR are doing is anything remotely like science. You can't even know what science is if you think that they do science.I agree that there are more important things than science. We aren't talking about the relative importance of things. We are, actually, talking about science on this board.I would like you to convince me that Creation 'science' doesn't reject data based upon it being contradictory to their interpretation of scripture.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-22-2002]